As of December 22, 2022, Austria had performed the most COVID-19 tests per one million population among the countries most severely impacted by the pandemic. The U.S. has conducted over 1.1 billion COVID-19 tests in total.

Testing is the key to controlling virus The World Health Organization sent a clear message to all countries in March 2020: test, test, and test. The more tests that are conducted, the easier it becomes to track the spread of the virus and reduce transmission. Many countries followed the advice, identifying a greater number of cases at an earlier stage, isolating infected individuals, and limiting the spread of the disease to others. As cases numbers have decreased in some regions so have restrictions, however many countries still require negative test results before entering the country.

What is an antibody test? Countries around the world made widespread testing a key part of their plans to exit lockdown. However, the global demand for antibody test kits has been huge. The kits are used to identify antibodies in a person’s blood sample. The presence of antibodies means the individual has been exposed to the SARS-CoV-2 virus and developed antibodies to help fight it. Antibody tests are important in detecting infections in people who are asymptomatic, i.e., showing few or no symptoms. Asymptomatic carriers may have unwittingly contributed to the rapid spread of the disease.

Global Covid-19 Data

Global Covid-19 data on cases, deaths, vaccinations, and more

By Valtteri Kurkela [source]

About this dataset

The dataset is constantly updated and synced hourly to ensure up-to-date information. With over several columns available for analysis and exploration purposes, users can extract valuable insights from this extensive dataset.

Some of the key metrics covered in the dataset include:

1. Vaccinations: The dataset covers total vaccinations administered worldwide as well as breakdowns of people vaccinated per hundred people and fully vaccinated individuals per hundred people.

2. Testing & Positivity: Information on total tests conducted along with new tests conducted per thousand people is provided. Additionally, details on positive rate (percentage of positive Covid-19 tests out of all conducted) are included.

3. Hospital & ICU: Data on ICU patients and hospital patients are available along with corresponding figures normalized per million people. Weekly admissions to intensive care units and hospitals are also provided.

4. Confirmed Cases: The number of confirmed Covid-19 cases globally is captured in both absolute numbers as well as normalized values representing cases per million people.

5.Confirmed Deaths: Total confirmed deaths due to Covid-19 worldwide are provided with figures adjusted for population size (total deaths per million).

6.Reproduction Rate: The estimated reproduction rate (R) indicates the contagiousness of the virus within a particular country or region.

7.Policy Responses: Besides healthcare-related metrics, this comprehensive dataset includes policy responses implemented by countries or regions such as lockdown measures or travel restrictions.

8.Other Variables of InterestThe data encompasses various socioeconomic factors that may influence Covid-19 outcomes including population density,membership in a continent,gross domestic product(GDP)per capita;

For demographic factors: -Age Structure : percentage populations aged 65 and older,aged (70)older,median age -Gender-specific factors: Percentage of female smokers -Lifestyle-related factors: Diabetes prevalence rate and extreme poverty rate

1. Excess Mortality: The dataset further provides insights into excess mortality rates, indicating the percentage increase in deaths above the expected number based on historical data.

The dataset consists of numerous columns providing specific information for analysis, such as ISO code for countries/regions, location names,and units of measurement for different parameters.

Overall,this dataset serves as a valuable resource for researchers, analysts, and policymakers seeking to explore various aspects related to Covid-19

How to use the dataset

Introduction:

• Understanding the Basic Structure:

  • The dataset consists of various columns containing different data related to vaccinations, testing, hospitalization, cases, deaths, policy responses, and other key variables.
  • Each row represents data for a specific country or region at a certain point in time.

• Selecting Desired Columns:

  • Identify the specific columns that are relevant to your analysis or research needs.
  • Some important columns include population, total cases, total deaths, new cases per million people, and vaccination-related metrics.

• Filtering Data:

  • Use filters based on specific conditions such as date ranges or continents to focus on relevant subsets of data.
  • This can help you analyze trends over time or compare data between different regions.

• Analyzing Vaccination Metrics:

  • Explore variables like total_vaccinations, people_vaccinated, and people_fully_vaccinated to assess vaccination coverage in different countries.
  • Calculate metrics such as people_vaccinated_per_hundred or total_boosters_per_hundred for standardized comparisons across populations.

• Investigating Testing Information:

  • Examine columns such as total_tests, new_tests, and tests_per_case to understand testing efforts in various countries.
  • Calculate rates like tests_per_case to assess testing efficiency or identify changes in testing strategies over time.

• Exploring Hospitalization and ICU Data:

  • Analyze variables like hosp_patients, icu_patients, and hospital_beds_per_thousand to understand healthcare systems' strain.
  • Calculate rates like icu_patients_per_million or hosp_patients_per_million for cross-country comparisons.

• Assessing Covid-19 Cases and Deaths:

  • Analyze variables like total_cases, new_ca...

Based on a comparison of coronavirus deaths in 210 countries relative to their population, Peru had the most losses to COVID-19 up until July 13, 2022. As of the same date, the virus had infected over 557.8 million people worldwide, and the number of deaths had totaled more than 6.3 million. Note, however, that COVID-19 test rates can vary per country. Additionally, big differences show up between countries when combining the number of deaths against confirmed COVID-19 cases. The source seemingly does not differentiate between "the Wuhan strain" (2019-nCOV) of COVID-19, "the Kent mutation" (B.1.1.7) that appeared in the UK in late 2020, the 2021 Delta variant (B.1.617.2) from India or the Omicron variant (B.1.1.529) from South Africa.

The difficulties of death figures

This table aims to provide a complete picture on the topic, but it very much relies on data that has become more difficult to compare. As the coronavirus pandemic developed across the world, countries already used different methods to count fatalities, and they sometimes changed them during the course of the pandemic. On April 16, for example, the Chinese city of Wuhan added a 50 percent increase in their death figures to account for community deaths. These deaths occurred outside of hospitals and went unaccounted for so far. The state of New York did something similar two days before, revising their figures with 3,700 new deaths as they started to include “assumed” coronavirus victims. The United Kingdom started counting deaths in care homes and private households on April 29, adjusting their number with about 5,000 new deaths (which were corrected lowered again by the same amount on August 18). This makes an already difficult comparison even more difficult. Belgium, for example, counts suspected coronavirus deaths in their figures, whereas other countries have not done that (yet). This means two things. First, it could have a big impact on both current as well as future figures. On April 16 already, UK health experts stated that if their numbers were corrected for community deaths like in Wuhan, the UK number would change from 205 to “above 300”. This is exactly what happened two weeks later. Second, it is difficult to pinpoint exactly which countries already have “revised” numbers (like Belgium, Wuhan or New York) and which ones do not. One work-around could be to look at (freely accessible) timelines that track the reported daily increase of deaths in certain countries. Several of these are available on our platform, such as for Belgium, Italy and Sweden. A sudden large increase might be an indicator that the domestic sources changed their methodology.

Where are these numbers coming from?

The numbers shown here were collected by Johns Hopkins University, a source that manually checks the data with domestic health authorities. For the majority of countries, this is from national authorities. In some cases, like China, the United States, Canada or Australia, city reports or other various state authorities were consulted. In this statistic, these separately reported numbers were put together. For more information or other freely accessible content, please visit our dedicated Facts and Figures page.

COVID-19 Stats & Trends

Context

This dataset seeks to provide insights into what has changed due to policies aimed at combating COVID-19 and evaluate the changes in community activities and its relation to reduced confirmed cases of COVID-19. The reports chart movement trends, compared to an expected baseline, over time (from 2020/02/15 to 2020/02/05) by geography (across 133 countries), as well as some other stats about the country that might help explain the evolution of the disease.

Content

1. Grocery & Pharmacy: Mobility trends for places like grocery markets, food warehouses, farmers' markets, specialty food shops, drug stores, and pharmacies.
2. Parks: Mobility trends for places like national parks, public beaches, marinas, dog parks, plazas, and public gardens.
3. Residential: Mobility trends for places of residence.
4. Retail & Recreation: Mobility trends for places like restaurants, cafes, shopping centers, theme parks, museums, libraries, and movie theaters.
5. Transit stations: Mobility trends for places like public transport hubs such as subway, bus, and train stations.
6. Workplaces: Mobility trends for places of work.
7. Total Cases: Total number of people infected with the SARS-CoV-2.
8. Fatalities: Total number of deaths caused by CoV-19.
9. Government Response Stringency Index: Additive score of nine indicators of government response to CoV-19: School closures, workplace closures, cancellation of public events, public information campaigns, stay at home policies, restrictions on internal movement, international travel controls, testing policy, and contact tracing.
10. COVID-19 Testing: Total number of tests performed.
11. Total Vaccinations: Total number of shots given.
12. Total People Vaccinated: Total number of people given a shot.
13. Total People Fully Vaccinated: Total number of people fully vaccinated (might require two shots of some vaccines).
14. Population: Total number of inhabitants.
15. Population Density per km2: Number of human inhabitants per square kilometer.
16. Health System Index: Overall performance of the health system.
17. Human Development Index (HDI): Summary index based on life expectancy at birth, expected years of schooling for children and mean years of schooling for adults, and GNI per capita.
18. GDP (PPP) per capita: Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita based on Purchasing Power Parity (PPP), taking into account the relative cost of local goods, services and inflation rates of the country, rather than using international market exchange rates, which may distort the real differences in per capita income.
19. Elderly Population (percentage): Percentage of the population above the age of 65 years old.

References & Acknowledgements

Bing COVID-19 data. Available at: https://github.com/microsoft/Bing-COVID-19-Data COVID-19 Community Mobility Report. Available at: https://www.google.com/covid19/mobility/ COVID-19: Government Response Stringency Index. Available at: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/covid-stringency-index Coronavirus (COVID-19) Testing. Available at: https://github.com/owid/covid-19-data/blob/master/public/data/testing/covid-testing-all-observations.csv Coronavirus (COVID-19) Vaccination. Available at: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/owid/covid-19-data/master/public/data/vaccinations/vaccinations.csv List of countries and dependencies by population. Available at: https://www.kaggle.com/tanuprabhu/population-by-country-2020 List of countries and dependencies by population density. Available at: https://www.kaggle.com/tanuprabhu/population-by-country-2020 List of countries by Human Development Index. Available at: http://hdr.undp.org/en/data Measuring Overall Health System Performance. Available at: https://www.who.int/healthinfo/paper30.pdf?ua=1 List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita. Available at: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.PP.CD List of countries by age structure (65+). Available at: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.65UP.TO.ZS

Authors

• Diogo Silva, up201706892@fe.up.pt

Context

This dataset is a winner of the Kaggle Covid-19 Dataset Award (April 2020)

I am no longer updating this dataset. The purpose of this dataset was to track the changes in testing over time. Since then I believe there are better resources where you can get this information. Some open datasets which will give better documented: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/full-list-total-tests-for-covid-19

For data related to testing in India, you can refer to the api endpoints provided by covid19india.org https://api.covid19india.org

I am trying to highlight the relationship between number of tests conducted vs. the number of confirmed cases. Is this metric important? we will find out - either via experience or through rigorous analysis.

Number of actual cases >> Number of confirmed cases

The dataset has been updated with a concatenated file Thanks to @Kamil Kiljan for suggesting the update filename: TestsConducted_AllDates_ddMMMYYYY

Content

What's inside is more than just rows and columns. Please check the data definitions & change logs below

Acknowledgements

Update: March 31st 2020 The original location has not seen any new updates. Hence I have taken the information from a different source. Added source information Wiki page on Covid-19 Testing Check file: Tests_Conducted_31Mar2020.csv

Update: March 24th 2020 The data has been scraped from the following web-page Coronovirus Testing Data

The copyrights for the splash image belong to Jim Huylebroek for The New York TimesNYTimes Can't get tested? Maybe you are in the wrong country

Inspiration

The kernel used for extracting the information is provided as a kernel - Notebook for web-scraping & extracting information

Notebook illustrating insights that can be derived from the dataset - Test, Test and Test

1. Impact of number of tests to the number of confirmed cases
2. Ideal number of tests to be conducted to the country's/regions population

This data can be used in conjunction with the following: 1. Health expenditure per capita and number of hospital beds per 1000s 2. Intervention measures employed by individual governments

Also please read Nate Silvers critique on how the number of positive cases doesn't mean anything unless we know how many tests were conducted & the testing strategy.

Changelog

Date 09th June 2020 Updated.

Date 01st June 2020 Updated.

Date 23rd May 2020 Updated.

Date 11th May 2020 Concatenated all older datasets into a single file : TestsConducted_AllDates_ddbbbYYYY.csv Notebook used for concatenating the datasets: Kernel Link The April 15th file didn't have the 'Tests' column populated. Hence was calculated in the updated file. If you are not comfortable using it, please drop rows using the following code:

df = df.drop(df[df['FileDate']=='15April2020'].index)

Date: 8th May 2020 Updated.

Date: 5th May 2020 Updated. No change in data structure. Replaced excel file with csv. This is for data before 31st March:Tests_Conducted_DEPRECEATED.csv

Date: 1st May 2020

Updated till date Minor changes in column names Tests -> Tested Tests /millionpeople -> Tested /millionpeople New Column % added

Date: 26th April 2020

This was long delayed!

Date: April 15th 2020

Latest file: Tests_Conducted_15April2020.csv Note that column names have changed in this file. This was because they were changed in the source file.
Positive / thousand(has changed to) Positive /millionpeople New columns added: Tests /millionpeople and Date

TODO: normalize the column names & data with previous version.

Date: April 7th 2020 Latest file: Tests_Conducted_07April2020.csv

Date: April 5th 2020
Latest file: Tests_Conducted_05April2020.csv

Please note that older files are not being removed. This should give an indication of the change in the number of tests conducted over time.

Date: March 31st 2020 Latest file: Tests_Conducted_31Mar2020.csv

The New York Times is releasing a series of data files with cumulative counts of coronavirus cases in the United States, at the state and county level, over time. We are compiling this time series data from state and local governments and health departments in an attempt to provide a complete record of the ongoing outbreak.

Since late January, The Times has tracked cases of coronavirus in real time as they were identified after testing. Because of the widespread shortage of testing, however, the data is necessarily limited in the picture it presents of the outbreak.

We have used this data to power our maps and reporting tracking the outbreak, and it is now being made available to the public in response to requests from researchers, scientists and government officials who would like access to the data to better understand the outbreak.

The data begins with the first reported coronavirus case in Washington State on Jan. 21, 2020. We will publish regular updates to the data in this repository.

Addressing risks and pandemics at a country level is a complex task that requires transdisciplinary approaches. The paper aims to identify groups of the European Union countries characterized by a similar COVID-19 Resilience Index (CRI). Developed in the paper CRI index reflects the countries’ COVID-19 risk and their readiness for a crisis situation, including a pandemic. Moreover, the study detects the factors that significantly differentiate the distinguished groups. According to our research, Bulgaria, Hungary, Malta, and Poland have the lowest COVID-19 Resilience Index score, with Croatia, Greece, Czechia, and Slovakia following close. At the same time, Ireland and Scandinavian countries occupy the top of the leader board, followed by Luxemburg. The Kruskal-Wallis test results indicate four COVID-19 risk indicators that significantly differentiate the countries in the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. Among the significant factors are not only COVID-19-related factors, i.e., the changes in residential human mobility, the stringency of anti-COVID-19 policy, but also strictly environmental factors, namely pollution and material footprint. It indicates that the most critical global environmental issues might be crucial in the phase of a future pandemic. Moreover, we detect eight readiness factors that significantly differentiate the analysed country groups. Among the significant factors are the economic indicators such as GDP per capita and labour markets, the governance indicators such as Rule of Law, Access to Information, Implementation and Adaptability measures, and social indicators such as Tertiary Attainment and Research, Innovation, and Infrastructure.

COVID-19 Trends MethodologyOur goal is to analyze and present daily updates in the form of recent trends within countries, states, or counties during the COVID-19 global pandemic. The data we are analyzing is taken directly from the Johns Hopkins University Coronavirus COVID-19 Global Cases Dashboard, though we expect to be one day behind the dashboard’s live feeds to allow for quality assurance of the data.Reasons for undertaking this work:The popular online maps and dashboards show counts of confirmed cases, deaths, and recoveries by country or administrative sub-region. Comparing the counts of one country to another can only provide a basis for comparison during the initial stages of the outbreak when counts were low and the number of local outbreaks in each country was low. By late March 2020, countries with small populations were being left out of the mainstream news because it was not easy to recognize they had high per capita rates of cases (Switzerland, Luxembourg, Iceland, etc.). Additionally, comparing countries that have had confirmed COVID-19 cases for high numbers of days to countries where the outbreak occurred recently is also a poor basis for comparison.The graphs of confirmed cases and daily increases in cases were fit into a standard size rectangle, though the Y-axis for one country had a maximum value of 50, and for another country 100,000, which potentially misled people interpreting the slope of the curve. Such misleading circumstances affected comparing large population countries to small population counties or countries with low numbers of cases to China which had a large count of cases in the early part of the outbreak. These challenges for interpreting and comparing these graphs represent work each reader must do based on their experience and ability. Thus, we felt it would be a service to attempt to automate the thought process experts would use when visually analyzing these graphs, particularly the most recent tail of the graph, and provide readers with an a resulting synthesis to characterize the state of the pandemic in that country, state, or county.The lack of reliable data for confirmed recoveries and therefore active cases. Merely subtracting deaths from total cases to arrive at this figure progressively loses accuracy after two weeks. The reason is 81% of cases recover after experiencing mild symptoms in 10 to 14 days. Severe cases are 14% and last 15-30 days (based on average days with symptoms of 11 when admitted to hospital plus 12 days median stay, and plus of one week to include a full range of severely affected people who recover). Critical cases are 5% and last 31-56 days. Sources:U.S. CDC. April 3, 2020 Interim Clinical Guidance for Management of Patients with Confirmed Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19). Accessed online. Initial older guidance was also obtained online. Additionally, many people who recover may not be tested, and many who are, may not be tracked due to privacy laws. Thus, the formula used to compute an estimate of active cases is: Active Cases = 100% of new cases in past 14 days + 19% from past 15-30 days + 5% from past 31-56 days - total deaths.We’ve never been inside a pandemic with the ability to learn of new cases as they are confirmed anywhere in the world. After reviewing epidemiological and pandemic scientific literature, three needs arose. We need to specify which portions of the pandemic lifecycle this map cover. The World Health Organization (WHO) specifies six phases. The source data for this map begins just after the beginning of Phase 5: human to human spread and encompasses Phase 6: pandemic phase. Phase six is only characterized in terms of pre- and post-peak. However, these two phases are after-the-fact analyses and cannot ascertained during the event. Instead, we describe (below) a series of five trends for Phase 6 of the COVID-19 pandemic.Choosing terms to describe the five trends was informed by the scientific literature, particularly the use of epidemic, which signifies uncontrolled spread. The five trends are: Emergent, Spreading, Epidemic, Controlled, and End Stage. Not every locale will experience all five, but all will experience at least three: emergent, controlled, and end stage.This layer presents the current trends for the COVID-19 pandemic by country (or appropriate level). There are five trends:Emergent: Early stages of outbreak. Spreading: Early stages and depending on an administrative area’s capacity, this may represent a manageable rate of spread. Epidemic: Uncontrolled spread. Controlled: Very low levels of new casesEnd Stage: No New cases These trends can be applied at several levels of administration: Local: Ex., City, District or County – a.k.a. Admin level 2State: Ex., State or Province – a.k.a. Admin level 1National: Country – a.k.a. Admin level 0Recommend that at least 100,000 persons be represented by a unit; granted this may not be possible, and then the case rate per 100,000 will become more important.Key Concepts and Basis for Methodology: 10 Total Cases minimum threshold: Empirically, there must be enough cases to constitute an outbreak. Ideally, this would be 5.0 per 100,000, but not every area has a population of 100,000 or more. Ten, or fewer, cases are also relatively less difficult to track and trace to sources. 21 Days of Cases minimum threshold: Empirically based on COVID-19 and would need to be adjusted for any other event. 21 days is also the minimum threshold for analyzing the “tail” of the new cases curve, providing seven cases as the basis for a likely trend (note that 21 days in the tail is preferred). This is the minimum needed to encompass the onset and duration of a normal case (5-7 days plus 10-14 days). Specifically, a median of 5.1 days incubation time, and 11.2 days for 97.5% of cases to incubate. This is also driven by pressure to understand trends and could easily be adjusted to 28 days. Source used as basis:Stephen A. Lauer, MS, PhD *; Kyra H. Grantz, BA *; Qifang Bi, MHS; Forrest K. Jones, MPH; Qulu Zheng, MHS; Hannah R. Meredith, PhD; Andrew S. Azman, PhD; Nicholas G. Reich, PhD; Justin Lessler, PhD. 2020. The Incubation Period of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) From Publicly Reported Confirmed Cases: Estimation and Application. Annals of Internal Medicine DOI: 10.7326/M20-0504.New Cases per Day (NCD) = Measures the daily spread of COVID-19. This is the basis for all rates. 100 News Cases in a day as a spike threshold: Empirically, this is based on COVID-19’s rate of spread, or r0 of ~2.5, which indicates each case will infect between two and three other people. There is a point at which each administrative area’s capacity will not have the resources to trace and account for all contacts of each patient. Thus, this is an indicator of uncontrolled or epidemic trend. Spiking activity in combination with the rate of new cases is the basis for determining whether an area has a spreading or epidemic trend (see below). Source used as basis:World Health Organization (WHO). 16-24 Feb 2020. Report of the WHO-China Joint Mission on Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). Obtained online.Mean of Recent Tail of NCD = Empirical, and a COVID-19-specific basis for establishing a recent trend. The recent mean of NCD is taken from the most recent one third of case days. A minimum of 21 days of cases is required for analysis but cannot be considered reliable. Thus, a preference of 63 days of cases ensures much higher reliability. This analysis is not explanatory and thus, merely represents a likely trend. The tail is analyzed for the following:Most recent 2 days: In terms of likelihood, this does not mean much, but can indicate a reason for hope and a basis to share positive change that is not yet a trend. There are two worthwhile indicators:Last 2 days count of new cases is less than any in either the past five or 6-21 days. Past 2 days has only one or fewer new cases – this is an extremely positive outcome if the rate of testing has continued at the same rate as the previous 5 days or 6 to 21 days. Most recent 5 days: In terms of likelihood, this is more meaningful, as it does represent at short-term trend. There are five worthwhile indicators:Past five days is greater than past 2 days and past 6-21 days indicates the potential of the past 2 days being an aberration. Past five days is greater than past 6-21 days and less than past 2 days indicates slight positive trend, but likely still within peak trend timeframe.Past five days is less than the past 6-21 days. This means a downward trend. This would be an important trend for any administrative area in an epidemic trend that the rate of spread is slowing.If less than the past 2 days, but not the last 6-21 days, this is still positive, but is not indicating a passage out of the peak timeframe of the daily new cases curve.Past 5 days has only one or two new cases – this is an extremely positive outcome if the rate of testing has continued at the same rate as the previous 6 to 21 days. Most recent 6-21 days: Represents the full tail of the curve and provides context for the past 2- and 5-day trends.If this is greater than both the 2- and 5-day trends, then a short-term downward trend has begun. Mean of Recent Tail NCD in the context of the Mean of All NCD, and raw counts of cases:Mean of Recent NCD is less than 0.5 cases per 100,000 = high level of controlMean of Recent NCD is less than 1.0 and fewer than 30 cases indicate continued emergent trend.3. Mean of Recent NCD is less than 1.0 and greater than 30 cases indicate a change from emergent to spreading trend.Mean of All NCD less than 2.0 per 100,000, and areas that have been in epidemic trends have Mean of Recent NCD of less than 5.0 per 100,000 is a significant indicator of changing trends from epidemic to spreading, now going in the direction of controlled trend.Similarly, in the context of Mean of All NCD greater than 2.0

Context

Covid-19 Data collected from various sources on the internet. This dataset has daily level information on the number of affected cases, deaths, and recovery from the 2019 novel coronavirus. Please note that this is time-series data and so the number of cases on any given day is the cumulative number.

Content

The dataset includes 28 files scrapped from various data sources mainly the John Hopkins GitHub repository, the ministry of health affairs India, worldometer, and Our World in Data website. The details of the files are as follows

• countries-aggregated.csv A simple and cleaned data with 5 columns with self-explanatory names. -covid-19-daily-tests-vs-daily-new-confirmed-cases-per-million.csv A time-series data of daily test conducted v/s daily new confirmed case per million. Entity column represents Country name while code represents ISO code of the country. -covid-contact-tracing.csv Data depicting government policies adopted in case of contact tracing. 0 -> No tracing, 1-> limited tracing, 2-> Comprehensive tracing. -covid-stringency-index.csv The nine metrics used to calculate the Stringency Index are school closures; workplace closures; cancellation of public events; restrictions on public gatherings; closures of public transport; stay-at-home requirements; public information campaigns; restrictions on internal movements; and international travel controls. The index on any given day is calculated as the mean score of the nine metrics, each taking a value between 0 and 100. A higher score indicates a stricter response (i.e. 100 = strictest response). -covid-vaccination-doses-per-capita.csv A total number of vaccination doses administered per 100 people in the total population. This is counted as a single dose, and may not equal the total number of people vaccinated, depending on the specific dose regime (e.g. people receive multiple doses). -covid-vaccine-willingness-and-people-vaccinated-by-country.csv Survey who have not received a COVID vaccine and who are willing vs. unwilling vs. uncertain if they would get a vaccine this week if it was available to them. -covid_india.csv India specific data containing the total number of active cases, recovered and deaths statewide. -cumulative-deaths-and-cases-covid-19.csv A cumulative data containing death and daily confirmed cases in the world. -current-covid-patients-hospital.csv Time series data containing a count of covid patients hospitalized in a country -daily-tests-per-thousand-people-smoothed-7-day.csv Daily test conducted per 1000 people in a running week average. -face-covering-policies-covid.csv Countries are grouped into five categories: 1->No policy 2->Recommended 3->Required in some specified shared/public spaces outside the home with other people present, or some situations when social distancing not possible 4->Required in all shared/public spaces outside the home with other people present or all situations when social distancing not possible 5->Required outside the home at all times regardless of location or presence of other people -full-list-cumulative-total-tests-per-thousand-map.csv Full list of total tests conducted per 1000 people. -income-support-covid.csv Income support captures if the government is covering the salaries or providing direct cash payments, universal basic income, or similar, of people who lose their jobs or cannot work. 0->No income support, 1->covers less than 50% of lost salary, 2-> covers more than 50% of the lost salary. -internal-movement-covid.csv Showing government policies in restricting internal movements. Ranges from 0 to 2 where 2 represents the strictest. -international-travel-covid.csv Showing government policies in restricting international movements. Ranges from 0 to 2 where 2 represents the strictest. -people-fully-vaccinated-covid.csv Contains the count of fully vaccinated people in different countries. -people-vaccinated-covid.csv Contains the total count of vaccinated people in different countries. -positive-rate-daily-smoothed.csv Contains the positivity rate of various countries in a week running average. -public-gathering-rules-covid.csv Restrictions are given based on the size of public gatherings as follows: 0->No restrictions 1 ->Restrictions on very large gatherings (the limit is above 1000 people) 2 -> gatherings between 100-1000 people 3 -> gatherings between 10-100 people 4 -> gatherings of less than 10 people -school-closures-covid.csv School closure during Covid. -share-people-fully-vaccinated-covid.csv Share of people that are fully vaccinated. -stay-at-home-covid.csv Countries are grouped into four categories: 0->No measures 1->Recommended not to leave the house 2->Required to not leave the house with exceptions for daily exercise, grocery shopping, and ‘essent...

COVID-19 rate of death, or the known deaths divided by confirmed cases, was over ten percent in Yemen, the only country that has 1,000 or more cases. This according to a calculation that combines coronavirus stats on both deaths and registered cases for 221 different countries. Note that death rates are not the same as the chance of dying from an infection or the number of deaths based on an at-risk population. By April 26, 2022, the virus had infected over 510.2 million people worldwide, and led to a loss of 6.2 million. The source seemingly does not differentiate between "the Wuhan strain" (2019-nCOV) of COVID-19, "the Kent mutation" (B.1.1.7) that appeared in the UK in late 2020, the 2021 Delta variant (B.1.617.2) from India or the Omicron variant (B.1.1.529) from South Africa.

Where are these numbers coming from?

The numbers shown here were collected by Johns Hopkins University, a source that manually checks the data with domestic health authorities. For the majority of countries, this is from national authorities. In some cases, like China, the United States, Canada or Australia, city reports or other various state authorities were consulted. In this statistic, these separately reported numbers were put together. Note that Statista aims to also provide domestic source material for a more complete picture, and not to just look at one particular source. Examples are these statistics on the confirmed coronavirus cases in Russia or the COVID-19 cases in Italy, both of which are from domestic sources. For more information or other freely accessible content, please visit our dedicated Facts and Figures page.

A word on the flaws of numbers like this

People are right to ask whether these numbers are at all representative or not for several reasons. First, countries worldwide decide differently on who gets tested for the virus, meaning that comparing case numbers or death rates could to some extent be misleading. Germany, for example, started testing relatively early once the country’s first case was confirmed in Bavaria in January 2020, whereas Italy tests for the coronavirus postmortem. Second, not all people go to see (or can see, due to testing capacity) a doctor when they have mild symptoms. Countries like Norway and the Netherlands, for example, recommend people with non-severe symptoms to just stay at home. This means not all cases are known all the time, which could significantly alter the death rate as it is presented here. Third and finally, numbers like this change very frequently depending on how the pandemic spreads or the national healthcare capacity. It is therefore recommended to look at other (freely accessible) content that dives more into specifics, such as the coronavirus testing capacity in India or the number of hospital beds in the UK. Only with additional pieces of information can you get the full picture, something that this statistic in its current state simply cannot provide.

The COVID-19 testing kit market experienced significant growth driven by the pandemic's initial outbreak and subsequent waves. While precise figures for market size and CAGR are not provided, we can infer substantial expansion based on global health responses. Let's assume, for illustrative purposes, a 2025 market size of $15 billion USD, reflecting a high demand for various testing methods including nucleic acid (PCR, RT-PCR) and antibody tests. This market is segmented by testing type and application, with hospitals and scientific research representing significant segments. The high CAGR during the initial pandemic years likely exceeded 20%, reflecting a surge in testing needs. However, this growth rate has likely moderated in subsequent years as the pandemic transitioned to an endemic phase, though the demand remains substantial. The market continues to be driven by evolving variants, ongoing surveillance efforts, and the need for rapid, accurate diagnostic tools. Trends point toward an increased focus on point-of-care testing, rapid antigen tests, and the integration of testing into telehealth platforms. Restraints include the fluctuating demand influenced by pandemic waves, the emergence of new infectious diseases, and the cost associated with testing. The future of the COVID-19 testing kit market will likely see a shift towards a more stable, yet sizable market. While the peak demand seen during the height of the pandemic is unlikely to be sustained, the ongoing need for testing, particularly for vulnerable populations, and the potential for future outbreaks will ensure a persistent market. Technological advancements, including improved test accuracy and faster turnaround times, will further shape the market landscape. Competition among established players like Abbott, Roche, and Cellex, as well as emerging companies, will contribute to innovation and price competitiveness. The regional distribution will remain diverse, with North America and Europe holding a substantial market share due to advanced healthcare infrastructure and high per-capita testing rates, but with significant growth opportunities in developing regions as testing infrastructure expands. The market size is anticipated to remain within a substantial range for the foreseeable future, fueled by ongoing surveillance and the potential for future pandemic scenarios.

Indonesia COVID-19: Testing: Target People Checked per week (Last 7 days) (Inmendagri): Central Java data was reported at 209,657.000 Person in 28 Oct 2023. This stayed constant from the previous number of 209,657.000 Person for 27 Oct 2023. Indonesia COVID-19: Testing: Target People Checked per week (Last 7 days) (Inmendagri): Central Java data is updated daily, averaging 209,657.000 Person from Dec 2021 (Median) to 28 Oct 2023, with 421 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 262,318.000 Person in 03 Dec 2022 and a record low of 92.827 Person in 13 Dec 2021. Indonesia COVID-19: Testing: Target People Checked per week (Last 7 days) (Inmendagri): Central Java data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by Ministry of Health. The data is categorized under Indonesia Premium Database’s Health Sector – Table ID.HLB022: Coronavirus Disease 2019 (Covid-19): Covid Situation: Testing: by Province (Discontinued).

Content

Widely available data on confirmed cases only becomes meaningful when it can be interpreted in light of how much a country is testing. This is why Our World in Data built the global database on COVID-19 testing [1]. The additional smoothing and per capita rates make different countries (somewhat) comparable.

Our World in Data also had a good overview of global cause of death two years ago [2] I shared that data as well for additional comparisons.

Acknowledgements

[1] Max Roser, Hannah Ritchie, Esteban Ortiz-Ospina and Joe Hasell (2020) - "Coronavirus Pandemic (COVID-19)". Published online at OurWorldInData.org. https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus

[2] Hannah Ritchie (2018) - "Causes of Death". Published online at OurWorldInData.org. https://ourworldindata.org/causes-of-death

Inspiration

• First and second wave differences in Europe
• Global Forecasting for total 2020 numbers
• Covid death toll compared to main cause of death

The COVID-19 IgM & IgG Rapid Test Kits market experienced significant growth during the pandemic (2019-2024), driven by the urgent need for rapid and accessible diagnostic tools. While precise market size figures for the historical period are unavailable, we can infer substantial expansion based on the widespread adoption of these tests globally. The market's Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) during this period likely exceeded 20%, reflecting the high demand from hospitals, clinics, research institutions, and home testing. The market segmentation reveals a strong preference for RDTs due to their ease of use, portability, and rapid turnaround times, although ELISA and neutralization assays maintain importance for confirmatory testing and research. Key drivers included the pandemic's severity, governments' initiatives to increase testing capacity, and the development of user-friendly point-of-care testing solutions. Trends indicate a shift towards more accurate and sensitive rapid tests, along with growing adoption of home-testing kits. Restraints included initial supply chain disruptions, concerns about test accuracy and variability across different brands, and the emergence of new variants requiring updated test designs. Looking ahead (2025-2033), while the pandemic's acute phase has subsided, the market is expected to maintain a positive growth trajectory, albeit at a lower CAGR (estimated around 8-12%) due to a combination of factors. These include the ongoing need for surveillance, potential future outbreaks, and the increasing use of these tests in managing other infectious diseases. The market will continue to be shaped by technological advancements, regulatory approvals, and pricing strategies adopted by the numerous players involved. The competitive landscape is fragmented, with numerous companies offering a wide range of products. Key players are actively engaged in R&D to improve test sensitivity, specificity, and ease of use, leading to a dynamic market evolution. Geographic distribution shows significant market penetration in North America and Europe, driven by robust healthcare infrastructure and higher per capita income. However, substantial growth opportunities exist in Asia-Pacific and other developing regions, particularly considering the increasing awareness of infectious disease management and rising healthcare spending. Future growth will depend on continued innovation, strategic partnerships, and effective distribution networks reaching underserved populations. The market's long-term sustainability depends on its adaptability to evolving healthcare needs and its integration into broader infectious disease surveillance systems.

Indonesia COVID-19: Testing: People Checked per Week (Last 7 days): South Kalimantan data was reported at 263.000 Person in 28 Oct 2023. This stayed constant from the previous number of 263.000 Person for 27 Oct 2023. Indonesia COVID-19: Testing: People Checked per Week (Last 7 days): South Kalimantan data is updated daily, averaging 1,784.000 Person from Dec 2021 (Median) to 28 Oct 2023, with 421 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 10,767.000 Person in 19 May 2022 and a record low of 24.621 Person in 13 Dec 2021. Indonesia COVID-19: Testing: People Checked per Week (Last 7 days): South Kalimantan data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by Ministry of Health. The data is categorized under Indonesia Premium Database’s Health Sector – Table ID.HLB022: Coronavirus Disease 2019 (Covid-19): Covid Situation: Testing: by Province (Discontinued).

Indonesia COVID-19: Testing: People Checked per 1000 Population per Week (Last 7 days): Aceh data was reported at 0.018 Person in 28 Oct 2023. This stayed constant from the previous number of 0.018 Person for 27 Oct 2023. Indonesia COVID-19: Testing: People Checked per 1000 Population per Week (Last 7 days): Aceh data is updated daily, averaging 0.093 Person from Dec 2021 (Median) to 28 Oct 2023, with 421 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 2.930 Person in 13 Dec 2021 and a record low of 0.015 Person in 08 Oct 2023. Indonesia COVID-19: Testing: People Checked per 1000 Population per Week (Last 7 days): Aceh data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by Ministry of Health. The data is categorized under Indonesia Premium Database’s Health Sector – Table ID.HLB022: Coronavirus Disease 2019 (Covid-19): Covid Situation: Testing: by Province (Discontinued).

Throughout history, the human race has often faced pandemics with substantial numbers of fatalities. As the COVID-19 pandemic has now affected the whole planet, even countries with moderate to strong healthcare support and expenditure have struggled to contain disease transmission and casualties. Countries affected by COVID-19 have different demographics, socioeconomic, and lifestyle health indicators. In this context, it is important to find out to what extent these parametric variations are modulating disease outcomes. To answer this, this study selected demographic, socioeconomic, and health indicators e.g., population density, percentage of the urban population, median age, health expenditure per capita, obesity, diabetes prevalence, alcohol intake, tobacco use, case fatality of non-communicable diseases (NCDs) as independent variables. Countries were grouped according to these variables and influence on dependent variables e.g., COVID-19 positive tests, case fatality, and case recovery rates were statistically analyzed. The results suggested that countries with variable median age had a significantly different outcome on positive test rate (P < 0.01). Both the median age (P = 0.0397) and health expenditure per capita (P = 0.0041) showed a positive relation with case recovery. An increasing number of tests per 100 K of the population showed a positive and negative relationship with the number of positives per 100 K population (P = 0.0001) and the percentage of positive tests (P < 0.0001), respectively. Alcohol intake per capita in liter (P = 0.0046), diabetes prevalence (P = 0.0389), and NCDs mortalities (P = 0.0477) also showed a statistical relation to the case fatality rate. Further analysis revealed that countries with high healthcare expenditure along with high median age and increased urban population showed more case fatality but also had a better recovery rate. Investment in the health sector alone is insufficient in controlling the severity of the pandemic. Intelligent and sustainable healthcare both in urban and rural settings and healthy lifestyle acquired immunity may reduce disease transmission and comorbidity induced fatalities, respectively.

Indonesia COVID-19: Testing: People Checked per 1000 Population per Week (Last 7 days): DKI Jakarta data was reported at 0.214 Person in 28 Oct 2023. This stayed constant from the previous number of 0.214 Person for 27 Oct 2023. Indonesia COVID-19: Testing: People Checked per 1000 Population per Week (Last 7 days): DKI Jakarta data is updated daily, averaging 3.319 Person from Dec 2021 (Median) to 28 Oct 2023, with 421 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 18.930 Person in 13 Dec 2021 and a record low of 0.214 Person in 28 Oct 2023. Indonesia COVID-19: Testing: People Checked per 1000 Population per Week (Last 7 days): DKI Jakarta data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by Ministry of Health. The data is categorized under Indonesia Premium Database’s Health Sector – Table ID.HLB022: Coronavirus Disease 2019 (Covid-19): Covid Situation: Testing: by Province (Discontinued).

Abstract

Nigeria was among the first few countries in Sub-Saharan Africa to identify cases of COVID-19. Reported cases and fatalities have been increasing since it was first identified. The government implemented strict measures to contain the spread of this virus (such as travel restrictions, school closures and home-based work). While the Government is implementing these containment measures, it is important to understand how households in the country are affected and responding to the evolving crises, so that policy responses can be designed well and targeted effectively to reduce the negative impacts on household welfare.

The objective of Nigeria COVID-19 NLPS is to monitor the socio-economic effects of this evolving COVID-19 pandemic in real time. These data will contribute to filling critical gaps in information that could be used by the Nigerian government and stakeholders to help design policies to mitigate the negative impacts on its population. The Nigeria COVID-19 NLPS is designed to accommodate the evolving nature of the crises, including revision of the questionnaire on a monthly basis.

The households were drawn from the sample of households interviewed in 2018/2019 for Wave 4 of the General Household Survey—Panel (GHS-Panel). The extensive information collected in the GHS-Panel just over a year prior to the pandemic provides a rich set of background information on the Nigeria COVID-19 NLPS households which can be leveraged to assess the differential impacts of the pandemic in the country.

Each month, the households will be asked a set of core questions on the key channels through which individuals and households are expected to be affected by the COVID-19-related restrictions. Food security, employment, access to basic services, coping strategies, and non-labour sources of income are channels likely to be impacted. The core questionnaire is complemented by questions on selected topics that rotate each month. This provides data to the government and development partners in near real-time, supporting an evidence-based response to the crisis.

Geographic coverage

National

Analysis unit

• Households
• Individuals

Universe

The survey covered all de jure households excluding prisons, hospitals, military barracks, and school dormitories.

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

Wave 4 of the GHS-Panel conducted in 2018/19 served as the frame for the Nigeria COVID-19 NLPS survey. The GHS-Panel sample includes 4,976 households that were interviewed in the post-harvest visit of the fourth wave in January/February 2019. This sample of households is representative nationally as well as across the 6 geopolitical Zones that divide up the country. In every visit of the GHS-Panel, phone numbers are collected from interviewed households for up to 4 household members and 2 reference persons who are in close contact with the household in order to assist in locating and interviewing households who may have moved in subsequent waves of the survey. This comprehensive set of phone numbers as well as the already well-established relationship between NBS and the GHS-Panel households made this an ideal frame from which to conduct the COVID-19 monitoring survey in Nigeria.

Among the 4,976 households interviewed in the post-harvest visit of the GHS-Panel in 2019, 4,934 (99.2%) provided at least one phone number. Around 90 percent of these households provided a phone number for at least one household member while the remaining 10 percent only provided a phone number for a reference person. Households with only the phone number of a reference person were expected to be more difficult to reach but were nonetheless included in the frame and deemed eligible for selection for the Nigeria COVID-19 NLPS.

To obtain a nationally representative sample for the Nigeria COVID-19 NLPS, a sample size of approximately 1,800 successfully interviewed households was targeted. However, to reach that target, a larger pool of households needed to be selected from the frame due to non-contact and non-response common for telephone surveys. Drawing from prior telephone surveys in Nigeria, a final contact plus response rate of 60% was assumed, implying that the required sample households to contact in order to reach the target is 3,000.

3,000 households were selected from the frame of 4,934 households with contact details. Given the large amount of auxiliary information available in the GHS-Panel for these households, a balanced sampling approach (using the cube method) was adopted. The balanced sampling approach enables selection of a random sample that still retains the properties of the frame across selected covariates. Balancing on these variables results in a reduction of the variance of the resulting estimates, assuming that the chosen covariates are correlated with the target variable. Calibration to the balancing variables after the data collection further reduces this variance (Tille, 2006). The sample was balanced across several important dimensions: state, sector (urban/rural), household size, per capita consumption expenditure, household head sex and education, and household ownership of a mobile phone.

Mode of data collection

Computer Assisted Telephone Interview [cati]

Research instrument

BASELINE (ROUND 1): One questionnaire, the Household Questionnaire, was administered to all households in the sample. The Household Questionnaire provides information on demographics; knowledge regarding the spread of COVID-19; behaviour and social distancing; access to basic services; employment; income loss; food security; concerns; coping/shocks; and social safety nets.

ROUND 2: One questionnaire, the Household Questionnaire, was administered to all households in the sample. The Household Questionnaire provides information on demographics; access to basic goods and services; employment (including non-farm enterprise and agricultural activity); other income; food security; and social safety nets.

ROUND 3: One questionnaire, the Household Questionnaire, was administered to all households in the sample. The Household Questionnaire provides information on demographics; access to basic goods and services; housing; employment (including non-farm enterprise and agricultural activity); other income; coping/shocks; and social safety nets.

ROUND 4: One questionnaire, the Household Questionnaire, was administered to all households in the sample. The Household Questionnaire provides information on demographics; access to basic goods and services; credit; employment (including non-farm enterprise, crop farming and livestock); food security; income changes; concerns; and social safety nets.

ROUND 5: One questionnaire, the Household Questionnaire, was administered to all households in the sample. The Household Questionnaire provides information on demographics; education; employment (including non-farm enterprise and agricultural activity); and other income.

ROUND 6: One questionnaire, the Household Questionnaire, was administered to all households in the sample. The Household Questionnaire provides information on demographics; education; employment (including non-farm enterprise); COVID testing and vaccination; and other income.

ROUND 7: One questionnaire, the Household Questionnaire, was administered to all households in the sample. The Household Questionnaire provides information on demographics; access to basic services; employment (including non-farm enterprise); food security; concerns; and safety nets.

ROUND 8: One questionnaire, the Household Questionnaire, was administered to all households in the sample. The Household Questionnaire provides information on demographics; employment (including non-farm enterprise and agriculture); and coping/shocks.

ROUND 9: One questionnaire, the Household Questionnaire, was administered to all households in the sample. The Household Questionnaire provides information on demographics; education; early childhood development, access to basic services, employment (including non-farm enterprise and agriculture); and income changes.

ROUND 10: One questionnaire, the Household Questionnaire, was administered to all households in the sample. The Household Questionnaire provides information on demographics; access to basic services; employment (including non-farm enterprise and agricultural activity); concerns and COVID testing and vaccination.

ROUND 11: One questionnaire, the Household Questionnaire, was administered to all households in the sample. The Household Questionnaire provides information on demographics; credit; access to basic services; education; employment (including non-farm enterprise); safety nets; youth contact details; and phone signal.

ROUND 12: One questionnaire, the Household Questionnaire, was administered to all households in the sample. The Household Questionnaire provides information on youth aspirations and employment; and COVID vaccination.

Cleaning operations

COMUPTER ASSISTED TELEPHONE INTERVIEW (CATI): The Nigeria COVID-19 NLPS exercise was conducted using Computer Assisted Telephone Interview (CATI) techniques. The household questionnaire was implemented using the CATI software, Survey Solutions. The Survey Solutions software was developed and maintained by the Data Analytics and Tools Unit within the Development Economics Data Group (DECDG) at the World Bank. Each interviewer was given two tablets, which they used to conduct the interviews. Overall, implementation of survey using Survey Solutions CATI was highly successful, as it allowed for timely availability of the data from completed interviews.

DATA COMMUNICATION SYSTEM: The data communication

The global market for 2019-nCoV (COVID-19) assay kits experienced significant growth from 2019 to 2024, driven primarily by the pandemic. While precise figures for market size and CAGR aren't provided, we can infer substantial expansion based on the widespread adoption of these kits for diagnosis and surveillance. The market was segmented by application (designated hospitals, diagnostic centers, scientific research, ports of entry, individual use, and others) and type (nucleic acid detection kits and antibody detection kits). Nucleic acid detection kits, particularly RT-PCR tests, dominated initially due to their high accuracy in early detection. However, antibody detection kits gained traction later for serological studies and surveillance purposes. Key players like Roche, Seegene, and others played a crucial role in meeting the surging demand, driving innovation in test sensitivity, speed, and accessibility. Market restraints included initial supply chain bottlenecks, variations in regulatory approvals across regions, and evolving viral variants requiring constant test adaptation. The market’s future growth will likely be tempered by the decrease in pandemic-related demand, but sustained demand from ongoing surveillance, potential future outbreaks, and the need for rapid diagnostics will ensure a continued, albeit moderated, market presence. Growth will also depend on the development of more advanced, cost-effective, and easily deployable technologies. Regional variations are expected to persist, with developed nations maintaining higher per capita usage compared to developing countries due to disparities in healthcare infrastructure and access. The forecast period (2025-2033) suggests a continued, albeit slower, growth trajectory. The market is expected to be sustained by a combination of factors, including routine testing for COVID-19, the potential for future pandemics and outbreaks of other infectious diseases, and the continuous advancements in diagnostic technologies. This includes the development of more rapid, point-of-care diagnostic tools, enabling faster and more decentralized testing capabilities. Increased investment in research and development will play a key role in expanding the market, and strategic partnerships between manufacturers and healthcare providers will also be essential for wider adoption and market penetration in various regions. While the initial explosive growth will not be replicated, the market will find a niche and evolve to encompass broader applications beyond just COVID-19 diagnostics.