Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) time series listing confirmed cases, reported deaths and reported recoveries. Data is disaggregated by country (and sometimes subregion). Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is caused by the Severe acute respiratory syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and has had a worldwide effect. On March 11 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared it a pandemic, pointing to the over 118,000 cases of the Coronavirus illness in over 110 countries and territories around the world at the time.

This dataset includes time series data tracking the number of people affected by COVID-19 worldwide, including:

1. - confirmed tested cases of Coronavirus infection
2. the number of people who have reportedly died while sick with Coronavirus
3. the number of people who have reportedly recovered from it

The system of social indicators for the Federal Republic of Germany - developed in its original version as part of the SPES project under the direction of Wolfgang Zapf - provides quantitative information on levels, distributions and changes in quality of life, social progress and social change in Germany from 1950 to 2013, i.e. over a period of more than sixty years. With the approximately 400 objective and subjective indicators that the indicator system comprises in total, it claims to measure welfare and quality of life in Germany in a differentiated way across various areas of life and to monitor them over time. In addition to the indicators for 13 areas of life, including income, education and health, a selection of cross-cutting global welfare measures were also included in the indicator system, i.e. general welfare indicators such as life satisfaction, social isolation or the Human Development Index. Based on available data from official statistics and survey data, time series were compiled for all indicators, ideally with annual values from 1950 to 2013. Around 90 of the indicators were marked as "key indicators" in order to highlight central dimensions of welfare and quality of life across the various areas of life. The further development and expansion, regular maintenance and updating as well as the provision of the data of the system of social indicators for the Federal Republic of Germany have been among the tasks of the Center for Social Indicator Research, which is based at GESIS, since 1987. For a detailed description of the system of social indicators for the Federal Republic of Germany, see the study description under "Other documents". Health status [first level: Life expectancy; Causes of death; Health of life: Days of incapacity for work per person; Sick leave; Outpatient medical treatment cases; Sick days per resident; Proportion of the population with ongoing illness or disability; Share of population taking medication regularly; Health security; Insurance protection in the event of illness ; Outpatient and inpatient care; Expenditure on health security; Disease prevention measures; Health-relevant living conditions: Working world and health; Road traffic accidents and health; Alcohol and health; Smoking and health; Nutrition and health Das System sozialer Indikatoren für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland – in seiner ursprünglichen Version im Rahmen des SPES-Projekts unter der Leitung von Wolfgang Zapf entwickelt – bietet quantitative Informationen zu Niveaus, Verteilungen und Veränderungen der Lebensqualität, gesellschaftlichen Fortschritt und sozialen Wandel in Deutschland von 1950 bis 2013, also über einen Zeitraum von mehr als sechzig Jahren. Mit den ca. 400 objektiven und subjektiven Indikatoren, die das Indikatorensystem insgesamt umfasst, wird beansprucht, Wohlfahrt und Lebensqualität in Deutschland über verschiedene Lebensbereiche hinweg differenziert zu messen und im Zeitverlauf zu beobachten. Neben den Indikatoren für 13 Lebensbereiche, u.a. Einkommen, Bildung und Gesundheit, wurde zudem eine Auswahl von bereichsübergreifenden globalen Wohlfahrtsmaßen in das Indikatorensystem einbezogen, d.h. allgemeine Wohlfahrtsindikatoren, wie z.B. die Lebenszufriedenheit, soziale Isolierung oder der Human Development Index. Basierend auf verfügbaren Daten der amtlichen Statistik und Umfragedaten wurden für sämtliche Indikatoren Zeitreihen zusammengestellt, im Idealfall mit jährlichen Werten von 1950 bis 2013. Von den Indikatoren wurden ca. 90 als “Schlüsselindikatoren” markiert, um zentrale Dimensionen von Wohlfahrt und Lebensqualität über die verschiedenen Lebensbereiche hinweg hervorzuheben. Die Weiterentwicklung und Erweiterung, die regelmäßige Pflege und Aktualisierung sowie die Bereitstellung der Daten des Systems sozialer Indikatoren für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland gehörte seit 1987 zu den Aufgaben des bei GESIS angesiedelten Zentrums für Sozialindikatorenforschung. Für eine ausführliche Darstellung des Systems sozialer Indikatoren für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland vgl. die Studienbeschreibung unter „Andere Dokumente“. Die Daten zu dem Lebensbereich ‚Gesundheit‘ setzen sich wie folgt zusammen: Gesundheitszustand: Lebenserwartung, Todesursachen, Gesundheit des Lebens (Arbeitsunfähigkeitstage pro Person, Krankenstand, Ambulante ärztliche Behandlungsfälle, Krankheitstage pro Einwohner, Bevölkerungsanteil mit andauernder Krankheit oder Behinderung, Bevölkerungsanteil mit regelmäßiger Medikamenteneinnahme), Subjektive Bewertung der Gesundheit. Gesundheitssicherung: Versicherungsschutz im Krankheitsfalle, Ambulante und stationäre Versorgung, Ausgaben für die Gesundheitssicherung, Maßnahmen zur Krankheitsvorsorge. Gesundheitsrelevante Lebensbedingungen: Arbeitswelt und Gesundheit, Straßenverkehrsunfälle und Gesundheit, Alkohol und Gesundheit, Rauchen und Gesundheit, Ernährung und Gesundheit. Sources: Official statistics, Large survey programs. Quellen: Amtliche Statistiken, große Umfrageprogramme.

As the COVID-19 pandemic hit, Orthodox Christians globally reacted to the possibility of contagion and risk in dialogue with theological positions about materials, their own long history which includes surviving previous pandemics and plagues, governmental and civil expectations and edicts, and pious – but often unofficial – understandings about protection and the sacrality of religious artefacts and the space of the temple. This dataset aggregates primary ethnographic research amongst Orthodox Christians in the UK, Serbia, Greece and Russia to highlight commonalities and divergences in Orthodox Christian responses to the pandemic. Examining both the theological basis, and socio-political differences, this dataset focuses on how the Orthodox theology of apophaticism and relationality impacts wider discourses of contagion (both positive and negative), and consequently compliance with public health initiatives. Comparison across diverse Orthodox settings highlights Orthodox Christian concern with the neighbour – both in terms of who may be watching (and reporting) them, and who may fall sick because of them.Aims: This project asks 'What role does the material ecology play in shaping the sociopolitics of Global Orthodoxy?' as a case study for global political discourse and the role of material in the social dynamics of religion. Impact: Orthodox Christianity is a tradition based on discourse, but there has been very little research looking at the specifics of how it works. Focusing on discourse also tends to over emphasise words and belief. But what if, like Max Muller, we insist that religion must start with what is perceived, not with concepts like 'belief in the supernatural'? This means we situate discursive traditions like Orthodoxy not in concepts but in the material culture of local and global religious groups. This reframes how we understand religion, and forefronts the impact that religious practice has upon material aspects of our experience like health, the environment and geopolitics. Context: Much social scientific interest in religion looks at the variation in the lived religion from one place to another. However, there are moments - such as in April 2018 when the President of Ukraine asked the Greek Patriarch to intervene into the Russian Church in the Ukraine - when religion can not be studied only in the local lived expression. Situations such as the conflict in Ukraine are complicated by historic tension between local Orthodox Churches. Disagreements in the interpretation of the theology of the body, person, and environment foment political tension within the Churches, between the Churches and external bodies, and between nations. The materiality of discourse must be seen as central to the form and practice of the tradition. Research: Framed in terms of three research domains, this project focuses on the material conditions of Global Orthodox sociopolitics, conducting research amongst Orthodox Christians and religious institutions. The project investigates how the properties and affordances of the material ecology (including the body, the built environment and wider 'natural' order) shape and are marshalled within the discourse of the Orthodox Churches. The three domains are the Body, Person, and Environment. The Body domain addresses issues such as medical interventions, like IVF and organ donation, which are, across Global Orthodoxy, contentious to varying degrees. The material body becomes a place for negotiating ethical goods (eg extending life, fertility, honouring God). The Person domain examines the variance in permission different churches grant concerning family and marriage practices (eg divorce, family planning). There is also a mounting discourse around identity politics, with some voices pushing for an open approach to homosexuality and women clergy. The material of the body, person, and Church are marshalled as the grounding for historically contingent, philosophically premised, and scientifically inflected arguments for or against 'progressive' movements. Finally, the Environment domain examines the relationship between humans, specific locations, and the earth as a whole. Orthodox theologians highlight an emphasis on 'stewardship of the earth' and call for active engagement in ecological conservation. Issues such as Global Warming take an explicitly religious imperative, as scientific data points to human failure to fulfil their God-given role as caretakers. The control of land (including places like Crimea and Jerusalem) also becomes a religious duty with geopolitical impact. Output: This project will produce one academic book on the material aspects of the sociopolitics of Orthodox Christianity, a book written for a general audience looking at key case studies around contemporary issues in Orthodoxy, six academic articles, white papers and policy advice on various issues relating to the health and wellbeing of Orthodox Christians and their homelands, and pamphlets written with stakeholder community leaders to help address social issues within the community settings. Data collected by a combination of ethnographic methods, including deep hanging out, participant observation, and informal conversations.

Abstract

The KHDS 2010 was designed to provide data to understand changes in living standards of the sample of individuals originally interviewed 16-19 years ago. The KHDS 2010 attempted to re-interview all respondents ever interviewed in the KHDS 91-94 – irrespective of whether the respondent had moved out of the original village, region, or country, or was residing in a new household.

Geographic coverage

Kagera region of Tanzania

Analysis unit

Households and individuals

Universe

The KHDS attempts to re-interview all respondents interviewed in the original KHDS 1991-1994, irrespective of whether the respondent had moved out of the original village, region or country or was residing in a new household.

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

KHDS 1991-1994 Household Sample: First Stage

The KHDS 91-94 household sample was drawn in two stages, with stratification based on geography in the first stage and mortality risk in both stages. A more detailed overview of the sampling procedures is outlined in "User's Guide to the Kagera Health and Development Survey Datasets." (World Bank, 2004).

In the first stage of selecting the sample, the 550 primary sampling units (PSUs) in Kagera region were classified according to eight strata defined over four agronomic zones and, within each zone, the level of adult mortality (high and low). A PSU is a geographical area delineated by the 1988 Tanzanian Census that usually corresponds to a community or, in the case of a town, to a neighbourhood. Enumeration areas of households were drawn randomly from the PSUs in each stratum, with a probability of selection proportional to the size of the PSU.

Within each agronomic zone, PSUs were classified according to the level of adult mortality. The 1988 Tanzanian Census asked a 15 percent sample of households about recent adult deaths. Those answers were aggregated at the level of the "ward", which is an administrative area that is smaller than a district. The adult mortality rate (ages 15-50) was calculated for each ward and each PSU was assigned the mortality rate of its ward.

Because the adult mortality rates were much higher in some zones than others and the distribution was quite different within zones, "high" and "low" mortality PSUs were defined relative to other PSUs within the same zone. A PSU was allocated to the "high" mortality category if its ward adult mortality rate was at the 90th percentile or higher of the ward adult mortality rates within a given agronomic zone.

The KHDS 91-94 selected 51 communities as primary sampling units (also referred to as enumeration areas or clusters). In actuality, two pairs of enumeration areas were within the same community (in the sense of collecting community data on infrastructure, prices or schools). Thus, for community-level surveys, there are 49 areas to interview.

KHDS 1991-1994 Household Sample: Second Stage

The household selection at the second stage (with enumeration areas) was a stratified random sample, where households which were expected to experience an adult death were oversampled. In order to stratify the population, an enumeration of all households was undertaken.

Between March 15 and June 13, 1991, 29,602 households were enumerated in the 51 areas. In addition to recording the name of the head of each household, the number of adults in the household (15 and older), and the number of children, the enumeration form asked:

1. Are any adults in this household ill at this moment and unable to work? If so, the age of the sick adult and the number of weeks he/she has been too sick to work were also noted.
2. Has any adult 15-50 in this household died in the past 12 months? If so, the age of each adult and the cause of death (illness, accident, childbirth, other) were also noted.

The enumeration form asked explicitly about illness and death of adults between the ages of 15-50 because this is the age group disproportionately affected by the HIV/AIDS epidemic; it is the impact of these deaths that was of research interest. Out of over 29,000 households enumerated, only 3.7 percent, or 1,101, had experienced the death of an adult aged 15-50 caused by illness during the 12 months before the interview and only 3.9 percent, or 1,145, contained a prime-age adult too sick to work at the time of the interview. Only 77 households had both an adult death due to illness and a sick adult. This supports the point that, even with some stratification based on community mortality rates and in an area with very high adult mortality caused by an AIDS epidemic, a very large sample would have had to have been selected to ensure a sufficient number of households that would experience an adult death during the two-year survey.

Using data from the enumeration survey, households were stratified according to the extent of adult illness and mortality. It was assumed that in communities suffering from an HIV epidemic, a history of prior adult death or illness in a household might predict future adult deaths in the same household. The households in each enumeration area were classified into two groups, based on their response to the enumeration:

1. Sick" households: Those that had either an adult death (aged 15-50) due to illness in the past 12 months, an adult too sick to work at the time of the survey, or both (n=2,169).
2. "Well" households: Those that had neither an adult death (aged 15-50) due to illness nor an adult (aged 15-50) too sick to work (n=27,433).

In selecting the sixteen households to be interviewed in each enumeration area, fourteen were selected at random from the "sick" households in that enumeration area and two were selected at random from the "well" households. In one enumeration area, where the number of "sick" households available was less than fourteen, all available sick households were included in the sample; the numbers were balanced using well households. The final sample drawn for the first passage consisted of 816 households in 51 enumeration areas.

KHDS 2004 and 2010 Household Samples

The sampling strategy in KHDS 2004 and KHDS 2010 was to re-interview all individuals who were household members in any wave of the KHDS 91-94, a total of 6,353 people. The Household Questionnaire was administered in the household in which these PHHMs lived. If a household member was alive during the last interview in 1991-1994, but found to be deceased by the time of the fieldwork in 2004 and 2010 then the information about the deceased was collected in the Mortality Questionnaire. The next sections provide statistics of the KHDS 2004 and 2010 households.

KHDS 2004 Households

Although the KHDS is a panel of individuals and the concept of a household after 10-19 years is a vague notion, it is common in panel surveys to consider re-contact rates in terms of households. Table 4 shows the rate of re-contact of the baseline households in KHDS 2004, where a re-contact is defined as having interviewed at least one person from the household. In this case, the term household is defined by the baseline KHDS survey which spans a period of 2.5 years. Due to movements in and out of the household, some household members may have not, in fact, lived together in the household at the same time in the 1991-1994 waves (for example, consider one sibling of the household head moving into the household for one year and then moving out, followed by another sibling moving into the household).

Excluding households in which all previous members are deceased (17 households and 27 respondents), the KHDS 2004 field team managed to re-contact 93 percent of the baseline households. Not all 915 households received four interviews. Unsurprisingly, households that were in the baseline survey for all four waves had the highest probability of being reinterviewed. Of these 746 households, 96 percent were re-interviewed.

Turning to re-contact rates of the sample of 6,353 respondents, Table 5 shows the status of the respondents by age group (based on their age at first interview in the 1991-1994 waves). Reinterview rates are monotonically decreasing with age, although the reasons (deceased or not located) vary by age group. The older respondents were much more likely to be located if alive. Among the youngest respondents, over three-quarter were successfully re-interviewed. Excluding people who died, 82 percent of all respondents were re-interviewed.

KHDS 2010 Households

The re-contact rates in the KHDS 2010 are in line with the ones achieved in KHDS 2004. Table 4 of the Basic Information Document shows the KHDS 2010 re-contacting rates in terms of the baseline households. Excluding the households in which all PHHMs were deceased, 92 percent of the households were recontacted.

As in KHDS 2004, households that were interviewed four times at the baseline were more likely to be found in 2010. Excluding the households in which all members had died, 95 percent of these households were re-interviewed in 2010.

The KHDS 2010 re-contact rates in terms of panel respondents are provided in Table 5 of the Basic Information Document. As in 2004, the older respondents, if alive, were much more likely to be re-contacted than younger respondents. In the oldest age category, 60 years and older at the baseline, the interview teams managed to re-contact almost 98 percent of all survivors. The length of the KHDS survey starts to be seen in this age category however, as almost three quarters of the respondents had passed away by 2010.

Table 6 of the Basic Information Document provides the KHDS 2010 re-contact rates by location. More than 50 percent of the reinterviewed panel respondents were located in the same community as in KHDS 91-94. Nearly 14 percent of the re-contacted respondents were found from