As of November 2020, a number of vaccines for the coronavirus (COVID-19) were in phase III clinical trials, with a small number further along the development stage. In the United Kingdom, a survey found that only 17 percent of respondents strongly support making a coronavirus immunization compulsory for everyone have, although there is strong support for people to be banned from posting conspiracy theories online about the vaccine.

The latest number of cases in the UK can be found here. For further information about the coronavirus pandemic, please visit our dedicated Facts and Figures page.

These data were generated as part of a 12-month ESRC-funded research project examining the impact of the new and changed regulations arising from the COVID-19 pandemic on the UK small business community. Researchers from Newcastle University and the University of Birmingham, in collaboration with the Federation of Small Businesses (FSB), conducted a survey and follow-up interviews with small businesses across all regions of the UK to understand their experience of understanding and responding to regulations during the pandemic. The transcripts archived here comprise interviews with small business owners (n=23).

Regulations introduced due to the governmental response to COVID-19 force business leaders to take decisions with far-reaching consequences for employees' livelihoods, public and employee health, and the viability and survival of their businesses. Crucially, what underpins such decisions are complex judgements based on their understanding of the regulatory context and their capacity to discriminate between swathes of legal obligation and guidance of different kinds. This presents a particularly significant challenge to small businesses (0-49 employees) due to their constrained resources.

The current pandemic represents the immediate context for this research, which will undertake a large-scale survey with follow-up interviews to understand how small businesses receive, understand and act on the UK's regulatory response to the pandemic and the financial, legal, and emotional costs of complying with this regulatory challenge. The UK regulatory context is further complicated by actions being taken at the level of devolved nations and regionalised variation of regulatory impact at different times.

The research, in partnership with the FSB (Federation of Small Businesses), will provide evidence and insights to inform governmental regulatory responses to future public health crises and to regulation in a post-COVID landscape. It will arm those who formulate regulation and related guidance relevant to small businesses with greater clarity about the means by which businesses receive and interpret guidance, and whether and how they act on it. Regulation informed in this way has the potential to deliver a positive impact on employees' livelihoods, public and employee health, and the survival of UK small businesses.

Business leaders within the eating and drinking out sector in the United Kingdom expected their biggest challenges for business recovery post-lockdown due to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic to be operational changes and Government regulations. Challenges related to staff and supply were not considered as major.

As of May 17, 2020, it was found that almost 67 percent of survey respondents in the United Kingdom would be very willing to wear a face mask or covering during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic if it became the law, with a further 19 percent quite willing to wear a face mask in this circumstance. The British public are slightly more likely to listen to their own government over international organizations, with 48 percent very willing to wear a face mask if the government advised it, compared to 42 percent if an international organization did.

The latest number of cases in the UK can be found here. For further information about the coronavirus pandemic, please visit our dedicated Facts and Figures page.

A survey conducted in 2024 among legal services users in the United Kingdom revealed that face-to-face or in person was the most common mode of delivery for legal services in the country. This mode of delivery increased by twelve percent since 2021 following the lifting of all COVID-19 mandated health and safety procedures in the United Kingdom.

BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic brought global disruption to health, society and economy, including to the conduct of clinical research. In the European Union (EU), the legal and ethical framework for research is complex and divergent. Many challenges exist in relation to the interplay of the various applicable rules, particularly with respect to compliance with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). This study aimed to gain insights into the experience of key clinical research stakeholders [investigators, ethics committees (ECs), and data protection officers (DPOs)/legal experts working with clinical research sponsors] across the EU and the UK on the main challenges related to data protection in clinical research before and during the pandemic.Materials and methodsThe study consisted of an online survey and follow-up semi-structured interviews. Data collection occurred between April and December 2021. Survey data was analyzed descriptively, and the interviews underwent a framework analysis.Results and conclusionIn total, 191 respondents filled in the survey, of whom fourteen participated in the follow-up interviews. Out of the targeted 28 countries (EU and UK), 25 were represented in the survey. The majority of stakeholders were based in Western Europe. This study empirically elucidated numerous key legal and ethical issues related to GDPR compliance in the context of (cross-border) clinical research. It showed that the lack of legal harmonization remains the biggest challenge in the field, and that it is present not only at the level of the interplay of key EU legislative acts and national implementation of the GDPR, but also when it comes to interpretation at local, regional and institutional levels. Moreover, the role of ECs in data protection was further explored and possible ways forward for its normative delineation were discussed. According to the participants, the pandemic did not bring additional legal challenges. Although practical challenges (for instance, mainly related to the provision of information to patients) were high due to the globally enacted crisis measures, the key problematic issues on (cross-border) health research, interpretations of the legal texts and compliance strategies remained largely the same.

BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic brought global disruption to health, society and economy, including to the conduct of clinical research. In the European Union (EU), the legal and ethical framework for research is complex and divergent. Many challenges exist in relation to the interplay of the various applicable rules, particularly with respect to compliance with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). This study aimed to gain insights into the experience of key clinical research stakeholders [investigators, ethics committees (ECs), and data protection officers (DPOs)/legal experts working with clinical research sponsors] across the EU and the UK on the main challenges related to data protection in clinical research before and during the pandemic.Materials and methodsThe study consisted of an online survey and follow-up semi-structured interviews. Data collection occurred between April and December 2021. Survey data was analyzed descriptively, and the interviews underwent a framework analysis.Results and conclusionIn total, 191 respondents filled in the survey, of whom fourteen participated in the follow-up interviews. Out of the targeted 28 countries (EU and UK), 25 were represented in the survey. The majority of stakeholders were based in Western Europe. This study empirically elucidated numerous key legal and ethical issues related to GDPR compliance in the context of (cross-border) clinical research. It showed that the lack of legal harmonization remains the biggest challenge in the field, and that it is present not only at the level of the interplay of key EU legislative acts and national implementation of the GDPR, but also when it comes to interpretation at local, regional and institutional levels. Moreover, the role of ECs in data protection was further explored and possible ways forward for its normative delineation were discussed. According to the participants, the pandemic did not bring additional legal challenges. Although practical challenges (for instance, mainly related to the provision of information to patients) were high due to the globally enacted crisis measures, the key problematic issues on (cross-border) health research, interpretations of the legal texts and compliance strategies remained largely the same.

Snapshot img

Covid-19 Vaccination Market 2024-2028

The covid-19 vaccination market size is forecast to increase by USD -32.76 billion, at a CAGR of -37.4% between 2023 and 2028. The market is experiencing significant growth due to the expansion of vaccination programs worldwide. Governments and international organizations are investing heavily in vaccination initiatives to contain the spread of the virus. The rising research and development (R&D) investment in the development of Covid-19 vaccines is another major growth factor. However, the high cost of production of Covid-19 vaccines poses a significant challenge to market growth. Manufacturers are exploring various strategies to reduce production costs while maintaining vaccine efficacy and safety. The market is expected to witness strong growth in the coming years as more effective and affordable vaccines become available. poiuyfrtyh

What will the Covid-19 Vaccination Market Size be During the Forecast Period?

Download Report Sample to Unlock the Covid-19 Vaccination Market Size for the Forecast Period and Other Important Statistics

Market Dynamics

The COVID-19 pandemic has brought about an unprecedented global health crisis, leading to the development of numerous vaccines to mitigate its impact. This content focuses on various aspects of COVID-19 vaccines, including production, distribution, administration, efficacy, safety, and regulations. COVID-19 vaccine production has been a top priority for researchers and pharmaceutical companies worldwide. Several manufacturers have developed vaccines using various technologies such as mRNA, viral vector, and protein subunit, undergoing rigorous testing and clinical trials to ensure safety and efficacy. Once vaccines receive approval from regulatory bodies, they are distributed to healthcare facilities and vaccination centers, requiring careful planning and coordination. Governments and international organizations are working to ensure equitable distribution, prioritizing vulnerable populations and herd immunity. Vaccine administration involves healthcare professionals delivering vaccines through injections, with proper training and safety protocols to minimize adverse reactions. Efficacy refers to the vaccine's ability to prevent infection or reduce the severity of symptoms, with most vaccines showing high efficacy rates, ranging from 60% to 95%. Vaccine safety is monitored closely, and while common side effects include pain and swelling at the injection site, fever, and fatigue, serious side effects are rare.

Vaccine procurement involves purchasing vaccines from manufacturers, with governments securing supplies through contracts and partnerships. Vaccine allocation ensures that vaccines are distributed to specific populations, with priority given to vulnerable groups like healthcare workers and the elderly. Vaccine prioritization determines which populations should receive vaccines first, based on risk factors. Vaccine passports are digital or physical documents that prove vaccination status, and may be required for travel or work, with regulations varying by jurisdiction. Vaccine mandates, which require vaccination for employment or participation in certain activities, remain a controversial issue. Vaccine regulations ensure vaccines are safe and effective, and policies governing vaccine use in schools, workplaces, and travel may change as supplies and public health conditions evolve.

Covid-19 Vaccination Market Driver

The expansion of vaccination programs is the key driver of the market. The market is experiencing significant growth due to the increasing demand for vaccines as governments and healthcare organizations prioritize widespread vaccination to control the virus and achieve herd immunity. This heightened demand leads to increased production and sales for vaccine manufacturers, resulting in long-term procurement contracts being signed to ensure a consistent vaccine supply. These contracts provide stability and revenue for manufacturers, with more contracts expected to be established as vaccination programs expand.

Vaccine distribution, administration, and logistics are crucial elements in the vaccine market, requiring efficient vaccine storage, transportation, and scheduling. Vaccine safety, efficacy, and monitoring are also vital considerations, along with addressing vaccine hesitancy and acceptance through education and outreach efforts. Vaccine regulations, policies, and campaigns are essential in ensuring vaccine coverage, immunity, and compliance with side effects and potential mandates or certificates.

Covid-19 Vaccination Market Trends

Rising research and development investment is the upcoming trend in the market. The Covid-19 pandemic has necessitated the rapid development, production, and distribution of vaccines to prevent and treat the disease caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Governments and the private sector have collaborated to invest in va

A nationwide survey was conducted during the first UK lockdown to further understanding of the degree to which motives for exercise were associated with physical activity (PA) behaviours and, in turn, how PA behaviours were associated with mental health. A cross-sectional design was employed and data were collected by use of a one-off online survey (N = 392; 18–85 years; MBMI = 25.48; SDBMI = 5.05; 314 women). Exercise motives, PA, and mental health were measured by use of the Behavioural Regulations in Exercise Questionnaire-3, Brunel Lifestyle Physical Activity Questionnaire, and General Health Quesionnaire-12, respectively. Participants were also asked to specify their average step count per day, if they used a mobile device for this purpose (n = 190). Analyses comprised hierarchical regressions and partial correlations. Results indicated that behavioural regulations were more strongly associated with planned PA pre-lockdown, compared to during lockdown. There were no differences observed in explained variance between pre- and during lockdown for unplanned PA and steps per day. Planned and unplanned PA were significant explanatory variables for mental health both pre- and during lockdown, but sedentary behaviour was not. Partial correlations, with BMI and age partialled out, showed that steps per day were not correlated with mental health either pre- or during lockdown. The range of variables used to explain planned and unplanned PA and mental health suggest that people’s motives to exercise were tempered by lockdown. For those who routinely measured their steps per day, the step count was unrelated to their mental health scores both pre- and during lockdown. It appears that engagement in regular PA confers some minor benefits for mental health.

The inequities of the COVID-19 pandemic were clear by April 2020 when data showed that despite being just 3.5% of the population in England, Black people comprised 5.8% of those who died from the virus; whereas White people, comprising 85.3% of the population, were 73.6% of those who died. The disproportionate impact continued with, for example, over-policing: 32% of stop and search in the year ending March 2021 were of Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) males aged 15-34, despite them being just 2.6% of the population.

The emergency measures introduced to govern the pandemic worked together to create a damaging cycle affecting Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic families and communities of all ages. Key-workers – often stopped by police on their way to provide essential services – could not furlough or work from home to avoid infection, nor support their children in home-schooling. Children in high-occupancy homes lacked adequate space and/ or equipment to learn; such homes also lacked leisure space for key workers to restore themselves after extended hours at work. Over-policing instilled fear across the generations and deterred BAME people – including the mobile elderly - from leaving crowded homes for legitimate exercise, and those that did faced the risk of receiving a Fixed Penalty Notice and a criminal record.

These insights arose from research by Co-POWeR into the synergistic effects of emergency measures on policing, child welfare, caring, physical activity and nutrition. Using community engagement, a survey with 1000 participants and interviews, focus groups, participatory workshops and community testimony days with over 400 people in total, we explored the combined impact of COVID-19 and discrimination on wellbeing and resilience across BAME FC in the UK. This policy note crystallises our findings into a framework of recommendations relating to arts and media communications, systems and structures, community and individual well-being and resilience. We promote long term actions rather than short term reactions.

In brief, we conclude that ignoring race, gender and class when tackling a pandemic can undermine not only wellbeing across Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic families and communities (BAME FC) but also their levels of trust in government. A framework to protect wellbeing and resilience in BAME FC during public health emergencies was developed by Co-POWeR to ensure that laws and guidance adopted are culturally competent.

Two viruses - COVID-19 and discrimination - are currently killing in the UK (Solanke 2020), especially within BAMEFC who are hardest hit. Survivors face ongoing damage to wellbeing and resilience, in terms of physical and mental health as well as social, cultural and economic (non-medical) consequences. Psychosocial (ADCS 2020; The Children's Society 2020)/ physical trauma of those diseased and deceased, disproportionate job-loss (Hu 2020) multigenerational housing, disrupted care chains (Rai 2016) lack of access to culture, education and exercise, poor nutrition, 'over-policing' (BigBrotherWatch 2020) hit BAMEFC severely. Local 'lockdowns' illustrate how easily BAMEFC become subject to stigmatization and discrimination through 'mis-infodemics' (IOM 2020). The impact of these viruses cause long-term poor outcomes. While systemic deficiencies have stimulated BAMEFC agency, producing solidarity under emergency, BAMEFC vulnerability remains, requiring official support. The issues are complex thus we focus on the interlinked and 'intersectional nature of forms of exclusion and disadvantage', operationalised through the idea of a 'cycle of wellbeing and resilience' (CWAR) which recognises how COVID-19 places significant stress upon BAMEFC structures and the impact of COVID-19 and discrimination on different BAMEFC cohorts across the UK, in whose lives existing health inequalities are compounded by a myriad of structural inequalities. Given the prevalence of multi-generational households, BAMEFC are likely to experience these as a complex of jostling over-lapping stressors: over-policed unemployed young adults are more likely to live with keyworkers using public transport to attend jobs in the front line, serving elders as formal/informal carers, neglecting their health thus exacerbating co-morbidities and struggling to feed children who are unable to attend school, resulting in nutritional and digital deprivation. Historical research shows race/class dimensions to national emergencies (e.g. Hurricane Katrina) but most research focuses on the COVID-19 experience of white families/communities. Co-POWeR recommendations will emerge from culturally and racially sensitive social science research on wellbeing and resilience providing context as an essential strand for the success of biomedical and policy interventions (e.g. vaccines, mass testing). We will enhance official decision-making through strengthening cultural competence in ongoing responses to COVID-19 thereby...

The gross value added (GVA) of the legal services sector in the United Kingdom (UK) increased steadily between 2009 and 2018, reaching a total of over 28 billion British pounds. However, projections showed that this number is likely to have decreased in 2020, due to the impact coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. Projections for the following years forecast a recovery of the sector and an increase in turnover throughout the next decade.

The dataset includes a set of transcripts of interviews with legal practitioners (Legal Executives, Solicitors, Barristers) who were involved in assisting applicants to the Criminal Law Cases Commission. Because of the Covid 19 pandemic some of the interviews were conducted remotely. The interviewees were asked to discuss the impact on their work and on their clients, of successive cuts in legal aid provision during the period 2014-2021.

India’s coal mining industry has great potential and provides basic raw materials to various industries, including steel and power. Despite the severe impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, India’s coal production grew by 3.1% in 2020, over 2019, mainly due to strong performance from the country’s largest producer, Coal India Limited (CIL), which accounted for about 80% of the total production. the government’s strong support to boost domestic production will lead to the country’s coal production growing at a CAGR of 8.9% over 2021-2025. The lower industrial activity resulting from the impact of COVID-19 led to 5.5% fall in the country’s coal consumption in 2020. On 11 February 2021, the government has made certain amendments in the mining laws such as the Mineral Laws (Amendment) Act, 2020, the Coal Mines (Special Provisions) Act, 2015 (CMSP Act) and the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (MMDR Act). Read More

The number of companies in the legal services sector increased steadily between 2009 and 2018, reaching a total of 33,519. However, projections showed that this number is likely to have decreased in 2020, due to the impact coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. Projections for the following years forecast a recovery of the sector and an increase in the number of companies throught the next decade.

The Family Resources Survey (FRS) has been running continuously since 1992 to meet the information needs of the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP). It is almost wholly funded by DWP.

The FRS collects information from a large, and representative sample of private households in the United Kingdom (prior to 2002, it covered Great Britain only). The interview year runs from April to March.

The focus of the survey is on income, and how much comes from the many possible sources (such as employee earnings, self-employed earnings or profits from businesses, and dividends; individual pensions; state benefits, including Universal Credit and the State Pension; and other sources such as savings and investments). Specific items of expenditure, such as rent or mortgage, Council Tax and water bills, are also covered.

Many other topics are covered and the dataset has a very wide range of personal characteristics, at the adult or child, family and then household levels. These include education, caring, childcare and disability. The dataset also captures material deprivation, household food security and (new for 2021/22) household food bank usage.

The FRS is a national statistic whose results are published on the gov.uk website. It is also possible to create your own tables from FRS data, using DWP’s Stat Xplore tool. Further information can be found on the gov.uk Family Resources Survey webpage.

Secure Access FRS data
In addition to the standard End User Licence (EUL) version, Secure Access datasets, containing unrounded data and additional variables, are also available for FRS from 2005/06 onwards - see SN 9256. Prospective users of the Secure Access version of the FRS will need to fulfil additional requirements beyond those associated with the EUL datasets. Full details of the application requirements are available from http://ukdataservice.ac.uk/media/178323/secure_frs_application_guidance.pdf" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Guidance on applying for the Family Resources Survey: Secure Access.

FRS, HBAI and PI
The FRS underpins the related Households Below Average Income (HBAI) dataset, which focuses on poverty in the UK, and the related Pensioners' Incomes (PI) dataset. The EUL versions of HBAI and PI are held under SNs 5828 and 8503, respectively. The Secure Access versions are held under SN 7196 and 9257 (see above).

FRS 2022-23

The impact of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic on the FRS 2022-23 survey was much reduced when compared with the two previous survey years. Throughout the year, there was a gradual return to pre-pandemic fieldwork practices, with the majority of interviews being conducted in face-to-face mode. The achieved sample was just over 25,000 households. Users are advised to consult the FRS 2022-23 Background Information and Methodology document for detailed information on changes, developments and issues related to the 2022-23 FRS data set and publication. Alongside the usual topics covered, the 2022-2023 FRS also includes variables for Cost of Living support, including those on certain state benefits; energy bill support; and Council Tax support. See documentation for further details.

FRS 2021-22 and 2020-21 and the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic

The coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has impacted the FRS 2021-22 and 2020-21 data collection in the following ways:

• In 2020-21, fieldwork operations for the FRS were rapidly changed in response to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic and the introduction of national lockdown restrictions. The established face-to-face interviewing approach employed on the FRS was suspended and replaced with telephone interviewing for the whole of the 2020-21 survey year.

• This change impacted both the size and composition of the achieved sample. This shift in mode of interview has been accompanied by a substantial reduction in the number of interviews achieved: just over 10,000 interviews were achieved this year, compared with 19,000 to 20,000 in a typical FRS year. While we made every effort to address additional biases identified (e.g. by altering our weighting regime), some residual bias remains. Please see the FRS 2020-21 Background Information and Methodology document for more information.
• The FRS team have published a technical report for the 2020-21 survey, which provides a full assessment of the impact of the pandemic on the statistics. In line with the Statistics Code of Practice, this is designed to assist users with interpreting the data and to aid transparency over decisions and data quality issues.

• In 2021-22, the interview mode was largely telephone, with partial return to face-to-face interviews towards end of survey year. The achieved sample was over 16,000 households. This is a return towards the number expected in a normal survey year (around 20,000 households).
• In both survey years, there remain areas where users are advised to exercise caution when making comparisons to other survey years. More details on how the results for the 2020 to 2021 and 2021-22 survey years were affected by the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic can be found in the FRS 2020 to 2021 Background Information and Methodology and FRS 2021 to 2022 Background Information and Methodology.

The FRS team are seeking users' feedback on the 2020-21 and 2021-22 FRS. Given the breadth of groups covered by the FRS data, it has not been possible for DWP statisticians to assess or validate every breakdown which is of interest to external researchers and users. Therefore, the FRS team are inviting users to let them know of any insights you may have relating to data quality or trends when analysing these data for your area of interest. Please send any feedback directly to the FRS Team Inbox: team.frs@dwp.gov.uk

In the United Kingdom, the revenue of the legal services sector grew more than threefold since 2000, reaching a value of over 47 billion British pounds in 2023. Despite the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, the legal services sector was not negatively impacted, unlike many others. The revenue registered in 2020, in fact, was a slight increase when compared to 2019, with the growth of the industry being exponential since then.