As of April 7, 2022, the total number of COVID-19 cases in Singapore amounted to around 1.1 million. There has been a decrease in daily cases in Singapore this week, though the number is still expected to rise largely due to the highly-contagious Omicron variant.

Overcoming the COVID-19 pandemic Singapore was one of the few countries worldwide that had managed to successfully control the spread of COVID-19. This was done through imposing a strict lockdown period during the beginning of the pandemic in 2020, introducing and enforcing hygiene and social-distancing rules, and effective contact tracing, among others. The measures in place had the intended impact, as the number of daily recorded cases have decreased to manageable levels. Furthermore, community transmission has been reduced to just several cases a week; the majority of the daily new cases of COVID-19 recorded were from overseas arrivals.

Recovering from the economic impact of COVID-19 The closure of businesses, compounded by the global restrictions on movement, had had an adverse effect on its economy. Singapore went through its worse recession on record, while the resident unemployment rate increased. However, with restrictions in the country easing, economists have raised their forecasts for economic growth in Singapore for 2021.

Singapore is currently one out of more than 200 countries and territories battling the novel coronavirus. For further information about the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, please visit our dedicated Facts and Figures page.

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.

BackgroundBorder control mitigates local infections but bears a heavy economic cost, especially for tourism-reliant countries. While studies have supported the efficacy of border control in suppressing cross-border transmission, the trade-off between costs from imported and secondary cases and from lost economic activities has not been studied. This case study of Singapore during the COVID-19 pandemic aims to understand the impacts of varying quarantine length and testing strategies on the economy and health system. Additionally, we explored the impact of permitting unvaccinated travelers to address emerging equity concerns. We assumed that community transmission is stable and vaccination rates are high enough that inbound travelers are not dissuaded from traveling.MethodsThe number of travelers was predicted considering that longer quarantine reduces willingness to travel. A micro-simulation model predicted the number of COVID-19 cases among travelers, the resultant secondary cases, and the probability of being symptomatic in each group. The incremental net monetary benefit (INB) of Singapore was quantified under each border-opening policy compared to pre-opening status, based on tourism receipts, cost/profit from testing and quarantine, and cost and health loss due to COVID-19 cases.ResultsCompared to polymerase chain reaction (PCR), rapid antigen test (ART) detects fewer imported cases but results in fewer secondary cases. Longer quarantine results in fewer cases but lower INB due to reduced tourism receipts. Assuming the proportion of unvaccinated travelers is small (8% locally and 24% globally), allowing unvaccinated travelers will accrue higher INB without exceeding the intensive care unit (ICU) capacity. The highest monthly INB from all travelers is $2,236.24 m, with 46.69 ICU cases per month, achieved with ARTs at pre-departure and on arrival without quarantine. The optimal policy in terms of highest INB is robust under changes to various model assumptions. Among all cost-benefit components, the top driver for INB is tourism receipts.ConclusionsWith high vaccination rates locally and globally alongside stable community transmission, opening borders to travelers regardless of vaccination status will increase economic growth in the destination country. The caseloads remain manageable without exceeding ICU capacity, and costs of cases are offset by the economic value generated from travelers.