For the week ending August 29, 2025, weekly deaths in England and Wales were 985 below the number expected, compared with 855 below what was expected in the previous week. In late 2022 and through early 2023, excess deaths were elevated for a number of weeks, with the excess deaths figure for the week ending January 13, 2023, the highest since February 2021. In the middle of April 2020, at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, there were almost 12,000 excess deaths a week recorded in England and Wales. It was not until two months later, in the week ending June 19, 2020, that the number of deaths began to be lower than the five-year average for the corresponding week. Most deaths since 1918 in 2020 In 2020, there were 689,629 deaths in the United Kingdom, making that year the deadliest since 1918, at the height of the Spanish influenza pandemic. As seen in the excess death figures, April 2020 was by far the worst month in terms of deaths during the pandemic. The weekly number of deaths for weeks 16 and 17 of that year were 22,351, and 21,997 respectively. Although the number of deaths fell to more usual levels for the rest of that year, a winter wave of the disease led to a high number of deaths in January 2021, with 18,676 deaths recorded in the fourth week of that year. For the whole of 2021, there were 667,479 deaths in the UK, 22,150 fewer than in 2020. Life expectancy in the UK goes into reverse In 2022, life expectancy at birth for women in the UK was 82.6 years, while for men it was 78.6 years. This was the lowest life expectancy in the country for ten years, and came after life expectancy improvements stalled throughout the 2010s, and then declined from 2020 onwards. There is also quite a significant regional difference in life expectancy in the UK. In the London borough of Kensington and Chelsea, for example, the life expectancy for men was 81.5 years, and 86.5 years for women. By contrast, in Blackpool, in North West England, male life expectancy was just 73.1 years, while for women, life expectancy was lowest in Glasgow, at 78 years.

Between the beginning of January 2020 and June 14, 2023, of the 1,134,641 deaths caused by COVID-19 in the United States, around 307,169 had occurred among those aged 85 years and older. This statistic shows the number of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) deaths in the U.S. from January 2020 to June 2023, by age.

There were 11,480 deaths registered in England and Wales for the week ending November 14, 2025, compared with 11,297 in the previous week. During this time period, the two weeks with the highest number of weekly deaths were in April 2020, with the week ending April 17, 2020, having 22,351 deaths, and the following week 21,997 deaths, a direct result of the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK. Death and life expectancy As of 2022, the life expectancy for women in the UK was just over 82.5 years, and almost 78.6 years for men. Compared with 1765, when average life expectancy was under 39 years, this is a huge improvement in historical terms. Even in the more recent past, life expectancy was less than 47 years at the start of the 20th Century, and was under 70 as recently as the 1950s. Despite these significant developments in the long-term, improvements in life expectancy stalled between 2009/11 and 2015/17, and have even gone into decline since 2020. Between 2020 and 2022, for example, life expectancy at birth fell by 23 weeks for females, and 37 weeks for males. COVID-19 in the UK The first cases of COVID-19 in the United Kingdom were recorded on January 31, 2020, but it was not until a month later that cases began to rise exponentially. By March 5 of this year there were more than 100 cases, rising to 1,000 days later and passing 10,000 cumulative cases by March 26. At the height of the pandemic in late April and early May, there were around six thousand new cases being recorded daily. As of January 2023, there were more than 24.2 million confirmed cumulative cases of COVID-19 recorded in the United Kingdom, resulting in 202,156 deaths.

Average Annual Number Of Infant Deaths Over 5 Year Period All States

Number of deaths and mortality rates, by age group, sex, and place of residence, 1991 to most recent year.

Number of deaths and age-specific mortality rates for selected grouped causes, by age group and sex, 2000 to most recent year.

VITAL SIGNS INDICATOR Life Expectancy (EQ6)

FULL MEASURE NAME Life Expectancy

LAST UPDATED April 2017

DESCRIPTION Life expectancy refers to the average number of years a newborn is expected to live if mortality patterns remain the same. The measure reflects the mortality rate across a population for a point in time.

DATA SOURCE State of California, Department of Health: Death Records (1990-2013) No link

California Department of Finance: Population Estimates Annual Intercensal Population Estimates (1990-2010) Table P-2: County Population by Age (2010-2013) http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/

U.S. Census Bureau: Decennial Census ZCTA Population (2000-2010) http://factfinder.census.gov

U.S. Census Bureau: American Community Survey 5-Year Population Estimates (2013) http://factfinder.census.gov

CONTACT INFORMATION vitalsigns.info@mtc.ca.gov

METHODOLOGY NOTES (across all datasets for this indicator) Life expectancy is commonly used as a measure of the health of a population. Life expectancy does not reflect how long any given individual is expected to live; rather, it is an artificial measure that captures an aspect of the mortality rates across a population that can be compared across time and populations. More information about the determinants of life expectancy that may lead to differences in life expectancy between neighborhoods can be found in the Bay Area Regional Health Inequities Initiative (BARHII) Health Inequities in the Bay Area report at http://www.barhii.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/barhii_hiba.pdf. Vital Signs measures life expectancy at birth (as opposed to cohort life expectancy). A statistical model was used to estimate life expectancy for Bay Area counties and ZIP Codes based on current life tables which require both age and mortality data. A life table is a table which shows, for each age, the survivorship of a people from a certain population.

Current life tables were created using death records and population estimates by age. The California Department of Public Health provided death records based on the California death certificate information. Records include age at death and residential ZIP Code. Single-year age population estimates at the regional- and county-level comes from the California Department of Finance population estimates and projections for ages 0-100+. Population estimates for ages 100 and over are aggregated to a single age interval. Using this data, death rates in a population within age groups for a given year are computed to form unabridged life tables (as opposed to abridged life tables). To calculate life expectancy, the probability of dying between the jth and (j+1)st birthday is assumed uniform after age 1. Special consideration is taken to account for infant mortality.

For the ZIP Code-level life expectancy calculation, it is assumed that postal ZIP Codes share the same boundaries as ZIP Code Census Tabulation Areas (ZCTAs). More information on the relationship between ZIP Codes and ZCTAs can be found at http://www.census.gov/geo/reference/zctas.html. ZIP Code-level data uses three years of mortality data to make robust estimates due to small sample size. Year 2013 ZIP Code life expectancy estimates reflects death records from 2011 through 2013. 2013 is the last year with available mortality data. Death records for ZIP Codes with zero population (like those associated with P.O. Boxes) were assigned to the nearest ZIP Code with population. ZIP Code population for 2000 estimates comes from the Decennial Census. ZIP Code population for 2013 estimates are from the American Community Survey (5-Year Average). ACS estimates are adjusted using Decennial Census data for more accurate population estimates. An adjustment factor was calculated using the ratio between the 2010 Decennial Census population estimates and the 2012 ACS 5-Year (with middle year 2010) population estimates. This adjustment factor is particularly important for ZCTAs with high homeless population (not living in group quarters) where the ACS may underestimate the ZCTA population and therefore underestimate the life expectancy. The ACS provides ZIP Code population by age in five-year age intervals. Single-year age population estimates were calculated by distributing population within an age interval to single-year ages using the county distribution. Counties were assigned to ZIP Codes based on majority land-area.

ZIP Codes in the Bay Area vary in population from over 10,000 residents to less than 20 residents. Traditional life expectancy estimation (like the one used for the regional- and county-level Vital Signs estimates) cannot be used because they are highly inaccurate for small populations and may result in over/underestimation of life expectancy. To avoid inaccurate estimates, ZIP Codes with populations of less than 5,000 were aggregated with neighboring ZIP Codes until the merged areas had a population of more than 5,000. ZIP Code 94103, representing Treasure Island, was dropped from the dataset due to its small population and having no bordering ZIP Codes. In this way, the original 305 Bay Area ZIP Codes were reduced to 217 ZIP Code areas for 2013 estimates. Next, a form of Bayesian random-effects analysis was used which established a prior distribution of the probability of death at each age using the regional distribution. This prior is used to shore up the life expectancy calculations where data were sparse.

Cancer Mortality & Incidence Rates: (Country LVL)

Investigating Cancer Trends over time

By Data Exercises [source]

About this dataset

This dataset is a comprehensive collection of data from county-level cancer mortality and incidence rates in the United States between 2000-2014. This data provides an unprecedented level of detail into cancer cases, deaths, and trends at a local level. The included columns include County, FIPS, age-adjusted death rate, average death rate per year, recent trend (2) in death rates, recent 5-year trend (2) in death rates and average annual count for each county. This dataset can be used to provide deep insight into the patterns and effects of cancer on communities as well as help inform policy decisions related to mitigating risk factors or increasing preventive measures such as screenings. With this comprehensive set of records from across the United States over 15 years, you will be able to make informed decisions regarding individual patient care or policy development within your own community!

More Datasets

For more datasets, click here.

Featured Notebooks

• 🚨 Your notebook can be here! 🚨!

How to use the dataset

This dataset provides comprehensive US county-level cancer mortality and incidence rates from 2000 to 2014. It includes the mortality and incidence rate for each county, as well as whether the county met the objective of 45.5 deaths per 100,000 people. It also provides information on recent trends in death rates and average annual counts of cases over the five year period studied.

This dataset can be extremely useful to researchers looking to study trends in cancer death rates across counties. By using this data, researchers will be able to gain valuable insight into how different counties are performing in terms of providing treatment and prevention services for cancer patients and whether preventative measures and healthcare access are having an effect on reducing cancer mortality rates over time. This data can also be used to inform policy makers about counties needing more target prevention efforts or additional resources for providing better healthcare access within at risk communities.

When using this dataset, it is important to pay close attention to any qualitative columns such as “Recent Trend” or “Recent 5-Year Trend (2)” that may provide insights into long term changes that may not be readily apparent when using quantitative variables such as age-adjusted death rate or average deaths per year over shorter periods of time like one year or five years respectively. Additionally, when studying differences between different counties it is important to take note of any standard FIPS code differences that may indicate that data was collected by a different source with a difference methodology than what was used in other areas studied

Research Ideas

• Using this dataset, we can identify patterns in cancer mortality and incidence rates that are statistically significant to create treatment regimens or preventive measures specifically targeting those areas.
• This data can be useful for policymakers to target areas with elevated cancer mortality and incidence rates so they can allocate financial resources to these areas more efficiently.
• This dataset can be used to investigate which factors (such as pollution levels, access to medical care, genetic make up) may have an influence on the cancer mortality and incidence rates in different US counties

Acknowledgements

If you use this dataset in your research, please credit the original authors. Data Source

License

License: Dataset copyright by authors - You are free to: - Share - copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format for any purpose, even commercially. - Adapt - remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially. - You must: - Give appropriate credit - Provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. - ShareAlike - You must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original. - Keep intact - all notices that refer to this license, including copyright notices.

Columns

File: death .csv | Column name | Description | |:-------------------------------------------|:-------------------------------------------------------------------...

The objective behind attempting this dataset was to understand the predictors that contribute to the life expectancy around the world. I have used Linear Regression, Decision Tree and Random Forest for this purpose. Steps Involved: - Read the csv file - Data Cleaning: - Variables Country and Status were showing as having character data types. These had to be converted to factor - 2563 missing values were encountered with Population variable having the most of the missing values i.e 652 - Missing rows were dropped before we could run the analysis. 3) Run Linear Regression - Before running linear regression, 3 variables were dropped as they were not found to be having that much of an effect on the dependent variable i.e Life Expectancy. These 3 variables were Country, Year & Status. This meant we are now working with 19 variables (1 dependent and 18 independent variables) - We run the linear regression. Multiple R squared is 83% which means that independent variables can explain 83% change or variance in the dependent variable. - OULTLIER DETECTION. We check for outliers using IQR and find 54 outliers. These outliers are then removed before we run the regression analysis once again. Multiple R squared increased from 83% to 86%. - MULTICOLLINEARITY. We check for multicollinearity using the VIF model(Variance Inflation Factor). This is being done in case when two or more independent variables showing high correlation. The thumb rule is that absolute VIF values above 5 should be removed. We find 6 variables that have a VIF value higher than 5 namely Infant.deaths, percentage.expenditure,Under.five.deaths,GDP,thinness1.19,thinness5.9. Infant deaths and Under Five deaths have strong collinearity so we drop infant deaths(which has the higher VIF value). - When we run the linear regression model again, VIF value of Under.Five.Deaths goes down from 211.46 to 2.74 while the other variable's VIF values reduce very less. Variable thinness1.19 is now dropped and we run the regression once more. - Variable thinness5.9 whose absolute VIF value was 7.61 has now dropped to 1.95. GDP and Population are still having VIF value more than 5 but I decided against dropping these as I consider them to be important independent variables. - SET THE SEED AND SPLIT THE DATA INTO TRAIN AND TEST DATA. We run the train data and get multiple R squared of 86% and p value less than that of alpha which states that it is statistically significant. We use the train data to predict the test data to find out the RMSE and MAPE. We run the library(Metrics) for this purpose. - In Linear Regression, RMSE (Root Mean Squared Error) is 3.2. This indicates that on an average, the predicted values have an error of 3.2 years as compared to the actual life expectancy values. - MAPE (Mean Absolute Percentage Error) is 0.037. This indicates an accuracy prediction of 96.20% (1-0.037). - MAE (Mean Absolute Error) is 2.55. This indicates that on an average, the predicted values deviate by approximately 2.83 years from the actual values.

We use DECISION TREE MODEL for the analysis.

• Run the required libraries (rpart, rpart.plot, RColorBrewer, rattle).
• We run the decision tree analysis using rpart and plot the tree. We use fancyRpartPlot.
• We use 5 fold cross validation method with CP (complexity parameter) being 0.01.
• In Decision Tree , RMSE (Root Mean Squared Error) is 3.06. This indicates that on an average, the predicted values have an error of 3.06 years as compared to the actual life expectancy values.
• MAPE (Mean Absolute Percentage Error) is 0.035. This indicates an accuracy prediction of 96.45% (1-0.035).
• MAE (Mean Absolute Error) is 2.35. This indicates that on an average, the predicted values deviate by approximately 2.35 years from the actual values.

We use RANDOM FOREST for the analysis.

• Run library(randomForest)
• We use varImpPlot to find out which variables are most significant and least significant. Income composition is the most important followed by adult mortality and the least relevant independent variable is Population.
• Predict Life expectancy through random forest model.
• In Random Forest , RMSE (Root Mean Squared Error) is 1.73. This indicates that on an average, the predicted values have an error of 1.73 years as compared to the actual life expectancy values.
• MAPE (Mean Absolute Percentage Error) is 0.01. This indicates an accuracy prediction of 98.27% (1-0.01).
• MAE (Mean Absolute Error) is 1.14. This indicates that on an average, the predicted values deviate by approximately 1.14 years from the actual values.

Conclusion: Random Forest is the best model for predicting the life expectancy values as it has the lowest RMSE, MAPE and MAE.

In 2024, about **** million deaths were reported in the United States. This reflected a slight decrease from the previous year, and an ** percent decrease from the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020.

County Cancer Death Rates

County-level cancer death rates with related variables

By Noah Rippner [source]

About this dataset

This dataset provides comprehensive information on county-level cancer death and incidence rates, as well as various related variables. It includes data on age-adjusted death rates, average deaths per year, recent trends in cancer death rates, recent 5-year trends in death rates, and average annual counts of cancer deaths or incidence. The dataset also includes the federal information processing standards (FIPS) codes for each county.

Additionally, the dataset indicates whether each county met the objective of a targeted death rate of 45.5. The recent trend in cancer deaths or incidence is also captured for analysis purposes.

The purpose of the death.csv file within this dataset is to offer detailed information specifically concerning county-level cancer death rates and related variables. On the other hand, the incd.csv file contains data on county-level cancer incidence rates and additional relevant variables.

To provide more context and understanding about the included data points, there is a separate file named cancer_data_notes.csv. This file serves to provide informative notes and explanations regarding the various aspects of the cancer data used in this dataset.

Please note that this particular description provides an overview for a linear regression walkthrough using this dataset based on Python programming language. It highlights how to source and import the data properly before moving into data preparation steps such as exploratory analysis. The walkthrough further covers model selection and important model diagnostics measures.

It's essential to bear in mind that this example serves as an initial attempt at creating a multivariate Ordinary Least Squares regression model using these datasets from various sources like cancer.gov along with US Census American Community Survey data. This baseline model allows easy comparisons with future iterations intended for improvements or refinements.

Important columns found within this extensively documented Kaggle dataset include County names along with their corresponding FIPS codes—a standardized coding system by Federal Information Processing Standards (FIPS). Moreover,Met Objective of 45.5? (1) column denotes whether a specific county achieved the targeted objective of a death rate of 45.5 or not.

Overall, this dataset aims to offer valuable insights into county-level cancer death and incidence rates across various regions, providing policymakers, researchers, and healthcare professionals with essential information for analysis and decision-making purposes

How to use the dataset

• Familiarize Yourself with the Columns:

  • County: The name of the county.
  • FIPS: The Federal Information Processing Standards code for the county.
  • Met Objective of 45.5? (1): Indicates whether the county met the objective of a death rate of 45.5 (Boolean).
  • Age-Adjusted Death Rate: The age-adjusted death rate for cancer in the county.
  • Average Deaths per Year: The average number of deaths per year due to cancer in the county.
  • Recent Trend (2): The recent trend in cancer death rates/incidence in the county.
  • Recent 5-Year Trend (2) in Death Rates: The recent 5-year trend in cancer death rates/incidence in the county.
  • Average Annual Count: The average annual count of cancer deaths/incidence in the county.

• Determine Counties Meeting Objective: Use this dataset to identify counties that have met or not met an objective death rate threshold of 45.5%. Look for entries where Met Objective of 45.5? (1) is marked as True or False.

• Analyze Age-Adjusted Death Rates: Study and compare age-adjusted death rates across different counties using Age-Adjusted Death Rate values provided as floats.

• Explore Average Deaths per Year: Examine and compare average annual counts and trends regarding deaths caused by cancer, using Average Deaths per Year as a reference point.

• Investigate Recent Trends: Assess recent trends related to cancer deaths or incidence by analyzing data under columns such as Recent Trend, Recent Trend (2), and Recent 5-Year Trend (2) in Death Rates. These columns provide information on how cancer death rates/incidence have changed over time.

• Compare Counties: Utilize this dataset to compare counties based on their cancer death rates and related variables. Identify counties with lower or higher average annual counts, age-adjusted death rates, or recent trends to analyze and understand the factors contributing ...

Data for CDC’s COVID Data Tracker site on Rates of COVID-19 Cases and Deaths by Vaccination Status. Click 'More' for important dataset description and footnotes

Dataset and data visualization details: These data were posted on October 21, 2022, archived on November 18, 2022, and revised on February 22, 2023. These data reflect cases among persons with a positive specimen collection date through September 24, 2022, and deaths among persons with a positive specimen collection date through September 3, 2022.

Vaccination status: A person vaccinated with a primary series had SARS-CoV-2 RNA or antigen detected on a respiratory specimen collected ≥14 days after verifiably completing the primary series of an FDA-authorized or approved COVID-19 vaccine. An unvaccinated person had SARS-CoV-2 RNA or antigen detected on a respiratory specimen and has not been verified to have received COVID-19 vaccine. Excluded were partially vaccinated people who received at least one FDA-authorized vaccine dose but did not complete a primary series ≥14 days before collection of a specimen where SARS-CoV-2 RNA or antigen was detected. Additional or booster dose: A person vaccinated with a primary series and an additional or booster dose had SARS-CoV-2 RNA or antigen detected on a respiratory specimen collected ≥14 days after receipt of an additional or booster dose of any COVID-19 vaccine on or after August 13, 2021. For people ages 18 years and older, data are graphed starting the week including September 24, 2021, when a COVID-19 booster dose was first recommended by CDC for adults 65+ years old and people in certain populations and high risk occupational and institutional settings. For people ages 12-17 years, data are graphed starting the week of December 26, 2021, 2 weeks after the first recommendation for a booster dose for adolescents ages 16-17 years. For people ages 5-11 years, data are included starting the week of June 5, 2022, 2 weeks after the first recommendation for a booster dose for children aged 5-11 years. For people ages 50 years and older, data on second booster doses are graphed starting the week including March 29, 2022, when the recommendation was made for second boosters. Vertical lines represent dates when changes occurred in U.S. policy for COVID-19 vaccination (details provided above). Reporting is by primary series vaccine type rather than additional or booster dose vaccine type. The booster dose vaccine type may be different than the primary series vaccine type. ** Because data on the immune status of cases and associated deaths are unavailable, an additional dose in an immunocompromised person cannot be distinguished from a booster dose. This is a relevant consideration because vaccines can be less effective in this group. Deaths: A COVID-19–associated death occurred in a person with a documented COVID-19 diagnosis who died; health department staff reviewed to make a determination using vital records, public health investigation, or other data sources. Rates of COVID-19 deaths by vaccination status are reported based on when the patient was tested for COVID-19, not the date they died. Deaths usually occur up to 30 days after COVID-19 diagnosis. Participating jurisdictions: Currently, these 31 health departments that regularly link their case surveillance to immunization information system data are included in these incidence rate estimates: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, New York City (New York), North Carolina, Philadelphia (Pennsylvania), Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Washington, and West Virginia; 30 jurisdictions also report deaths among vaccinated and unvaccinated people. These jurisdictions represent 72% of the total U.S. population and all ten of the Health and Human Services Regions. Data on cases among people who received additional or booster doses were reported from 31 jurisdictions; 30 jurisdictions also reported data on deaths among people who received one or more additional or booster dose; 28 jurisdictions reported cases among people who received two or more additional or booster doses; and 26 jurisdictions reported deaths among people who received two or more additional or booster doses. This list will be updated as more jurisdictions participate. Incidence rate estimates: Weekly age-specific incidence rates by vaccination status were calculated as the number of cases or deaths divided by the number of people vaccinated with a primary series, overall or with/without a booster dose (cumulative) or unvaccinated (obtained by subtracting the cumulative number of people vaccinated with a primary series and partially vaccinated people from the 2019 U.S. intercensal population estimates) and multiplied by 100,000. Overall incidence rates were age-standardized using the 2000 U.S. Census standard population. To estimate population counts for ages 6 months through 1 year, half of the single-year population counts for ages 0 through 1 year were used. All rates are plotted by positive specimen collection date to reflect when incident infections occurred. For the primary series analysis, age-standardized rates include ages 12 years and older from April 4, 2021 through December 4, 2021, ages 5 years and older from December 5, 2021 through July 30, 2022 and ages 6 months and older from July 31, 2022 onwards. For the booster dose analysis, age-standardized rates include ages 18 years and older from September 19, 2021 through December 25, 2021, ages 12 years and older from December 26, 2021, and ages 5 years and older from June 5, 2022 onwards. Small numbers could contribute to less precision when calculating death rates among some groups. Continuity correction: A continuity correction has been applied to the denominators by capping the percent population coverage at 95%. To do this, we assumed that at least 5% of each age group would always be unvaccinated in each jurisdiction. Adding this correction ensures that there is always a reasonable denominator for the unvaccinated population that would prevent incidence and death rates from growing unrealistically large due to potential overestimates of vaccination coverage. Incidence rate ratios (IRRs): IRRs for the past one month were calculated by dividing the average weekly incidence rates among unvaccinated people by that among people vaccinated with a primary series either overall or with a booster dose. Publications: Scobie HM, Johnson AG, Suthar AB, et al. Monitoring Incidence of COVID-19 Cases, Hospitalizations, and Deaths, by Vaccination Status — 13 U.S. Jurisdictions, April 4–July 17, 2021. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2021;70:1284–1290. Johnson AG, Amin AB, Ali AR, et al. COVID-19 Incidence and Death Rates Among Unvaccinated and Fully Vaccinated Adults with and Without Booster Doses During Periods of Delta and Omicron Variant Emergence — 25 U.S. Jurisdictions, April 4–December 25, 2021. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2022;71:132–138

Kaggle Dataset Description

Title: Mortality Rate (Under-5, Per 1000 Live Births)
Subtitle: Exploring global trends in child survival and health advancements.

Detailed Description:
This dataset contains the under-5 mortality rate, measured as the number of deaths per 1,000 live births for children under five years of age. Sourced from the World Bank, it highlights progress in child survival and health outcomes globally over decades.

Key Highlights: - Annual data for countries worldwide. - Metric: Mortality rate (under-5, per 1000 live births). - Use cases: Analyze trends, compare regional disparities, and correlate mortality rates with health and economic indicators.

4. Exploratory Data Analysis (EDA)

Notebook Ideas

1. Data Cleaning:

   • Handle missing or inconsistent data.
   • Normalize data for comparison across regions.
   • Add calculated fields like regional averages or year-over-year changes.

2. Visualizations:

   • Line Graph: Trends in under-5 mortality rates over time for selected countries.
   • Heatmap: Mortality rates by region and year.
   • Scatterplot: Correlation between mortality rates and healthcare expenditure or GDP per capita.
   • Bar Chart: Top and bottom countries by under-5 mortality for a specific year.

3. Descriptive Analysis:

   • Highlight countries with the most significant reductions in mortality.
   • Analyze regional improvements over decades (e.g., Sub-Saharan Africa vs. South Asia).

5. Predictive Analysis (Optional)

• Use time-series forecasting (e.g., ARIMA or Prophet) to predict future mortality rates for specific countries or regions.
• Explore regression models to analyze the impact of factors like healthcare expenditure on mortality reduction.

6. Kaggle Notebook

Create a Kaggle notebook with: 1. Data Cleaning: Show how missing or inconsistent values are handled. 2. EDA: Include visualizations like heatmaps, scatterplots, and line charts. 3. Insights: Highlight significant findings, such as countries with notable improvements in child survival. 4. Optional Predictive Modeling: Use regression or time-series models to project future trends.

7. Call to Action

For GitHub:

• Share the GitHub repository link on LinkedIn, Twitter, and forums like Reddit (e.g., r/datascience).
• Invite collaboration:
  • "Fork this repository to add your analyses or insights!"

GitHub Link: https://github.com/yourusername/Under5_Mortality_Trends

For Kaggle:

• Encourage upvotes:
  • "If this dataset helps you, consider upvoting it to help others discover it!"
• Include questions to engage users:
  • "Which regions have made the most progress in reducing child mortality?"
  • "What correlations can be drawn between healthcare expenditure and mortality rates?"

Kaggle Link: https://www.kaggle.com/datasets/yourusername/under5-mortality-rate

8. LinkedIn Post

Post Title:
📉 Global Trends in Under-5 Mortality Rates 🌍

Post Body:
I’m excited to share my latest dataset on under-5 mortality rates (per 1,000 live births), sourced from the World Bank. This dataset highlights progress in global health and child survival, spanning decades and covering countries worldwide.

📂 Explore the Dataset:
- GitHub Repository: https://github.com/yourusername/Under5_Mortality_Trends
- Kaggle Dataset: https://www.kaggle.com/datasets/yourusername/under5-mortality-rate

Why It Matters:

Child survival is a fundamental measure of global health progress. This dataset is ideal for:
- Trend Analysis: Explore how under-5 mortality rates have evolved globally.
- Regional Comparisons: Identify disparities in child survival rates across regions.
- Correlations: Study the relationship between mortality rates and economic indicators like healthcare expenditure or GDP per capita.

📈 Get Involved:
- Use the dataset for your own analyses and visualizations.
- Share your insights and findings.
- Upvote the Kaggle dataset to help others discover it!

❓ What trends or correlations do you find in the data?
- Which country or region has shown the most improvement?
- What factors would you analyze further?

Let me know your thoughts, and feel free to share this resource with others who might benefit! 🌟

DataScience #ChildHealth #MortalityRates #WorldBankData #DataVisualization #GitHub #Kaggle #HealthAnalysis

Let me know if you'd like assistance with EDA or visualization templates!

This study estimates the economic losses (GDP), particularly the impact of COVID-19 deaths on non-health components of GDP in West Bengal state. The NHGDP losses were evaluated using cost-of-illness approach. Future NHGDP losses were discounted at 3%. Excess death estimates by the World Health Organisation (WHO) and Global Burden of Disease (GBD) were used. Sensitivity analysis was carried out by varying discount rates and Average Age of Death (AAD). 21,532 deaths in West Bengal since 17th March 2020 till 31st December 2022 decreased the future NHGDP by $0.92 billion. Nearly 90% of loss was due to deaths occurring in above 30 years age-group. The majority of the loss was borne among the 46–60 years age-group. The NHGDP loss/death was $42,646, however, the average loss/death declined with a rise in age. The loss increased to $9.38 billion and $9.42 billion respectively based on GBD and WHO excess death estimates. The loss increased to $1.3 billion by considering the lower age of the interval as AAD. At 5% and 10% discount rates, the losses reduced to $0.769 billion and $0.549 billion respectively. Results from the study suggest that COVID-19 contributed to major economic loss in West Bengal. The mortality and morbidity caused by COVID-19, the substantial economic costs at individual and population levels in West Bengal, and probably across India and other countries, is another argument for better infection control strategies across the globe to end the impact of this epidemic. Methods Various open domains were used to gather data on COVID-19 deaths in West Bengal and the aforementioned estimates. Economic losses in terms of Non-Health Gross Domestic Product (NHGDP)among six age-group brackets viz. 0–15, 16–30, 31–45, 46–60, 61–75 and 75 and above were estimated to facilitate comparisons and to initiate advocacy for an increase in health investments against COVID-19. This study used midpoint age as the age of death for all the age brackets. The legal minimum age for working i.e., 15 years. A sensitivity analysis was conducted to determine the effect of age on the overall total NHGDP loss estimate. The model was re-estimated assuming an average age at death to be the starting age of each age-group bracket. Based on existing literature discounted rate of interest to measure the value of life is taken as 2.9%. As a sensitivity analysis, NHGDP loss has also been computed using 5% and 10% of discounted rates of interest.

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.

Annual data on death registrations by single year of age for the UK (1974 onwards) and England and Wales (1963 onwards).

Note: DPH is updating and streamlining the COVID-19 cases, deaths, and testing data. As of 6/27/2022, the data will be published in four tables instead of twelve. The COVID-19 Cases, Deaths, and Tests by Day dataset contains cases and test data by date of sample submission. The death data are by date of death. This dataset is updated daily and contains information back to the beginning of the pandemic. The data can be found at https://data.ct.gov/Health-and-Human-Services/COVID-19-Cases-Deaths-and-Tests-by-Day/g9vi-2ahj. The COVID-19 State Metrics dataset contains over 93 columns of data. This dataset is updated daily and currently contains information starting June 21, 2022 to the present. The data can be found at https://data.ct.gov/Health-and-Human-Services/COVID-19-State-Level-Data/qmgw-5kp6 . The COVID-19 County Metrics dataset contains 25 columns of data. This dataset is updated daily and currently contains information starting June 16, 2022 to the present. The data can be found at https://data.ct.gov/Health-and-Human-Services/COVID-19-County-Level-Data/ujiq-dy22 . The COVID-19 Town Metrics dataset contains 16 columns of data. This dataset is updated daily and currently contains information starting June 16, 2022 to the present. The data can be found at https://data.ct.gov/Health-and-Human-Services/COVID-19-Town-Level-Data/icxw-cada . To protect confidentiality, if a town has fewer than 5 cases or positive NAAT tests over the past 7 days, those data will be suppressed. COVID-19 cases and associated deaths that have been reported among Connecticut residents, broken out by age group. All data in this report are preliminary; data for previous dates will be updated as new reports are received and data errors are corrected. Deaths reported to the either the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner (OCME) or Department of Public Health (DPH) are included in the daily COVID-19 update. Data are reported daily, with timestamps indicated in the daily briefings posted at: portal.ct.gov/coronavirus. Data are subject to future revision as reporting changes. Starting in July 2020, this dataset will be updated every weekday. Additional notes: A delay in the data pull schedule occurred on 06/23/2020. Data from 06/22/2020 was processed on 06/23/2020 at 3:30 PM. The normal data cycle resumed with the data for 06/23/2020. A network outage on 05/19/2020 resulted in a change in the data pull schedule. Data from 5/19/2020 was processed on 05/20/2020 at 12:00 PM. Data from 5/20/2020 was processed on 5/20/2020 8:30 PM. The normal data cycle resumed on 05/20/2020 with the 8:30 PM data pull. As a result of the network outage, the timestamp on the datasets on the Open Data Portal differ from the timestamp in DPH's daily PDF reports. Starting 5/10/2021, the date field will represent the date this data was updated on data.ct.gov. Previously the date the data was pulled by DPH was listed, which typically coincided with the date before the data was published on data.ct.gov. This change was made to standardize the COVID-19 data sets on data.ct.gov.