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.

As of May 2, 2023, the outbreak of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) had spread to almost every country in the world, and more than 6.86 million people had died after contracting the respiratory virus. Over 1.16 million of these deaths occurred in the United States.

Waves of infections Almost every country and territory worldwide have been affected by the COVID-19 disease. At the end of 2021 the virus was once again circulating at very high rates, even in countries with relatively high vaccination rates such as the United States and Germany. As rates of new infections increased, some countries in Europe, like Germany and Austria, tightened restrictions once again, specifically targeting those who were not yet vaccinated. However, by spring 2022, rates of new infections had decreased in many countries and restrictions were once again lifted.

What are the symptoms of the virus? It can take up to 14 days for symptoms of the illness to start being noticed. The most commonly reported symptoms are a fever and a dry cough, leading to shortness of breath. The early symptoms are similar to other common viruses such as the common cold and flu. These illnesses spread more during cold months, but there is no conclusive evidence to suggest that temperature impacts the spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Medical advice should be sought if you are experiencing any of these symptoms.

The seven-day average number of COVID-19 deaths in the U.S. decreased significantly from April to July 2020, but it remained higher than in other countries. Seven-day rolling averages are used to adjust for administrative delays in the reporting of deaths by authorities, commonly over weekends.

The challenges of tracking and reporting the disease The U.S. confirmed its first coronavirus case in mid-January 2020 – the virus was detected in a passenger who arrived in Seattle from China. Since that first case, around 945 people have died every day from COVID-19 in the United States as of August 23, 2020. In total, the U.S. has recorded more coronavirus deaths than any other country worldwide. Accurately tracking the number of COVID-19 deaths has proved complicated, with countries having different rules for what deaths to include in their official figures. Some nations have even changed which deaths they can attribute to the disease during the pandemic.

Young people urged to act responsibly Between January and May 2020, case fatality rates among COVID-19 patients in the United States increased with age, highlighting the particular risks faced by the elderly. However, COVID-19 is not only a disease that affects older adults. Surges in the number of new cases throughout July 2020 were blamed on young people. The World Health Organization has urged young people not to become complacent, reminding them to maintain social distancing guidelines and take precautions to protect themselves and others.

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.

Updates

• Notice of data discontinuation: Since the start of the pandemic, AP has reported case and death counts from data provided by Johns Hopkins University. Johns Hopkins University has announced that they will stop their daily data collection efforts after March 10. As Johns Hopkins stops providing data, the AP will also stop collecting daily numbers for COVID cases and deaths. The HHS and CDC now collect and visualize key metrics for the pandemic. AP advises using those resources when reporting on the pandemic going forward.

  • CDC Weekly case and death counts (national and state level)
  • CDC County level cases and deaths
  • HHS New hospital admissions
  • CDC NowCast COVID variant proportions (national and regional level)

• April 9, 2020

  • The population estimate data for New York County, NY has been updated to include all five New York City counties (Kings County, Queens County, Bronx County, Richmond County and New York County). This has been done to match the Johns Hopkins COVID-19 data, which aggregates counts for the five New York City counties to New York County.

• April 20, 2020

  • Johns Hopkins death totals in the US now include confirmed and probable deaths in accordance with CDC guidelines as of April 14. One significant result of this change was an increase of more than 3,700 deaths in the New York City count. This change will likely result in increases for death counts elsewhere as well. The AP does not alter the Johns Hopkins source data, so probable deaths are included in this dataset as well.

• April 29, 2020

  • The AP is now providing timeseries data for counts of COVID-19 cases and deaths. The raw counts are provided here unaltered, along with a population column with Census ACS-5 estimates and calculated daily case and death rates per 100,000 people. Please read the updated caveats section for more information.

• September 1st, 2020

  • Johns Hopkins is now providing counts for the five New York City counties individually.

• February 12, 2021

  • The Ohio Department of Health recently announced that as many as 4,000 COVID-19 deaths may have been underreported through the state’s reporting system, and that the "daily reported death counts will be high for a two to three-day period."
  • Because deaths data will be anomalous for consecutive days, we have chosen to freeze Ohio's rolling average for daily deaths at the last valid measure until Johns Hopkins is able to back-distribute the data. The raw daily death counts, as reported by Johns Hopkins and including the backlogged death data, will still be present in the new_deaths column.

• February 16, 2021

  - Johns Hopkins has reconciled Ohio's historical deaths data with the state.

  Overview

The AP is using data collected by the Johns Hopkins University Center for Systems Science and Engineering as our source for outbreak caseloads and death counts for the United States and globally.

The Hopkins data is available at the county level in the United States. The AP has paired this data with population figures and county rural/urban designations, and has calculated caseload and death rates per 100,000 people. Be aware that caseloads may reflect the availability of tests -- and the ability to turn around test results quickly -- rather than actual disease spread or true infection rates.

This data is from the Hopkins dashboard that is updated regularly throughout the day. Like all organizations dealing with data, Hopkins is constantly refining and cleaning up their feed, so there may be brief moments where data does not appear correctly. At this link, you’ll find the Hopkins daily data reports, and a clean version of their feed.

The AP is updating this dataset hourly at 45 minutes past the hour.

To learn more about AP's data journalism capabilities for publishers, corporations and financial institutions, go here or email kromano@ap.org.

Queries

Use AP's queries to filter the data or to join to other datasets we've made available to help cover the coronavirus pandemic

• Filter cases by state here

• Rank states by their status as current hotspots. Calculates the 7-day rolling average of new cases per capita in each state: https://data.world/associatedpress/johns-hopkins-coronavirus-case-tracker/workspace/query?queryid=481e82a4-1b2f-41c2-9ea1-d91aa4b3b1ac

• Find recent hotspots within your state by running a query to calculate the 7-day rolling average of new cases by capita in each county: https://data.world/associatedpress/johns-hopkins-coronavirus-case-tracker/workspace/query?queryid=b566f1db-3231-40fe-8099-311909b7b687&showTemplatePreview=true

• Join county-level case data to an earlier dataset released by AP on local hospital capacity here. To find out more about the hospital capacity dataset, see the full details.

• Pull the 100 counties with the highest per-capita confirmed cases here

• Rank all the counties by the highest per-capita rate of new cases in the past 7 days here. Be aware that because this ranks per-capita caseloads, very small counties may rise to the very top, so take into account raw caseload figures as well.

Interactive

The AP has designed an interactive map to track COVID-19 cases reported by Johns Hopkins.

@(https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/nRyaf/15/)

Interactive Embed Code

<iframe title="USA counties (2018) choropleth map Mapping COVID-19 cases by county" aria-describedby="" id="datawrapper-chart-nRyaf" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/nRyaf/10/" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" style="width: 0; min-width: 100% !important;" height="400"></iframe><script type="text/javascript">(function() {'use strict';window.addEventListener('message', function(event) {if (typeof event.data['datawrapper-height'] !== 'undefined') {for (var chartId in event.data['datawrapper-height']) {var iframe = document.getElementById('datawrapper-chart-' + chartId) || document.querySelector("iframe[src*='" + chartId + "']");if (!iframe) {continue;}iframe.style.height = event.data['datawrapper-height'][chartId] + 'px';}}});})();</script>

Caveats

• This data represents the number of cases and deaths reported by each state and has been collected by Johns Hopkins from a number of sources cited on their website.
• In some cases, deaths or cases of people who've crossed state lines -- either to receive treatment or because they became sick and couldn't return home while traveling -- are reported in a state they aren't currently in, because of state reporting rules.
• In some states, there are a number of cases not assigned to a specific county -- for those cases, the county name is "unassigned to a single county"
• This data should be credited to Johns Hopkins University's COVID-19 tracking project. The AP is simply making it available here for ease of use for reporters and members.
• Caseloads may reflect the availability of tests -- and the ability to turn around test results quickly -- rather than actual disease spread or true infection rates.
• Population estimates at the county level are drawn from 2014-18 5-year estimates from the American Community Survey.
• The Urban/Rural classification scheme is from the Center for Disease Control and Preventions's National Center for Health Statistics. It puts each county into one of six categories -- from Large Central Metro to Non-Core -- according to population and other characteristics. More details about the classifications can be found here.

Johns Hopkins timeseries data - Johns Hopkins pulls data regularly to update their dashboard. Once a day, around 8pm EDT, Johns Hopkins adds the counts for all areas they cover to the timeseries file. These counts are snapshots of the latest cumulative counts provided by the source on that day. This can lead to inconsistencies if a source updates their historical data for accuracy, either increasing or decreasing the latest cumulative count. - Johns Hopkins periodically edits their historical timeseries data for accuracy. They provide a file documenting all errors in their timeseries files that they have identified and fixed here

Attribution

This data should be credited to Johns Hopkins University COVID-19 tracking project

This dataset reports the daily reported number of the 7-day moving average rates of Deaths involving COVID-19 by vaccination status and by age group. Learn how the Government of Ontario is helping to keep Ontarians safe during the 2019 Novel Coronavirus outbreak. Effective November 14, 2024 this page will no longer be updated. Information about COVID-19 and other respiratory viruses is available on Public Health Ontario’s interactive respiratory virus tool: https://www.publichealthontario.ca/en/Data-and-Analysis/Infectious-Disease/Respiratory-Virus-Tool Data includes: * Date on which the death occurred * Age group * 7-day moving average of the last seven days of the death rate per 100,000 for those not fully vaccinated * 7-day moving average of the last seven days of the death rate per 100,000 for those fully vaccinated * 7-day moving average of the last seven days of the death rate per 100,000 for those vaccinated with at least one booster ##Additional notes As of June 16, all COVID-19 datasets will be updated weekly on Thursdays by 2pm. As of January 12, 2024, data from the date of January 1, 2024 onwards reflect updated population estimates. This update specifically impacts data for the 'not fully vaccinated' category. On November 30, 2023 the count of COVID-19 deaths was updated to include missing historical deaths from January 15, 2020 to March 31, 2023. CCM is a dynamic disease reporting system which allows ongoing update to data previously entered. As a result, data extracted from CCM represents a snapshot at the time of extraction and may differ from previous or subsequent results. Public Health Units continually clean up COVID-19 data, correcting for missing or overcounted cases and deaths. These corrections can result in data spikes and current totals being different from previously reported cases and deaths. Observed trends over time should be interpreted with caution for the most recent period due to reporting and/or data entry lags. The data does not include vaccination data for people who did not provide consent for vaccination records to be entered into the provincial COVaxON system. This includes individual records as well as records from some Indigenous communities where those communities have not consented to including vaccination information in COVaxON. “Not fully vaccinated” category includes people with no vaccine and one dose of double-dose vaccine. “People with one dose of double-dose vaccine” category has a small and constantly changing number. The combination will stabilize the results. Spikes, negative numbers and other data anomalies: Due to ongoing data entry and data quality assurance activities in Case and Contact Management system (CCM) file, Public Health Units continually clean up COVID-19, correcting for missing or overcounted cases and deaths. These corrections can result in data spikes, negative numbers and current totals being different from previously reported case and death counts. Public Health Units report cause of death in the CCM based on information available to them at the time of reporting and in accordance with definitions provided by Public Health Ontario. The medical certificate of death is the official record and the cause of death could be different. Deaths are defined per the outcome field in CCM marked as “Fatal”. Deaths in COVID-19 cases identified as unrelated to COVID-19 are not included in the Deaths involving COVID-19 reported. Rates for the most recent days are subject to reporting lags All data reflects totals from 8 p.m. the previous day. This dataset is subject to change.

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.

This dataset contains counts of deaths for California counties based on information entered on death certificates. Final counts are derived from static data and include out-of-state deaths to California residents, whereas provisional counts are derived from incomplete and dynamic data. Provisional counts are based on the records available when the data was retrieved and may not represent all deaths that occurred during the time period. Deaths involving injuries from external or environmental forces, such as accidents, homicide and suicide, often require additional investigation that tends to delay certification of the cause and manner of death. This can result in significant under-reporting of these deaths in provisional data.

The final data tables include both deaths that occurred in each California county regardless of the place of residence (by occurrence) and deaths to residents of each California county (by residence), whereas the provisional data table only includes deaths that occurred in each county regardless of the place of residence (by occurrence). The data are reported as totals, as well as stratified by age, gender, race-ethnicity, and death place type. Deaths due to all causes (ALL) and selected underlying cause of death categories are provided. See temporal coverage for more information on which combinations are available for which years.

The cause of death categories are based solely on the underlying cause of death as coded by the International Classification of Diseases. The underlying cause of death is defined by the World Health Organization (WHO) as "the disease or injury which initiated the train of events leading directly to death, or the circumstances of the accident or violence which produced the fatal injury." It is a single value assigned to each death based on the details as entered on the death certificate. When more than one cause is listed, the order in which they are listed can affect which cause is coded as the underlying cause. This means that similar events could be coded with different underlying causes of death depending on variations in how they were entered. Consequently, while underlying cause of death provides a convenient comparison between cause of death categories, it may not capture the full impact of each cause of death as it does not always take into account all conditions contributing to the death.

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.

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 | |:-------------------------------------------|:-------------------------------------------------------------------...

United States US: Mortality Rate Attributed to Household and Ambient Air Pollution: Age-standardized: Male data was reported at 17.000 NA in 2016. United States US: Mortality Rate Attributed to Household and Ambient Air Pollution: Age-standardized: Male data is updated yearly, averaging 17.000 NA from Dec 2016 (Median) to 2016, with 1 observations. United States US: Mortality Rate Attributed to Household and Ambient Air Pollution: Age-standardized: Male data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by World Bank. The data is categorized under Global Database’s United States – Table US.World Bank.WDI: Health Statistics. Mortality rate attributed to household and ambient air pollution is the number of deaths attributable to the joint effects of household and ambient air pollution in a year per 100,000 population. The rates are age-standardized. Following diseases are taken into account: acute respiratory infections (estimated for all ages); cerebrovascular diseases in adults (estimated above 25 years); ischaemic heart diseases in adults (estimated above 25 years); chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in adults (estimated above 25 years); and lung cancer in adults (estimated above 25 years).; ; World Health Organization, Global Health Observatory Data Repository (http://apps.who.int/ghodata/).; Weighted average;

Rank, number of deaths, percentage of deaths, and age-specific mortality rates for the leading causes of death, by age group and sex, 2000 to most recent year.

ABSTRACT Background: Following two years of the Covid-19 pandemic, thousands of deaths were registered around the world, however, death tolls differed from a country to another. A question on whether climate parameters in each country could or not affects coronavirus incidence and Covid-19 death toll is under debate. Objective: In the present work, it is aimed to check the numbers of deaths caused by Covid-19 in 39 countries of four continents (America, Europe, Africa and Asia), and to analyse their possible correlation with climate parameters in a given country, such as the mean of annual temperature, the annual average sunshine hours and the annual average UV index in each country. Methods: We have sought the deaths number caused by Covid-19 in 39 countries and have analysed its correlation degree with the mean annual temperature, the average annual sunshine hours and the average annual UV index. Correlation and determination factors were obtained by Microsoft Exell software (2016). Results: In the present study, higher numbers of deaths related to Covid-19 were registered in many countries of Europe and America compared to other countries in Africa and Asia. On the other hand, after both the first year and the second year of the pandemic, the death numbers registered in the 39 countries of our study were very negatively correlated with the three climate factors of our study, namely, annual average temperature, sunshine hours and UV index. Conclusion:The results of the present study prove that the above climate parameters may have some kind of influence on the coronavirus incidence through a yet unknown mechanism. Our data support the hypothesis that countries which have elevated annual temperatures and elevated sunshine hours may be less vulnerable to the coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 and to its associated Covid-19 disease. Countries with the above characteristics have also elevated levels of average annual UV rays that might play a key role against the spread of the coronavirus.Thus, geographical latitude and longitude of a given country could have been the key points for the outcome of virus incidence and Covid-19 spread around the globe during the past two years. The results prove that elevated levels of temperature, sunshine hours and UV index could play a protective effect against the coronavirus, although their mechanisms of action are still unknown.

ABSTRACT Background : The Covid-19 pandemic has caused very high death tolls across the world in the last two years. Geographic latitude, climate factors, and other human related conditions such as epidemiologic and demographic history are taught to have played a role in the prevalence of Covid-19. Objective : This observational study aimed to investigate possible relations between geographic latitude-associated climate factors and Covid-19 death numbers in 29 countries. The study also aimed to investigate the relationship between geographic latitude and the history of epidemiologic (cancer, Alzheimer's disease) and demographic factors (birth rate, mortality rate, fertility rate, people aged 65 and over), as well as alcohol intake habits. And finally, the study also aimed to evaluate the relationships between epidemiologic and demographic factors, as well as alcohol intake habits with Covid-19 deaths. Methods : We sought the Covid-19 death toll in 29 countries in Europe, Africa, and the Middle East (located in both hemispheres and between the meridian lines "-15°" and "+50°"). We obtained the death numbers for Covid-19 and other geographic (latitude, longitude) and climate factors (average annual temperature, sunshine hours, and UV index) and epidemiologic and demographic parameters as well as data on alcohol intake per capita from official web pages. Based on records of epidemiologic and demographic history, and alcohol intake data, we have calculated a General Immune Capacity (GIC) score for each country. Geographic latitude and climate factors were plotted against each of Covid-19 death numbers, epidemiologic and demographic parameters, and alcohol intake per capita. Data was analysed by simple linear regression or polynomial regression. All statistical data was collected using Microsoft Excell software (2016). Results : Our observational study found higher death numbers in the higher geographic latitudes of both hemispheres, while lower scores of deaths were registered in countries located around the equator line and low latitudes. When the Covid-19 death numbers were plotted against the geographic latitude of each country, an inverted bell-shaped curve was obtained (coefficient of determination R2=0.553). In contrast, bell-shaped curves were obtained when latitude was plotted against annual average temperature (coefficient of determination R2= 0.91), average annual sunshine hours (coefficient of determination R2= 0.79) and average annual UV index (coefficient of determination R2= 0.89). In addition, plotting the latitude of each country against the General Immune Capacity score of each country gave an inverted bell-shaped curve (coefficient of determination R2=0.755). Linear regression analysis of the General Immune Capacity score of each country and its Covid-19 deaths showed a very significant negative correlation (coefficient of determination R² = 0,71, p=6.79x10-9). Linear regression analysis of the Covid-19 death number plotted against the average annual temperature temperature and the average annual sunshine hours or the average annual UV index gave very significant negative correlations with the following coefficients of determination: (R2 = 0.69, p = 1.94x10-8), (R2 = 0.536, p = 6.31x10-6) and (R2 = 0.599, p = 8.30x10-7), respectively. Linear regression analysis of the General Immune Capacity score of each country plotted against its average annual temperature temperature and the average annual sunshine hours or the average annual UV index gave very significant negative correlations, with the following coefficients of determination: (R2 = 0.86, p = 3.63x10-13), (R2 = 0.69, p = 2.18x10-8) and (R2 = 0.77, p= 2.47x10-10), respectively. Conclusion : The results of the present study prove that at certain geographic latitudes and their three associated climate parameters are negatively correlated to Covid-19 mortality. On the other hand, our data showed that the General Immune Capacity score, which includes many human related parameters, is inversely correlated to Covid-19 mortality. Likewise, geographic location and health and demographic history were key elements in the prevalence of the Covid-19 pandemic in a given country. On the other hand, the study points to the possible protective role of UV light against Covid-19. The therapeutic potential of UV light against the Covid-19 associated with SARS-Cov-2 is discussed.

Age-Adjusted Death Rates

Death Rates and Life Expectancy in the United States, 2011-2013

By Health [source]

About this dataset

More Datasets

For more datasets, click here.

Featured Notebooks

• 🚨 Your notebook can be here! 🚨!

How to use the dataset

In order to use this dataset, start by selecting a particular set of variables to investigate. You can choose from Measure Names (e.g., Death Rates or Life Expectancy), Race (e.g., All Races), Sex (Male/Female) and Year (2011-2013). Once you have selected your desired variables, you can begin analyzing the data by looking at mortality rates and life expectancy averages amongst different populations in the United States over time.

You may also wish to perform more detailed analyses such as identifying trends or examining correlations between features, regional disparities in mortality rates or changes in average life expectancies over time. If so, you can do so by creating line graphs plotted against one or more independent variables such as Race and Sex to see how demographics impact these statistics overall and on a yearly basis using the Year variable computed from July 1st 2010 estimates

Research Ideas

• Analyzing mortality and life expectancy trends among certain races and sexes over time.
• Examining the effects of different socioeconomic factors on death rates and life expectancies.
• Making predictions about future mortality rates and average life expectancies with machine learning algorithms

Acknowledgements

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

License

License: Open Database License (ODbL) v1.0 - You are free to: - Share - copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format. - 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. - No Derivatives - If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you may not distribute the modified material. - No additional restrictions - You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.

Columns

File: rows.csv | Column name | Description | |:----------------------------|:----------------------------------------------------------------------| | Measure Names | The type of measure being reported. (String) | | Race | The race of the population being reported. (String) | | Sex | The gender of the population being reported. (String) | | Year | The year the data was collected. (Integer) | | Average Life Expectancy | The average life expectancy of the population being reported. (Float) | | Mortality | The mortality rate of the population being reported. (Float) |

Acknowledgements

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

Life table data for "Bounce backs amid continued losses: Life expectancy changes since COVID-19"

cc-by Jonas Schöley, José Manuel Aburto, Ilya Kashnitsky, Maxi S. Kniffka, Luyin Zhang, Hannaliis Jaadla, Jennifer B. Dowd, and Ridhi Kashyap. "Bounce backs amid continued losses: Life expectancy changes since COVID-19".

These are CSV files of life tables over the years 2015 through 2021 across 29 countries analyzed in the paper "Bounce backs amid continued losses: Life expectancy changes since COVID-19".

40-lifetables.csv

Life table statistics 2015 through 2021 by sex, region and quarter with uncertainty quantiles based on Poisson replication of death counts. Actual life tables and expected life tables (under the assumption of pre-COVID mortality trend continuation) are provided.

30-lt_input.csv

Life table input data.

id: unique row identifier

region_iso: iso3166-2 region codes

sex: Male, Female, Total

year: iso year

age_start: start of age group

age_width: width of age group, Inf for age_start 100, otherwise 1

nweeks_year: number of weeks in that year, 52 or 53

death_total: number of deaths by any cause

population_py: person-years of exposure (adjusted for leap-weeks and missing weeks in input data on all cause deaths)

death_total_nweeksmiss: number of weeks in the raw input data with at least one missing death count for this region-sex-year stratum. missings are counted when the week is implicitly missing from the input data or if any NAs are encounted in this week or if age groups are implicitly missing for this week in the input data (e.g. 40-45, 50-55)

death_total_minnageraw: the minimum number of age-groups in the raw input data within this region-sex-year stratum

death_total_maxnageraw: the maximum number of age-groups in the raw input data within this region-sex-year stratum

death_total_minopenageraw: the minimum age at the start of the open age group in the raw input data within this region-sex-year stratum

death_total_maxopenageraw: the maximum age at the start of the open age group in the raw input data within this region-sex-year stratum

death_total_source: source of the all-cause death data

death_total_prop_q1: observed proportion of deaths in first quarter of year

death_total_prop_q2: observed proportion of deaths in second quarter of year

death_total_prop_q3: observed proportion of deaths in third quarter of year

death_total_prop_q4: observed proportion of deaths in fourth quarter of year

death_expected_prop_q1: expected proportion of deaths in first quarter of year

death_expected_prop_q2: expected proportion of deaths in second quarter of year

death_expected_prop_q3: expected proportion of deaths in third quarter of year

death_expected_prop_q4: expected proportion of deaths in fourth quarter of year

population_midyear: midyear population (July 1st)

population_source: source of the population count/exposure data

death_covid: number of deaths due to covid

death_covid_date: number of deaths due to covid as of

death_covid_nageraw: the number of age groups in the covid input data

ex_wpp_estimate: life expectancy estimates from the World Population prospects for a five year period, merged at the midpoint year

ex_hmd_estimate: life expectancy estimates from the Human Mortality Database

nmx_hmd_estimate: death rate estimates from the Human Mortality Database

nmx_cntfc: Lee-Carter death rate projections based on trend in the years 2015 through 2019

Deaths

source:

STMF input data series (https://www.mortality.org/Public/STMF/Outputs/stmf.csv)

ONS for GB-EAW pre 2020

CDC for US pre 2020

STMF:

harmonized to single ages via pclm

pclm iterates over country, sex, year, and within-year age grouping pattern and converts irregular age groupings, which may vary by country, year and week into a regular age grouping of 0:110

smoothing parameters estimated via BIC grid search seperately for every pclm iteration

last age group set to [110,111)

ages 100:110+ are then summed into 100+ to be consistent with mid-year population information

deaths in unknown weeks are considered; deaths in unknown ages are not considered

ONS:

data already in single ages

ages 100:105+ are summed into 100+ to be consistent with mid-year population information

PCLM smoothing applied to for consistency reasons

CDC:

The CDC data comes in single ages 0:100 for the US. For 2020 we only have the STMF data in a much coarser age grouping, i.e. (0, 1, 5, 15, 25, 35, 45, 55, 65, 75, 85+). In order to calculate life-tables in a manner consistent with 2020, we summarise the pre 2020 US death counts into the 2020 age grouping and then apply the pclm ungrouping into single year ages, mirroring the approach to the 2020 data

Population

source:

for years 2000 to 2019: World Population Prospects 2019 single year-age population estimates 1950-2019

for year 2020: World Population Prospects 2019 single year-age population projections 2020-2100

mid-year population

mid-year population translated into exposures:

if a region reports annual deaths using the Gregorian calendar definition of a year (365 or 366 days long) set exposures equal to mid year population estimates

if a region reports annual deaths using the iso-week-year definition of a year (364 or 371 days long), and if there is a leap-week in that year, set exposures equal to 371/364*mid_year_population to account for the longer reporting period. in years without leap-weeks set exposures equal to mid year population estimates. further multiply by fraction of observed weeks on all weeks in a year.

COVID deaths

source: COVerAGE-DB (https://osf.io/mpwjq/)

the data base reports cumulative numbers of COVID deaths over days of a year, we extract the most up to date yearly total

External life expectancy estimates

source:

World Population Prospects (https://population.un.org/wpp/Download/Files/1_Indicators%20(Standard)/CSV_FILES/WPP2019_Life_Table_Medium.csv), estimates for the five year period 2015-2019

Human Mortality Database (https://mortality.org/), single year and age tables

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.Revisions added on 4/23/2020 are highlighted.Revisions added on 4/30/2020 are highlighted.Discussion of our assertion of an abundance of caution in assigning trends in rural counties added 5/7/2020. Correction on 6/1/2020Methodology update on 6/2/2020: This sets the length of the tail of new cases to 6 to a maximum of 14 days, rather than 21 days as determined by the last 1/3 of cases. This was done to align trends and criteria for them with U.S. CDC guidance. The impact is areas transition into Controlled trend sooner for not bearing the burden of new case 15-21 days earlier.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. Back-casting revisions: In the Johns Hopkins’ data, the structure is to provide the cumulative number of cases per day, which presumes an ever-increasing sequence of numbers, e.g., 0,0,1,1,2,5,7,7,7, etc. However, revisions do occur and would look like, 0,0,1,1,2,5,7,7,6. To accommodate this, we revised the lists to eliminate decreases, which make this list look like, 0,0,1,1,2,5,6,6,6.Reporting Interval: In the early weeks, Johns Hopkins' data provided reporting every day regardless of change. In late April, this changed allowing for days to be skipped if no new data was available. The day was still included, but the value of total cases was set to Null. The processing therefore was updated to include tracking of the spacing between intervals with valid values.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 fourteen days. A minimum of 21 days of cases is required for analysis but cannot be considered reliable. Thus, a preference of 42 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 14 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 14 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 14 days indicates the potential of the past 2 days being an aberration. Past five days is greater than past 14 days and less than past 2 days indicates slight positive trend, but likely still within peak trend time frame.Past five days is less than the past 14 days. This means a downward trend. This would be an

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.

United States US: Mortality Rate Attributed to Household and Ambient Air Pollution: per 100,000 Population data was reported at 13.300 Ratio in 2016. United States US: Mortality Rate Attributed to Household and Ambient Air Pollution: per 100,000 Population data is updated yearly, averaging 13.300 Ratio from Dec 2016 (Median) to 2016, with 1 observations. United States US: Mortality Rate Attributed to Household and Ambient Air Pollution: per 100,000 Population data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by World Bank. The data is categorized under Global Database’s USA – Table US.World Bank: Health Statistics. Mortality rate attributed to household and ambient air pollution is the number of deaths attributable to the joint effects of household and ambient air pollution in a year per 100,000 population. The rates are age-standardized. Following diseases are taken into account: acute respiratory infections (estimated for all ages); cerebrovascular diseases in adults (estimated above 25 years); ischaemic heart diseases in adults (estimated above 25 years); chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in adults (estimated above 25 years); and lung cancer in adults (estimated above 25 years).; ; World Health Organization, Global Health Observatory Data Repository (http://apps.who.int/ghodata/).; Weighted average;

One in every 100 children dies before completing one year of life. Around 68 percent of infant mortality is attributed to deaths of children before completing 1 month. 15,000 children die every day – Child mortality is an everyday tragedy of enormous scale that rarely makes the headlines Child mortality rates have declined in all world regions, but the world is not on track to reach the Sustainable Development Goal for child mortality Before the Modern Revolution child mortality was very high in all societies that we have knowledge of – a quarter of all children died in the first year of life, almost half died before reaching the end of puberty Over the last two centuries all countries in the world have made very rapid progress against child mortality. From 1800 to 1950 global mortality has halved from around 43% to 22.5%. Since 1950 the mortality rate has declined five-fold to 4.5% in 2015. All countries in the world have benefitted from this progress In the past it was very common for parents to see children die, because both, child mortality rates and fertility rates were very high. In Europe in the mid 18th century parents lost on average between 3 and 4 of their children Based on this overview we are asking where the world is today – where are children dying and what are they dying from?

5.4 million children died in 2017 – Where did these children die? Pneumonia is the most common cause of death, preterm births and neonatal disorders is second, and diarrheal diseases are third – What are children today dying from? This is the basis for answering the question what can we do to make further progress against child mortality? We will extend this entry over the course of 2020.

@article{owidchildmortality, author = {Max Roser, Hannah Ritchie and Bernadeta Dadonaite}, title = {Child and Infant Mortality}, journal = {Our World in Data}, year = {2013}, note = {https://ourworldindata.org/child-mortality} }