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.

Daily updates of Covid-19 Global Excess Deaths from the Economist's GitHub repository: https://github.com/TheEconomist/covid-19-the-economist-global-excess-deaths-model

Interpreting estimates

Estimating excess deaths for every country every day since the pandemic began is a complex and difficult task. Rather than being overly confident in a single number, limited data means that we can often only give a very very wide range of plausible values. Focusing on central estimates in such cases would be misleading: unless ranges are very narrow, the 95% range should be reported when possible. The ranges assume that the conditions for bootstrap confidence intervals are met. Please see our tracker page and methodology for more information.

New variants

The Omicron variant, first detected in southern Africa in November 2021, appears to have characteristics that are different to earlier versions of sars-cov-2. Where this variant is now dominant, this change makes estimates uncertain beyond the ranges indicated. Other new variants may do the same. As more data is incorporated from places where new variants are dominant, predictions improve.

Non-reporting countries

Turkmenistan and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea have not reported any covid-19 figures since the start of the pandemic. They also have not published all-cause mortality data. Exports of estimates for the Democratic People's Republic of Korea have been temporarily disabled as it now issues contradictory data: reporting a significant outbreak through its state media, but zero confirmed covid-19 cases/deaths to the WHO.

Acknowledgements

A special thanks to all our sources and to those who have made the data to create these estimates available. We list all our sources in our methodology. Within script 1, the source for each variable is also given as the data is loaded, with the exception of our sources for excess deaths data, which we detail in on our free-to-read excess deaths tracker as well as on GitHub. The gradient booster implementation used to fit the models is aGTBoost, detailed here.

Calculating excess deaths for the entire world over multiple years is both complex and imprecise. We welcome any suggestions on how to improve the model, be it data, algorithm, or logic. If you have one, please open an issue.

The Economist would also like to acknowledge the many people who have helped us refine the model so far, be it through discussions, facilitating data access, or offering coding assistance. A special thanks to Ariel Karlinsky, Philip Schellekens, Oliver Watson, Lukas Appelhans, Berent Å. S. Lunde, Gideon Wakefield, Johannes Hunger, Carol D'Souza, Yun Wei, Mehran Hosseini, Samantha Dolan, Mollie Van Gordon, Rahul Arora, Austin Teda Atmaja, Dirk Eddelbuettel and Tom Wenseleers.

All coding and data collection to construct these models (and make them update dynamically) was done by Sondre Ulvund Solstad. Should you have any questions about them after reading the methodology, please open an issue or contact him at sondresolstad@economist.com.

Suggested citation The Economist and Solstad, S. (corresponding author), 2021. The pandemic’s true death toll. [online] The Economist. Available at: https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/coronavirus-excess-deaths-estimates [Accessed ---]. First published in the article "Counting the dead", The Economist, issue 20, 2021.

The total amount of data created, captured, copied, and consumed globally is forecast to increase rapidly. While it was estimated at ***** zettabytes in 2025, the forecast for 2029 stands at ***** zettabytes. Thus, global data generation will triple between 2025 and 2029. Data creation has been expanding continuously over the past decade. In 2020, the growth was higher than previously expected, caused by the increased demand due to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, as more people worked and learned from home and used home entertainment options more often.

Since 1800, more than 37 million people worldwide have died while actively fighting in wars.

The number would be much higher still if it also considered the civilians who died due to the fighting, the increased number of deaths from hunger and disease resulting from these conflicts, and the deaths in smaller conflicts that are not considered wars.1

Wars are also terrible in many other ways: they make people’s lives insecure, lower their living standards, destroy the environment, and, if fought between countries armed with nuclear weapons, can be an existential threat to humanity.

Looking at the news alone, it can be difficult to understand whether more or less people are dying as a result of war than in the past. One has to rely on statistics that are carefully collected so that they can be compared over time.

While every war is a tragedy, the data suggests that fewer people died in conflicts in recent decades than in most of the 20th century. Countries have also built more peaceful relations between and within them.

How many wars are avoided, and whether the trend of fewer deaths in them continues, is up to our own actions. Conflict deaths recently increased in the Middle East, Africa, and Europe, stressing that the future of these trends is uncertain.

Dataset Description:

This dataset offers insights into countries experiencing ongoing conflicts, providing estimates of fatalities resulting from these conflicts across various years. It serves as a valuable resource for understanding the global landscape of conflict and its human toll.

Syria SY: Battle-Related Deaths: Number of People data was reported at 24,950.000 Person in 2017. This records a decrease from the previous number of 43,936.000 Person for 2016. Syria SY: Battle-Related Deaths: Number of People data is updated yearly, averaging 41,218.000 Person from Dec 2004 (Median) to 2017, with 8 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 69,086.000 Person in 2013 and a record low of 1.000 Person in 2004. Syria SY: Battle-Related Deaths: Number of People data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by World Bank. The data is categorized under Global Database’s Syrian Arab Republic – Table SY.World Bank.WDI: Population and Urbanization Statistics. Battle-related deaths are deaths in battle-related conflicts between warring parties in the conflict dyad (two conflict units that are parties to a conflict). Typically, battle-related deaths occur in warfare involving the armed forces of the warring parties. This includes traditional battlefield fighting, guerrilla activities, and all kinds of bombardments of military units, cities, and villages, etc. The targets are usually the military itself and its installations or state institutions and state representatives, but there is often substantial collateral damage in the form of civilians being killed in crossfire, in indiscriminate bombings, etc. All deaths--military as well as civilian--incurred in such situations, are counted as battle-related deaths.; ; Uppsala Conflict Data Program, http://www.pcr.uu.se/research/ucdp/.; Sum;

The World Health Organization reported 6932591 Coronavirus Deaths since the epidemic began. In addition, countries reported 766440796 Coronavirus Cases. This dataset provides - World Coronavirus Deaths- actual values, historical data, forecast, chart, statistics, economic calendar and news.

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

Overview

The Associated Press is sharing data from the COVID Impact Survey, which provides statistics about physical health, mental health, economic security and social dynamics related to the coronavirus pandemic in the United States.

Conducted by NORC at the University of Chicago for the Data Foundation, the probability-based survey provides estimates for the United States as a whole, as well as in 10 states (California, Colorado, Florida, Louisiana, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, New York, Oregon and Texas) and eight metropolitan areas (Atlanta, Baltimore, Birmingham, Chicago, Cleveland, Columbus, Phoenix and Pittsburgh).

The survey is designed to allow for an ongoing gauge of public perception, health and economic status to see what is shifting during the pandemic. When multiple sets of data are available, it will allow for the tracking of how issues ranging from COVID-19 symptoms to economic status change over time.

The survey is focused on three core areas of research:

• Physical Health: Symptoms related to COVID-19, relevant existing conditions and health insurance coverage.
• Economic and Financial Health: Employment, food security, and government cash assistance.
• Social and Mental Health: Communication with friends and family, anxiety and volunteerism. (Questions based on those used on the U.S. Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey.) ## Using this Data - IMPORTANT This is survey data and must be properly weighted during analysis: DO NOT REPORT THIS DATA AS RAW OR AGGREGATE NUMBERS!!

Instead, use our queries linked below or statistical software such as R or SPSS to weight the data.

Queries

If you'd like to create a table to see how people nationally or in your state or city feel about a topic in the survey, use the survey questionnaire and codebook to match a question (the variable label) to a variable name. For instance, "How often have you felt lonely in the past 7 days?" is variable "soc5c".

Nationally: Go to this query and enter soc5c as the variable. Hit the blue Run Query button in the upper right hand corner.

Local or State: To find figures for that response in a specific state, go to this query and type in a state name and soc5c as the variable, and then hit the blue Run Query button in the upper right hand corner.

The resulting sentence you could write out of these queries is: "People in some states are less likely to report loneliness than others. For example, 66% of Louisianans report feeling lonely on none of the last seven days, compared with 52% of Californians. Nationally, 60% of people said they hadn't felt lonely."

Margin of Error

The margin of error for the national and regional surveys is found in the attached methods statement. You will need the margin of error to determine if the comparisons are statistically significant. If the difference is:

• At least twice the margin of error, you can report there is a clear difference.
• At least as large as the margin of error, you can report there is a slight or apparent difference.
• Less than or equal to the margin of error, you can report that the respondents are divided or there is no difference. ## A Note on Timing Survey results will generally be posted under embargo on Tuesday evenings. The data is available for release at 1 p.m. ET Thursdays.

About the Data

The survey data will be provided under embargo in both comma-delimited and statistical formats.

Each set of survey data will be numbered and have the date the embargo lifts in front of it in the format of: 01_April_30_covid_impact_survey. The survey has been organized by the Data Foundation, a non-profit non-partisan think tank, and is sponsored by the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis and the Packard Foundation. It is conducted by NORC at the University of Chicago, a non-partisan research organization. (NORC is not an abbreviation, it part of the organization's formal name.)

Data for the national estimates are collected using the AmeriSpeak Panel, NORC’s probability-based panel designed to be representative of the U.S. household population. Interviews are conducted with adults age 18 and over representing the 50 states and the District of Columbia. Panel members are randomly drawn from AmeriSpeak with a target of achieving 2,000 interviews in each survey. Invited panel members may complete the survey online or by telephone with an NORC telephone interviewer.

Once all the study data have been made final, an iterative raking process is used to adjust for any survey nonresponse as well as any noncoverage or under and oversampling resulting from the study specific sample design. Raking variables include age, gender, census division, race/ethnicity, education, and county groupings based on county level counts of the number of COVID-19 deaths. Demographic weighting variables were obtained from the 2020 Current Population Survey. The count of COVID-19 deaths by county was obtained from USA Facts. The weighted data reflect the U.S. population of adults age 18 and over.

Data for the regional estimates are collected using a multi-mode address-based (ABS) approach that allows residents of each area to complete the interview via web or with an NORC telephone interviewer. All sampled households are mailed a postcard inviting them to complete the survey either online using a unique PIN or via telephone by calling a toll-free number. Interviews are conducted with adults age 18 and over with a target of achieving 400 interviews in each region in each survey.Additional details on the survey methodology and the survey questionnaire are attached below or can be found at https://www.covid-impact.org.

Attribution

Results should be credited to the COVID Impact Survey, conducted by NORC at the University of Chicago for the Data Foundation.

AP Data Distributions

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

Public health-related decision-making on policies aimed at controlling the COVID-19 pandemic outbreak depends on complex epidemiological models that are compelled to be robust and use all relevant available data. This data article provides a new combined worldwide COVID-19 dataset obtained from official data sources with improved systematic measurement errors and a dedicated dashboard for online data visualization and summary. The dataset adds new measures and attributes to the normal attributes of official data sources, such as daily mortality, and fatality rates. We used comparative statistical analysis to evaluate the measurement errors of COVID-19 official data collections from the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention (Chinese CDC), World Health Organization (WHO) and European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC). The data is collected by using text mining techniques and reviewing pdf reports, metadata, and reference data. The combined dataset includes complete spatial data such as countries area, international number of countries, Alpha-2 code, Alpha-3 code, latitude, longitude, and some additional attributes such as population. The improved dataset benefits from major corrections on the referenced data sets and official reports such as adjustments in the reporting dates, which suffered from a one to two days lag, removing negative values, detecting unreasonable changes in historical data in new reports and corrections on systematic measurement errors, which have been increasing as the pandemic outbreak spreads and more countries contribute data for the official repositories. Additionally, the root mean square error of attributes in the paired comparison of datasets was used to identify the main data problems. The data for China is presented separately and in more detail, and it has been extracted from the attached reports available on the main page of the CCDC website. This dataset is a comprehensive and reliable source of worldwide COVID-19 data that can be used in epidemiological models assessing the magnitude and timeline for confirmed cases, long-term predictions of deaths or hospital utilization, the effects of quarantine, stay-at-home orders and other social distancing measures, the pandemic’s turning point or in economic and social impact analysis, helping to inform national and local authorities on how to implement an adaptive response approach to re-opening the economy, re-open schools, alleviate business and social distancing restrictions, design economic programs or allow sports events to resume.

United States US: Death Rate: Crude: per 1000 People data was reported at 8.400 Ratio in 2016. This records a decrease from the previous number of 8.440 Ratio for 2015. United States US: Death Rate: Crude: per 1000 People data is updated yearly, averaging 8.700 Ratio from Dec 1960 (Median) to 2016, with 57 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 9.800 Ratio in 1968 and a record low of 7.900 Ratio in 2009. United States US: Death Rate: Crude: per 1000 People 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: Population and Urbanization Statistics. Crude death rate indicates the number of deaths occurring during the year, per 1,000 population estimated at midyear. Subtracting the crude death rate from the crude birth rate provides the rate of natural increase, which is equal to the rate of population change in the absence of migration.; ; (1) United Nations Population Division. World Population Prospects: 2017 Revision. (2) Census reports and other statistical publications from national statistical offices, (3) Eurostat: Demographic Statistics, (4) United Nations Statistical Division. Population and Vital Statistics Reprot (various years), (5) U.S. Census Bureau: International Database, and (6) Secretariat of the Pacific Community: Statistics and Demography Programme.; Weighted average;

The Black Death was the largest and deadliest pandemic of Yersinia pestis recorded in human history, and likely the most infamous individual pandemic ever documented. The plague originated in the Eurasian Steppes, before moving with Mongol hordes to the Black Sea, where it was then brought by Italian merchants to the Mediterranean. From here, the Black Death then spread to almost all corners of Europe, the Middle East, and North Africa. While it was never endemic to these regions, it was constantly re-introduced via trade routes from Asia (such as the Silk Road), and plague was present in Western Europe until the seventeenth century, and the other regions until the nineteenth century. Impact on Europe In Europe, the major port cities and metropolitan areas were hit the hardest. The plague spread through south-western Europe, following the arrival of Italian galleys in Sicily, Genoa, Venice, and Marseilles, at the beginning of 1347. It is claimed that Venice, Florence, and Siena lost up to two thirds of their total population during epidemic's peak, while London, which was hit in 1348, is said to have lost at least half of its population. The plague then made its way around the west of Europe, and arrived in Germany and Scandinavia in 1348, before travelling along the Baltic coast to Russia by 1351 (although data relating to the death tolls east of Germany is scarce). Some areas of Europe remained untouched by the plague for decades; for example, plague did not arrive in Iceland until 1402, however it swept across the island with devastating effect, causing the population to drop from 120,000 to 40,000 within two years. Reliability While the Black Death affected three continents, there is little recorded evidence of its impact outside of Southern or Western Europe. In Europe, however, many sources conflict and contrast with one another, often giving death tolls exceeding the estimated population at the time (such as London, where the death toll is said to be three times larger than the total population). Therefore, the precise death tolls remain uncertain, and any figures given should be treated tentatively.

Saudi Arabia: Death rate, per 1000 people: The latest value from 2023 is 2.34 deaths per 1000 people, a decline from 2.57 deaths per 1000 people in 2022. In comparison, the world average is 7.70 deaths per 1000 people, based on data from 196 countries. Historically, the average for Saudi Arabia from 1960 to 2023 is 7.3 deaths per 1000 people. The minimum value, 2.17 deaths per 1000 people, was reached in 2017 while the maximum of 21.09 deaths per 1000 people was recorded in 1960.

Egypt: Death rate, per 1000 people: The latest value from 2023 is 5.46 deaths per 1000 people, a decline from 5.68 deaths per 1000 people in 2022. In comparison, the world average is 7.70 deaths per 1000 people, based on data from 196 countries. Historically, the average for Egypt from 1960 to 2023 is 10.67 deaths per 1000 people. The minimum value, 5.46 deaths per 1000 people, was reached in 2023 while the maximum of 21.98 deaths per 1000 people was recorded in 1960.

This dataset contains counts of deaths for California as a whole 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 California regardless of the place of residence (by occurrence) and deaths to California residents (by residence), whereas the provisional data table only includes deaths that occurred in California 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.

THIS DATASET WAS LAST UPDATED AT 7:11 AM EASTERN ON DEC. 1

OVERVIEW

2019 had the most mass killings since at least the 1970s, according to the Associated Press/USA TODAY/Northeastern University Mass Killings Database.

In all, there were 45 mass killings, defined as when four or more people are killed excluding the perpetrator. Of those, 33 were mass shootings . This summer was especially violent, with three high-profile public mass shootings occurring in the span of just four weeks, leaving 38 killed and 66 injured.

A total of 229 people died in mass killings in 2019.

The AP's analysis found that more than 50% of the incidents were family annihilations, which is similar to prior years. Although they are far less common, the 9 public mass shootings during the year were the most deadly type of mass murder, resulting in 73 people's deaths, not including the assailants.

One-third of the offenders died at the scene of the killing or soon after, half from suicides.

About this Dataset

The Associated Press/USA TODAY/Northeastern University Mass Killings database tracks all U.S. homicides since 2006 involving four or more people killed (not including the offender) over a short period of time (24 hours) regardless of weapon, location, victim-offender relationship or motive. The database includes information on these and other characteristics concerning the incidents, offenders, and victims.

The AP/USA TODAY/Northeastern database represents the most complete tracking of mass murders by the above definition currently available. Other efforts, such as the Gun Violence Archive or Everytown for Gun Safety may include events that do not meet our criteria, but a review of these sites and others indicates that this database contains every event that matches the definition, including some not tracked by other organizations.

This data will be updated periodically and can be used as an ongoing resource to help cover these events.

Using this Dataset

To get basic counts of incidents of mass killings and mass shootings by year nationwide, use these queries:

Mass killings by year

Mass shootings by year

To get these counts just for your state:

Filter killings by state

Definition of "mass murder"

Mass murder is defined as the intentional killing of four or more victims by any means within a 24-hour period, excluding the deaths of unborn children and the offender(s). The standard of four or more dead was initially set by the FBI.

This definition does not exclude cases based on method (e.g., shootings only), type or motivation (e.g., public only), victim-offender relationship (e.g., strangers only), or number of locations (e.g., one). The time frame of 24 hours was chosen to eliminate conflation with spree killers, who kill multiple victims in quick succession in different locations or incidents, and to satisfy the traditional requirement of occurring in a “single incident.”

Offenders who commit mass murder during a spree (before or after committing additional homicides) are included in the database, and all victims within seven days of the mass murder are included in the victim count. Negligent homicides related to driving under the influence or accidental fires are excluded due to the lack of offender intent. Only incidents occurring within the 50 states and Washington D.C. are considered.

Methodology

Project researchers first identified potential incidents using the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Supplementary Homicide Reports (SHR). Homicide incidents in the SHR were flagged as potential mass murder cases if four or more victims were reported on the same record, and the type of death was murder or non-negligent manslaughter.

Cases were subsequently verified utilizing media accounts, court documents, academic journal articles, books, and local law enforcement records obtained through Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. Each data point was corroborated by multiple sources, which were compiled into a single document to assess the quality of information.

In case(s) of contradiction among sources, official law enforcement or court records were used, when available, followed by the most recent media or academic source.

Case information was subsequently compared with every other known mass murder database to ensure reliability and validity. Incidents listed in the SHR that could not be independently verified were excluded from the database.

Project researchers also conducted extensive searches for incidents not reported in the SHR during the time period, utilizing internet search engines, Lexis-Nexis, and Newspapers.com. Search terms include: [number] dead, [number] killed, [number] slain, [number] murdered, [number] homicide, mass murder, mass shooting, massacre, rampage, family killing, familicide, and arson murder. Offender, victim, and location names were also directly searched when available.

This project started at USA TODAY in 2012.

Contacts

Contact AP Data Editor Justin Myers with questions, suggestions or comments about this dataset at jmyers@ap.org. The Northeastern University researcher working with AP and USA TODAY is Professor James Alan Fox, who can be reached at j.fox@northeastern.edu or 617-416-4400.

Death rate, crude (per 1,000 people) in Poland was reported at 11.1 % in 2023, according to the World Bank collection of development indicators, compiled from officially recognized sources. Poland - Death rate, crude - actual values, historical data, forecasts and projections were sourced from the World Bank on November of 2025.

this graph was created in OurDataWorld:

https://www.googleapis.com/download/storage/v1/b/kaggle-user-content/o/inbox%2F16731800%2F890ca83cc43ed9a357bcb81b13bc5a59%2Fgraph1.png?generation=1721685146443911&alt=media" alt=""> https://www.googleapis.com/download/storage/v1/b/kaggle-user-content/o/inbox%2F16731800%2F649d320a96a8c73ddddf24307c4f70f4%2Fgraph2.png?generation=1721685151066961&alt=media" alt=""> https://www.googleapis.com/download/storage/v1/b/kaggle-user-content/o/inbox%2F16731800%2F0ac0a8cce50ad97f2f595b8048546fd0%2Fgraph3.png?generation=1721685156829214&alt=media" alt="">

Extreme heat has major impacts on human wellbeing: it makes it harder for kids to learn at school, reduces the productivity of outdoor workers, and puts pressure on healthcare systems. In the worst case, it kills.

This is already an issue — particularly for countries in the tropics — but will become even more critical as the world warms. This article is the third in my series on extreme heat. In my previous articles, I looked at how many die from extreme temperatures today and how climate change could affect this in the future. In many of the world’s poorest countries, deaths are expected to increase if we don’t invest more in adaptation.

Protecting people from extreme heat will require blending the old and the new. Technological solutions like air conditioning (AC) will be essential, but relying on them alone would be a mistake.

The availability and affordability of AC is — and will continue to be — highly unequal, leaving the poorest households unable to protect themselves. It’s also not a solution for those who work outdoors in agriculture, construction, or as street sellers. This is the reality for most people in tropical countries, where heatwaves will be most extreme.

The goal, then, is to build communities and cities more resilient to heat through urban planning, communication, and emergency responses.

We can learn a lot from our ancestors, who learned how to build cities and design lifestyles that could cope with scorching summers and intense heat waves. That will not be enough in a warming world, but it’s a starting point to build new solutions.

Go to the old parts of many cities, and you’ll find yourself walking through narrow streets. This helps to keep them cool. The ground and the walls of the houses are only exposed to the sun for a short period of the day when the rays come from directly above. Wider streets are in direct sunlight for long periods, absorbing large amounts of heat. Cul-de-sacs also form heat barriers, so they’re more common, too.

Seville in Spain is a perfect example of this. It’s one of Europe’s hottest cities and is often hit by extreme heat. Older parts of the city — stretching back to the Middle Ages — were designed with these natural cooling techniques in mind. It has small squares where people can find shade, communal fountains for people to keep cool, and trees and vegetation line the streets, where people can find shade. Newer parts weren’t designed like this: they often have large, wide avenues that can reach baking temperatures in the summer.

Lifestyles in Seville have also been adapted to deal with the heat. People stay indoors until the evening; the city comes to life only then. Afternoon siestas are normal for rest and shelter.

Canada CA: Mortality Rate: Under-5: Female: per 1000 Live Births data was reported at 4.700 Ratio in 2023. This stayed constant from the previous number of 4.700 Ratio for 2022. Canada CA: Mortality Rate: Under-5: Female: per 1000 Live Births data is updated yearly, averaging 7.000 Ratio from Dec 1960 (Median) to 2023, with 64 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 28.600 Ratio in 1960 and a record low of 4.700 Ratio in 2023. Canada CA: Mortality Rate: Under-5: Female: per 1000 Live Births data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by World Bank. The data is categorized under Global Database’s Canada – Table CA.World Bank.WDI: Social: Health Statistics. Under-five mortality rate, female is the probability per 1,000 that a newborn female baby will die before reaching age five, if subject to female age-specific mortality rates of the specified year.;Estimates developed by the UN Inter-agency Group for Child Mortality Estimation (UNICEF, WHO, World Bank, UN DESA Population Division) at www.childmortality.org.;Weighted average;Given that data on the incidence and prevalence of diseases are frequently unavailable, mortality rates are often used to identify vulnerable populations. Moreover, they are among the indicators most frequently used to compare socioeconomic development across countries. Under-five mortality rates are higher for boys than for girls in countries in which parental gender preferences are insignificant. Under-five mortality captures the effect of gender discrimination better than infant mortality does, as malnutrition and medical interventions have more significant impacts to this age group. Where female under-five mortality is higher, girls are likely to have less access to resources than boys. Aggregate data for LIC, UMC, LMC, HIC are computed based on the groupings for the World Bank fiscal year in which the data was released by the UN Inter-agency Group for Child Mortality Estimation. This is a sex-disaggregated indicator for Sustainable Development Goal 3.2.1 [https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/metadata/].

General

For more details and the most up-to-date information please consult our project page: https://kainmueller-lab.github.io/fisbe.

Summary

A new dataset for neuron instance segmentation in 3d multicolor light microscopy data of fruit fly brains

30 completely labeled (segmented) images

71 partly labeled images

altogether comprising ∼600 expert-labeled neuron instances (labeling a single neuron takes between 30-60 min on average, yet a difficult one can take up to 4 hours)

To the best of our knowledge, the first real-world benchmark dataset for instance segmentation of long thin filamentous objects

A set of metrics and a novel ranking score for respective meaningful method benchmarking

An evaluation of three baseline methods in terms of the above metrics and score

Abstract

Instance segmentation of neurons in volumetric light microscopy images of nervous systems enables groundbreaking research in neuroscience by facilitating joint functional and morphological analyses of neural circuits at cellular resolution. Yet said multi-neuron light microscopy data exhibits extremely challenging properties for the task of instance segmentation: Individual neurons have long-ranging, thin filamentous and widely branching morphologies, multiple neurons are tightly inter-weaved, and partial volume effects, uneven illumination and noise inherent to light microscopy severely impede local disentangling as well as long-range tracing of individual neurons. These properties reflect a current key challenge in machine learning research, namely to effectively capture long-range dependencies in the data. While respective methodological research is buzzing, to date methods are typically benchmarked on synthetic datasets. To address this gap, we release the FlyLight Instance Segmentation Benchmark (FISBe) dataset, the first publicly available multi-neuron light microscopy dataset with pixel-wise annotations. In addition, we define a set of instance segmentation metrics for benchmarking that we designed to be meaningful with regard to downstream analyses. Lastly, we provide three baselines to kick off a competition that we envision to both advance the field of machine learning regarding methodology for capturing long-range data dependencies, and facilitate scientific discovery in basic neuroscience.

Dataset documentation:

We provide a detailed documentation of our dataset, following the Datasheet for Datasets questionnaire:

FISBe Datasheet

Our dataset originates from the FlyLight project, where the authors released a large image collection of nervous systems of ~74,000 flies, available for download under CC BY 4.0 license.

Files

fisbe_v1.0_{completely,partly}.zip

contains the image and ground truth segmentation data; there is one zarr file per sample, see below for more information on how to access zarr files.

fisbe_v1.0_mips.zip

maximum intensity projections of all samples, for convenience.

sample_list_per_split.txt

a simple list of all samples and the subset they are in, for convenience.

view_data.py

a simple python script to visualize samples, see below for more information on how to use it.

dim_neurons_val_and_test_sets.json

a list of instance ids per sample that are considered to be of low intensity/dim; can be used for extended evaluation.

Readme.md

general information

How to work with the image files

Each sample consists of a single 3d MCFO image of neurons of the fruit fly.For each image, we provide a pixel-wise instance segmentation for all separable neurons.Each sample is stored as a separate zarr file (zarr is a file storage format for chunked, compressed, N-dimensional arrays based on an open-source specification.").The image data ("raw") and the segmentation ("gt_instances") are stored as two arrays within a single zarr file.The segmentation mask for each neuron is stored in a separate channel.The order of dimensions is CZYX.

We recommend to work in a virtual environment, e.g., by using conda:

conda create -y -n flylight-env -c conda-forge python=3.9conda activate flylight-env

How to open zarr files

Install the python zarr package:

pip install zarr

Opened a zarr file with:

import zarrraw = zarr.open(, mode='r', path="volumes/raw")seg = zarr.open(, mode='r', path="volumes/gt_instances")

optional:import numpy as npraw_np = np.array(raw)

Zarr arrays are read lazily on-demand.Many functions that expect numpy arrays also work with zarr arrays.Optionally, the arrays can also explicitly be converted to numpy arrays.

How to view zarr image files

We recommend to use napari to view the image data.

Install napari:

pip install "napari[all]"

Save the following Python script:

import zarr, sys, napari

raw = zarr.load(sys.argv[1], mode='r', path="volumes/raw")gts = zarr.load(sys.argv[1], mode='r', path="volumes/gt_instances")

viewer = napari.Viewer(ndisplay=3)for idx, gt in enumerate(gts): viewer.add_labels( gt, rendering='translucent', blending='additive', name=f'gt_{idx}')viewer.add_image(raw[0], colormap="red", name='raw_r', blending='additive')viewer.add_image(raw[1], colormap="green", name='raw_g', blending='additive')viewer.add_image(raw[2], colormap="blue", name='raw_b', blending='additive')napari.run()

Execute:

python view_data.py /R9F03-20181030_62_B5.zarr

Metrics

S: Average of avF1 and C

avF1: Average F1 Score

C: Average ground truth coverage

clDice_TP: Average true positives clDice

FS: Number of false splits

FM: Number of false merges

tp: Relative number of true positives

For more information on our selected metrics and formal definitions please see our paper.

Baseline

To showcase the FISBe dataset together with our selection of metrics, we provide evaluation results for three baseline methods, namely PatchPerPix (ppp), Flood Filling Networks (FFN) and a non-learnt application-specific color clustering from Duan et al..For detailed information on the methods and the quantitative results please see our paper.

License

The FlyLight Instance Segmentation Benchmark (FISBe) dataset is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) license.

Citation

If you use FISBe in your research, please use the following BibTeX entry:

@misc{mais2024fisbe, title = {FISBe: A real-world benchmark dataset for instance segmentation of long-range thin filamentous structures}, author = {Lisa Mais and Peter Hirsch and Claire Managan and Ramya Kandarpa and Josef Lorenz Rumberger and Annika Reinke and Lena Maier-Hein and Gudrun Ihrke and Dagmar Kainmueller}, year = 2024, eprint = {2404.00130}, archivePrefix ={arXiv}, primaryClass = {cs.CV} }

Acknowledgments

We thank Aljoscha Nern for providing unpublished MCFO images as well as Geoffrey W. Meissner and the entire FlyLight Project Team for valuablediscussions.P.H., L.M. and D.K. were supported by the HHMI Janelia Visiting Scientist Program.This work was co-funded by Helmholtz Imaging.

Changelog

There have been no changes to the dataset so far.All future change will be listed on the changelog page.

Contributing

If you would like to contribute, have encountered any issues or have any suggestions, please open an issue for the FISBe dataset in the accompanying github repository.

All contributions are welcome!

Trinidad and Tobago: Traffic accident deaths per 100,000 people: The latest value from 2019 is 9.3 deaths per 100,000 people, a decline from 10.2 deaths per 100,000 people in 2018. In comparison, the world average is 17.05 deaths per 100,000 people, based on data from 180 countries. Historically, the average for Trinidad and Tobago from 2000 to 2019 is 16.43 deaths per 100,000 people. The minimum value, 9.3 deaths per 100,000 people, was reached in 2019 while the maximum of 24.8 deaths per 100,000 people was recorded in 2008.