The number of deaths registered in England and Wales due to and involving coronavirus (COVID-19). Breakdowns include age, sex, region, local authority, Middle-layer Super Output Area (MSOA), indices of deprivation and place of death. Includes age-specific and age-standardised mortality rates.

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.

Pre-existing conditions of people who died due to COVID-19, broken down by country, broad age group, and place of death occurrence, usual residents of England and Wales.

The purpose of this dataset is to understand the prevalence of the coronavirus in the UK population, using longitudinal data and including not only cross-sectional data but the inclusion of an antibody test for a sub-sample of people. Demographic information is also included allowing for analyse by different variables to identify patterns and trends.

Participants have three options open to them; can have just have one visit, can have a visit every week for a month or, can have a visit every week for a month and then continue to have visits every month for one year in total from when you joined the study. This is entirely voluntary.

At each visit a field worker conducts a questionnaire, and supervises swab tests. A proportion of visits also include a blood sample being taken. The swab and blood samples are tested at laboratories.

The overall purpose of this study is to understand how many people across the UK have or may already have had the coronavirus. This will help the government manage the pandemic moving forwards.

The COVID-19 Community Infection Survey includes information on: • how many people across England and Wales (extending to Scotland and Northern Ireland) test positive for COVID-19 at a given point in time, regardless of whether they report experiencing symptoms • the average number of new infections per week over the course of the study • the number of people who test positive for antibodies, to indicate how many people are ever likely to have had the virus • key demographic information (sex, age, occupation)

Findings from the Coronavirus (COVID-19) Infection Survey for England.

Understanding Society, (UK Household Longitudinal Study), which began in 2009, is conducted by the Institute for Social and Economic Research (ISER) at the University of Essex and the survey research organisations Verian Group (formerly Kantar Public) and NatCen. It builds on and incorporates, the British Household Panel Survey (BHPS), which began in 1991.

Understanding Society (UK Household Longitudinal Study), which began in 2009, is conducted by the Institute for Social and Economic Research (ISER) at the University of Essex and the survey research organisations Kantar Public and NatCen. It builds on and incorporates, the British Household Panel Survey (BHPS), which began in 1991.

The Understanding Society COVID-19 Study, 2020-2021 is a regular survey of households in the UK. The aim of the study is to enable research on the socio-economic and health consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic, in the short and long term. The surveys started in April 2020 and took place monthly until July 2020. From September 2020 they took place every other month until March 2021 and the final wave was fielded in September 2021. They complement the annual interviews of the Understanding Society study. The data can be linked to data on the same individuals from previous waves of the annual interviews (SN 6614) using the personal identifier pidp. However, the most recent pre-pandemic (2019) annual interviews for all respondents who have taken part in the COVID-19 Study are included as part of this data release. Please refer to the User Guide for further information on linking in this way and for geographical information options.

Latest edition information

For the eleventh edition (December 2021), revised April, May, June, July, September, November 2020, January 2021 and March 2021 data files for the adult survey have been deposited. These files have been amended to address issues identified during ongoing quality assurance activities. All documentation has been updated to explain the revisions, and users are advised to consult the documentation for details. In addition new data from the September 2021 web survey have been deposited.

As of May 2, 2023, there were roughly 687 million global cases of COVID-19. Around 660 million people had recovered from the disease, while there had been almost 6.87 million deaths. The United States, India, and Brazil have been among the countries hardest hit by the pandemic.

The various types of human coronavirus The SARS-CoV-2 virus is the seventh known coronavirus to infect humans. Its emergence makes it the third in recent years to cause widespread infectious disease following the viruses responsible for SARS and MERS. A continual problem is that viruses naturally mutate as they attempt to survive. Notable new variants of SARS-CoV-2 were first identified in the UK, South Africa, and Brazil. Variants are of particular interest because they are associated with increased transmission.

Vaccination campaigns Common human coronaviruses typically cause mild symptoms such as a cough or a cold, but the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 has led to more severe respiratory illnesses and deaths worldwide. Several COVID-19 vaccines have now been approved and are being used around the world.

Due to changes in the collection and availability of data on COVID-19, this dataset is no longer updated. Latest information about COVID-19 is available via the UKHSA data dashboard. The UK government publish daily data, updated weekly, on COVID-19 cases, vaccinations, hospital admissions and deaths. This note provides a summary of the key data for London from this release. Data are published through the UK Coronavirus Dashboard, last updated on 23 March 2023. This update contains: Data on the number of cases identified daily through Pillar 1 and Pillar 2 testing at the national, regional and local authority level Data on the number of people who have been vaccinated against COVID-19 Data on the number of COVID-19 patients in Hospital Data on the number of people who have died within 28 days of a COVID-19 diagnosis Data for London and London boroughs and data disaggregated by age group Data on weekly deaths related to COVID-19, published by the Office for National Statistics and NHS, is also available. Key Points On 23 March 2023 the daily number of people tested positive for COVID-19 in London was reported as 2,775 On 23 March 2023 it was newly reported that 94 people in London died within 28 days of a positive COVID-19 test The total number of COVID-19 cases identified in London to date is 3,146,752 comprising 15.2 percent of the England total of 20,714,868 cases In the most recent week of complete data (12 March 2023 - 18 March 2023) 2,951 new cases were identified in London, a rate of 33 cases per 100,000 population. This compares with 2,883 cases and a rate of 32 for the previous week In England as a whole, 29,426 new cases were identified in the most recent week of data, a rate of 52 cases per 100,000 population. This compares with 26,368 cases and a rate of 47 for the previous week Up to and including 22 March 2023 6,452,895 people in London had received the first dose of a COVID-19 vaccine and 6,068,578 had received two doses Up to and including 22 March 2023 4,435,586 people in London had received either a third vaccine dose or a booster dose On 22 March 2023 there were 1,370 COVID-19 patients in London hospitals. This compares with 1,426 patients on 15 March 2023. On 22 March 2023 there were 70 COVID-19 patients in mechanical ventilation beds in London hospitals. This compares with 72 patients on 15 March 2023. Update: From 1st July updates are weekly From Friday 1 July 2022, this page will be updated weekly rather than daily. This change results from a change to the UK government COVID-19 Dashboard which will move to weekly reporting. Weekly updates will be published every Thursday. Daily data up to the most recent available will continue to be added in each weekly update. Data summary 리소스 CSV phe_vaccines_age_london_boroughs.csv CSV 다운로드 phe_vaccines_age_london_boroughs.csv CSV phe_healthcare_admissions_age.csv CSV 다운로드

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

Where are these numbers coming from?

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

A word on the flaws of numbers like this

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

Abstract copyright UK Data Service and data collection copyright owner.

As the UK went into the first lockdown of the COVID-19 pandemic, the team behind the biggest social survey in the UK, Understanding Society (UKHLS), developed a way to capture these experiences. From April 2020, participants from this Study were asked to take part in the Understanding Society COVID-19 survey, henceforth referred to as the COVID-19 survey or the COVID-19 study.

The COVID-19 survey regularly asked people about their situation and experiences. The resulting data gives a unique insight into the impact of the pandemic on individuals, families, and communities. The COVID-19 Teaching Dataset contains data from the main COVID-19 survey in a simplified form. It covers topics such as

• Socio-demographics
• Whether working at home and home-schooling
• COVID symptoms
• Health and well-being
• Social contact and neighbourhood cohesion
• Volunteering

The resource contains two data files:

• Cross-sectional: contains data collected in Wave 4 in July 2020 (with some additional variables from other waves);
• Longitudinal: Contains mainly data from Waves 1, 4 and 9 with key variables measured at three time points.

Key features of the dataset

• Missing values: in the web survey, participants clicking "Next" but not answering a question were given further options such as "Don't know" and "Prefer not to say". Missing observations like these are recorded using negative values such as -1 for "Don't know". In many instances, users of the data will need to set these values as missing. The User Guide includes Stata and SPSS code for setting negative missing values to system missing.

• The Longitudinal file is a balanced panel and is in wide format. A balanced panel means it only includes participants that took part in every wave. In wide format, each participant has one row of information, and each measurement of the same variable is a different variable.

• Weights: both the cross-sectional and longitudinal files include survey weights that adjust the sample to represent the UK adult population. The cross-sectional weight (betaindin_xw) adjusts for unequal selection probabilities in the sample design and for non-response. The longitudinal weight (ci_betaindin_lw) adjusts for the sample design and also for the fact that not all those invited to participate in the survey, do participate in all waves.

• Both the cross-sectional and longitudinal datasets include the survey design variables (psu and strata).

A full list of variables in both files can be found in the User Guide appendix.

Who is in the sample?

All adults (16 years old and over as of April 2020), in households who had participated in at least one of the last two waves of the main study Understanding Society, were invited to participate in this survey. From the September 2020 (Wave 5) survey onwards, only sample members who had completed at least one partial interview in any of the first four web surveys were invited to participate. From the November 2020 (Wave 6) survey onwards, those who had only completed the initial survey in April 2020 and none since, were no longer invited to participate

The User guide accompanying the data adds to the information here and includes a full variable list with details of measurement levels and links to the relevant questionnaire.

• Socio-demographics;
• Whether working at home and home-schooling;
• COVID symptoms;
• Health and well-being;
• Social contact and neighbourhood cohesion;
• Volunteering.

This open data publication has moved to COVID-19 Statistical Data in Scotland (from 02/11/2022) Novel coronavirus (COVID-19) is a new strain of coronavirus first identified in Wuhan, China. Clinical presentation may range from mild-to-moderate illness to pneumonia or severe acute respiratory infection. This dataset provides information on demographic characteristics (age, sex, deprivation) of confirmed novel coronavirus (COVID-19) cases, as well as trend data regarding the wider impact of the virus on the healthcare system. Data includes information on primary care out of hours consultations, respiratory calls made to NHS24, contact with COVID-19 Hubs and Assessment Centres, incidents received by Scottish Ambulance Services (SAS), as well as COVID-19 related hospital admissions and admissions to ICU (Intensive Care Unit). Further data on the wider impact of the COVID-19 response, focusing on hospital admissions, unscheduled care and volume of calls to NHS24, is available on the COVID-19 Wider Impact Dashboard. There is a large amount of data being regularly published regarding COVID-19 (for example, Coronavirus in Scotland - Scottish Government and Deaths involving coronavirus in Scotland - National Records of Scotland. Additional data sources relating to this topic area are provided in the Links section of the Metadata below. Information on COVID-19, including stay at home advice for people who are self-isolating and their households, can be found on NHS Inform. All publications and supporting material to this topic area can be found in the weekly COVID-19 Statistical Report. The date of the next release can be found on our list of forthcoming publications. Data visualisation is available to view in the interactive dashboard accompanying the COVID-19 Statistical Report. Please note information on COVID-19 in children and young people of educational age, education staff and educational settings is presented in a new COVID-19 Education Surveillance dataset going forward.

There is an urgent need to understand the factors that mediate and mitigate the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on behaviour and wellbeing. However, the onset of the outbreak was unexpected and the rate of acceleration so rapid as to preclude the planning of studies that can address these critical issues. Coincidentally, in January 2020, just prior to the outbreak in the UK, my team launched a study that collected detailed (~50 minute) cognitive and questionnaire assessments from >200,000 members of the UK public as part of a collaboration with the BBC. This placed us in a unique position to examine how aspects of mental health subsequently changed as the pandemic arrived in the UK. Therefore, we collected data from a further ~120,000 people in May, including additional detailed measures of self-perceived pandemic impact and free text descriptions of the main positives, negatives and pragmatic measures that people found helped them maintain their wellbeing.

In this data archive, we include the survey data from January and May 2020 examining impact of Covid-19 on mood, wellbeing and behaviour in the UK population. This data is reported in a preprint article, where we apply a novel fusion of psychometric, multivariate and machine learning analyses to this unique dataset, in order to address some of the most pressing questions regarding wellbeing during the pandemic in a data-driven manner. The preprint is available on this URL. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.06.18.20134635v1

Provisional counts of the number of deaths and age-standardised mortality rates involving the coronavirus (COVID-19), by occupational groups, for deaths registered between 9 March and 28 December 2020 in England and Wales. Figures are provided for males and females.

The Public Health Research Database (PHRD) is a linked asset which currently includes Census 2011 data; Mortality Data; Hospital Episode Statistics (HES); GP Extraction Service (GPES) Data for Pandemic Planning and Research data. Researchers may apply for these datasets individually or any combination of the current 4 datasets.

The purpose of this dataset is to enable analysis of deaths involving COVID-19 by multiple factors such as ethnicity, religion, disability and known comorbidities as well as age, sex, socioeconomic and marital status at subnational levels. 2011 Census data for usual residents of England and Wales, who were not known to have died by 1 January 2020, linked to death registrations for deaths registered between 1 January 2020 and 8 March 2021 on NHS number. The data exclude individuals who entered the UK in the year before the Census took place (due to their high propensity to have left the UK prior to the study period), and those over 100 years of age at the time of the Census, even if their death was not linked. The dataset contains all individuals who died (any cause) during the study period, and a 5% simple random sample of those still alive at the end of the study period. For usual residents of England, the dataset also contains comorbidity flags derived from linked Hospital Episode Statistics data from April 2017 to December 2019 and GP Extraction Service Data from 2015-2019.

OMOP dataset: Hospital COVID patients: severity, acuity, therapies, outcomes Dataset number 2.0

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was identified in January 2020. Currently, there have been more than 6 million cases & more than 1.5 million deaths worldwide. Some individuals experience severe manifestations of infection, including viral pneumonia, adult respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) & death. There is a pressing need for tools to stratify patients, to identify those at greatest risk. Acuity scores are composite scores which help identify patients who are more unwell to support & prioritise clinical care. There are no validated acuity scores for COVID-19 & it is unclear whether standard tools are accurate enough to provide this support. This secondary care COVID OMOP dataset contains granular demographic, morbidity, serial acuity and outcome data to inform risk prediction tools in COVID-19.

PIONEER geography The West Midlands (WM) has a population of 5.9 million & includes a diverse ethnic & socio-economic mix. There is a higher than average percentage of minority ethnic groups. WM has a large number of elderly residents but is the youngest population in the UK. Each day >100,000 people are treated in hospital, see their GP or are cared for by the NHS. The West Midlands was one of the hardest hit regions for COVID admissions in both wave 1 & 2.

EHR. University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust (UHB) is one of the largest NHS Trusts in England, providing direct acute services & specialist care across four hospital sites, with 2.2 million patient episodes per year, 2750 beds & 100 ITU beds. UHB runs a fully electronic healthcare record (EHR) (PICS; Birmingham Systems), a shared primary & secondary care record (Your Care Connected) & a patient portal “My Health”. UHB has cared for >5000 COVID admissions to date. This is a subset of data in OMOP format.

Scope: All COVID swab confirmed hospitalised patients to UHB from January – August 2020. The dataset includes highly granular patient demographics & co-morbidities taken from ICD-10 & SNOMED-CT codes. Serial, structured data pertaining to care process (timings, staff grades, specialty review, wards), presenting complaint, acuity, all physiology readings (pulse, blood pressure, respiratory rate, oxygen saturations), all blood results, microbiology, all prescribed & administered treatments (fluids, antibiotics, inotropes, vasopressors, organ support), all outcomes.

Available supplementary data: Health data preceding & following admission event. Matched “non-COVID” controls; ambulance, 111, 999 data, synthetic data. Further OMOP data available as an additional service.

Available supplementary support: Analytics, Model build, validation & refinement; A.I.; Data partner support for ETL (extract, transform & load) process, Clinical expertise, Patient & end-user access, Purchaser access, Regulatory requirements, Data-driven trials, “fast screen” services.

Further information about the study may be found on the COVID Social Mobility and Opportunities Study (COSMO) webpage.

Further information about the study may be found on the COSMO website.

This data was generated as part of an 18 month ESRC funded project,as part of UKRI’s rapid response to COVID-19. The project examines how UK period poverty initiatives mitigated Covid-19 challenges in light of lockdown measures and closure of services, and how they continued to meet the needs of those experiencing period poverty across the UK. Applied social science research methodologies were utilised to collect and analyse data as this project, about the Covid-19 pandemic, was undertaken during an ongoing ‘real world’ pandemic. Data collection was divided into two phases. Phase 1 (October 2020 – February 2021) collected data from period poverty organisations in the UK using semi-structured interviews and an online survey to develop an in-depth understanding of how period poverty organisations were responding to and navigating the Covid-19 Pandemic. Having collected and analysed this data, phase 2 (June – September 2021) used an online survey to collect data from people experiencing period poverty in order to better understand their lived experiences during the pandemic. Our dataset comprises of phase 1 interview transcripts and online survey responses, and phase 2 online survey responses.

Period poverty refers not only to economic hardship with accessing period products, but also to a poverty of education, resources, rights and freedom from stigma for girls and menstruators (1). Since March 2020, and the introduction of lockdown/social distancing measures as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic, more than 1 of every 10 girls (aged 14-21) cannot afford period products and instead must use makeshift products (toilet roll, socks/other fabric, newspaper/paper). Nearly a quarter (22%) of those who can afford products struggle to access them, mostly because they cannot find them in the shops, or because their usual source/s is low on products/closed (2).

Community /non-profit initiatives face new challenges related to Covid-19 lockdown measures as they strive to continue to support those experiencing period poverty. Challenges include accessing stocks of period products, distribution of products given lockdown restrictions, availability of staff/volunteer assistance and the emergence of 'new' vulnerable groups. There is an urgent need to capture how initiatives are adapting to challenges, to continue to support the needs of those experiencing period poverty during the pandemic. This data is crucial to informing current practice, shaping policy, developing strategies within the ongoing crisis and any future crises, and ensuring women and girls' voices are centralised.

The project builds upon existing limited knowledge by providing insight into how UK based initiatives and projects are mitigating challenges linked to Covid-19, by examining how they are continuing to meet the needs of those experiencing period poverty and identifying any gaps in provision.

1. Montgomery P., et al., 2016. Menstruation and the Cycle of Poverty. PLoS ONE 11(12): e0166122.
2. Plan International UK, 2020. The State of Girls' Rights in the UK: Early insights into the impact of the coronavirus pandemic on girls. London: Plan International UK

Abstract copyright UK Data Service and data collection copyright owner.Understanding Society, (UK Household Longitudinal Study), which began in 2009, is conducted by the Institute for Social and Economic Research (ISER) at the University of Essex and the survey research organisations Kantar Public and NatCen. It builds on and incorporates, the British Household Panel Survey (BHPS), which began in 1991. Understanding Society (UK Household Longitudinal Study), which began in 2009, is conducted by the Institute for Social and Economic Research (ISER) at the University of Essex and the survey research organisations Kantar Public and NatCen. It builds on and incorporates, the British Household Panel Survey (BHPS), which began in 1991. The Understanding Society COVID-19 Study, 2020-2021 is a regular survey of households in the UK. The aim of the study is to enable research on the socio-economic and health consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic, in the short and long term. The surveys started in April 2020 and took place monthly until July 2020. From September 2020 they took place every other month until March 2021 and the final wave was fielded in September 2021. They complement the annual interviews of the Understanding Society study. The data can be linked to data on the same individuals from previous waves of the annual interviews (SN 6614) using the personal identifier pidp. However, the most recent pre-pandemic (2019) annual interviews for all respondents who have taken part in the COVID-19 Study are included as part of this data release. Please refer to the User Guide for further information on linking in this way and for geographical information options. Latest edition information For the eleventh edition (December 2021), revised April, May, June, July, September, November 2020, January 2021 and March 2021 data files for the adult survey have been deposited. These files have been amended to address issues identified during ongoing quality assurance activities. All documentation has been updated to explain the revisions, and users are advised to consult the documentation for details. In addition new data from the September 2021 web survey have been deposited.