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.

On March 10, 2023, the Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center ceased its collecting and reporting of global COVID-19 data. For updated cases, deaths, and vaccine data please visit: World Health Organization (WHO)For more information, visit the Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center.COVID-19 Trends MethodologyOur goal is to analyze and present daily updates in the form of recent trends within countries, states, or counties during the COVID-19 global pandemic. The data we are analyzing is taken directly from the Johns Hopkins University Coronavirus COVID-19 Global Cases Dashboard, though we expect to be one day behind the dashboard’s live feeds to allow for quality assurance of the data.DOI: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.125529863/7/2022 - Adjusted the rate of active cases calculation in the U.S. to reflect the rates of serious and severe cases due nearly completely dominant Omicron variant.6/24/2020 - Expanded Case Rates discussion to include fix on 6/23 for calculating active cases.6/22/2020 - Added Executive Summary and Subsequent Outbreaks sectionsRevisions on 6/10/2020 based on updated CDC reporting. This affects the estimate of active cases by revising the average duration of cases with hospital stays downward from 30 days to 25 days. The result shifted 76 U.S. counties out of Epidemic to Spreading trend and no change for national level trends.Methodology update on 6/2/2020: This sets the length of the tail of new cases to 6 to a maximum of 14 days, rather than 21 days as determined by the last 1/3 of cases. This was done to align trends and criteria for them with U.S. CDC guidance. The impact is areas transition into Controlled trend sooner for not bearing the burden of new case 15-21 days earlier.Correction on 6/1/2020Discussion of our assertion of an abundance of caution in assigning trends in rural counties added 5/7/2020. Revisions added on 4/30/2020 are highlighted.Revisions added on 4/23/2020 are highlighted.Executive SummaryCOVID-19 Trends is a methodology for characterizing the current trend for places during the COVID-19 global pandemic. Each day we assign one of five trends: Emergent, Spreading, Epidemic, Controlled, or End Stage to geographic areas to geographic areas based on the number of new cases, the number of active cases, the total population, and an algorithm (described below) that contextualize the most recent fourteen days with the overall COVID-19 case history. Currently we analyze the countries of the world and the U.S. Counties. The purpose is to give policymakers, citizens, and analysts a fact-based data driven sense for the direction each place is currently going. When a place has the initial cases, they are assigned Emergent, and if that place controls the rate of new cases, they can move directly to Controlled, and even to End Stage in a short time. However, if the reporting or measures to curtail spread are not adequate and significant numbers of new cases continue, they are assigned to Spreading, and in cases where the spread is clearly uncontrolled, Epidemic trend.We analyze the data reported by Johns Hopkins University to produce the trends, and we report the rates of cases, spikes of new cases, the number of days since the last reported case, and number of deaths. We also make adjustments to the assignments based on population so rural areas are not assigned trends based solely on case rates, which can be quite high relative to local populations.Two key factors are not consistently known or available and should be taken into consideration with the assigned trend. First is the amount of resources, e.g., hospital beds, physicians, etc.that are currently available in each area. Second is the number of recoveries, which are often not tested or reported. On the latter, we provide a probable number of active cases based on CDC guidance for the typical duration of mild to severe cases.Reasons for undertaking this work in March of 2020:The popular online maps and dashboards show counts of confirmed cases, deaths, and recoveries by country or administrative sub-region. Comparing the counts of one country to another can only provide a basis for comparison during the initial stages of the outbreak when counts were low and the number of local outbreaks in each country was low. By late March 2020, countries with small populations were being left out of the mainstream news because it was not easy to recognize they had high per capita rates of cases (Switzerland, Luxembourg, Iceland, etc.). Additionally, comparing countries that have had confirmed COVID-19 cases for high numbers of days to countries where the outbreak occurred recently is also a poor basis for comparison.The graphs of confirmed cases and daily increases in cases were fit into a standard size rectangle, though the Y-axis for one country had a maximum value of 50, and for another country 100,000, which potentially misled people interpreting the slope of the curve. Such misleading circumstances affected comparing large population countries to small population counties or countries with low numbers of cases to China which had a large count of cases in the early part of the outbreak. These challenges for interpreting and comparing these graphs represent work each reader must do based on their experience and ability. Thus, we felt it would be a service to attempt to automate the thought process experts would use when visually analyzing these graphs, particularly the most recent tail of the graph, and provide readers with an a resulting synthesis to characterize the state of the pandemic in that country, state, or county.The lack of reliable data for confirmed recoveries and therefore active cases. Merely subtracting deaths from total cases to arrive at this figure progressively loses accuracy after two weeks. The reason is 81% of cases recover after experiencing mild symptoms in 10 to 14 days. Severe cases are 14% and last 15-30 days (based on average days with symptoms of 11 when admitted to hospital plus 12 days median stay, and plus of one week to include a full range of severely affected people who recover). Critical cases are 5% and last 31-56 days. Sources:U.S. CDC. April 3, 2020 Interim Clinical Guidance for Management of Patients with Confirmed Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19). Accessed online. Initial older guidance was also obtained online. Additionally, many people who recover may not be tested, and many who are, may not be tracked due to privacy laws. Thus, the formula used to compute an estimate of active cases is: Active Cases = 100% of new cases in past 14 days + 19% from past 15-25 days + 5% from past 26-49 days - total deaths. On 3/17/2022, the U.S. calculation was adjusted to: Active Cases = 100% of new cases in past 14 days + 6% from past 15-25 days + 3% from past 26-49 days - total deaths. Sources: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7104e4.htm https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#variant-proportions If a new variant arrives and appears to cause higher rates of serious cases, we will roll back this adjustment. We’ve never been inside a pandemic with the ability to learn of new cases as they are confirmed anywhere in the world. After reviewing epidemiological and pandemic scientific literature, three needs arose. We need to specify which portions of the pandemic lifecycle this map cover. The World Health Organization (WHO) specifies six phases. The source data for this map begins just after the beginning of Phase 5: human to human spread and encompasses Phase 6: pandemic phase. Phase six is only characterized in terms of pre- and post-peak. However, these two phases are after-the-fact analyses and cannot ascertained during the event. Instead, we describe (below) a series of five trends for Phase 6 of the COVID-19 pandemic.Choosing terms to describe the five trends was informed by the scientific literature, particularly the use of epidemic, which signifies uncontrolled spread. The five trends are: Emergent, Spreading, Epidemic, Controlled, and End Stage. Not every locale will experience all five, but all will experience at least three: emergent, controlled, and end stage.This layer presents the current trends for the COVID-19 pandemic by country (or appropriate level). There are five trends:Emergent: Early stages of outbreak. Spreading: Early stages and depending on an administrative area’s capacity, this may represent a manageable rate of spread. Epidemic: Uncontrolled spread. Controlled: Very low levels of new casesEnd Stage: No New cases These trends can be applied at several levels of administration: Local: Ex., City, District or County – a.k.a. Admin level 2State: Ex., State or Province – a.k.a. Admin level 1National: Country – a.k.a. Admin level 0Recommend that at least 100,000 persons be represented by a unit; granted this may not be possible, and then the case rate per 100,000 will become more important.Key Concepts and Basis for Methodology: 10 Total Cases minimum threshold: Empirically, there must be enough cases to constitute an outbreak. Ideally, this would be 5.0 per 100,000, but not every area has a population of 100,000 or more. Ten, or fewer, cases are also relatively less difficult to track and trace to sources. 21 Days of Cases minimum threshold: Empirically based on COVID-19 and would need to be adjusted for any other event. 21 days is also the minimum threshold for analyzing the “tail” of the new cases curve, providing seven cases as the basis for a likely trend (note that 21 days in the tail is preferred). This is the minimum needed to encompass the onset and duration of a normal case (5-7 days plus 10-14 days). Specifically, a median of 5.1 days incubation time, and 11.2 days for 97.5% of cases to incubate. This is also driven by pressure to understand trends and could easily be adjusted to 28 days. Source

As of September 29, 2022, more than 6.1 million people in Israel received two doses of the coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccine. Of these, nearly 73 percent got an additional third dose, the so-called booster shot. In addition, people can receive a second booster shot (fourth shot) if they want to, or a specific vaccine that is suitable for the Omicron variants.

As of the end of 2020, the State of Israel, with a population of 9.3 million, had administered more COVID-19 vaccine doses than all countries aside from China, the US, and the UK. Moreover, Israel had administered almost 11.0 doses per 100 population, while the next highest rates were 3.5 (in Bahrain) and 1.4 (in the United Kingdom). All other countries had administered less than 1 dose per 100 population. While Israel’s rollout of COVID-19 vaccinations was not problem-free, its initial phase had clearly been rapid and effective. A large number of factors contributed to this early success, and they can be divided into three major groups. The first group of factors consists of long-standing characteristics of Israel which are extrinsic to health care. They include: Israel’s small size (in terms of both area and population), a relatively young population, relatively warm weather in December 2020, a centralized national system of government, and well-developed infrastructure for implementing prompt responses to large-scale national emergencies. The second group of factors are also long-standing, but they are health-system specific. They include: the organizational, IT and logistical capacities of Israel’s community-based health care providers, the availability of a cadre of well-trained, salaried, community-based nurses who are directly employed by those providers, a tradition of effective cooperation between government, health plans, hospitals, and emergency care providers – particularly during national emergencies; and support tools and decisionmaking frameworks to support vaccination campaigns. The third group consists of factors that are more recent and are specific to the COVID-19 vaccination effort. They include: the mobilization of special government funding for vaccine purchase and distribution, timely contracting for a large amount of vaccines relative to Israel’s population, the use of simple, clear and easily implementable criteria for determining who had priority for receiving vaccines in the early phases of the distribution process, a creative technical response that addressed the demanding cold storage requirements of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, and well-tailored outreach efforts to encourage Israelis to sign up for vaccinations and then show up to get vaccinated. While many of these facilitating factors are not unique to Israel, part of what made the Israeli rollout successful was its combination of facilitating factors (as opposed to each factor being unique separately) and the synergies it created among them. Moreover, some high-income countries (including the US, the UK, and Canada) are lacking several of these facilitating factors, apparently contributing to the slower pace of the rollout in those countries.

As of December 23, 2022, around 80 percent of the population of the United States had been given at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccination. This statistic shows the percentage of population in select countries and territories worldwide that had received a COVID-19 vaccination as of December 23, 2022.

As of March 31, 2021, Israel had administered 116 doses of vaccine for COVID-19 per 100 population (of any age) – far more than any other OECD country. It was also ahead of other OECD countries in terms of the share of the population that had received at least one vaccination (61%) and the share that had been fully vaccinated (55%). Among Israelis aged 16 and over, the comparable figures were 81 and 74%, respectively. In light of this, the objectives of this article are: 1. To describe and analyze the vaccination uptake through the end of March 2021 2. To identify behavioral and other barriers that likely affected desire or ability to be vaccinated 3. To describe the efforts undertaken to overcome those barriers Israel’s vaccination campaign was launched on December 20, and within 2.5 weeks, 20% of Israelis had received their first dose. Afterwards, the pace slowed. It took an additional 4 weeks to increase from 20 to 40% and yet another 6 weeks to increase from 40 to 60%. Initially, uptake was low among young adults, and two religious/cultural minority groups - ultra-Orthodox Jews and Israeli Arabs, but their uptake increased markedly over time. In the first quarter of 2021, Israel had to enhance access to the vaccine, address a moderate amount of vaccine hesitancy in its general population, and also address more intense pockets of vaccine hesitancy among young adults and religious/cultural minority groups. A continued high rate of infection during the months of February and March, despite broad vaccination coverage at the time, created confusion about vaccine effectiveness, which in turn contributed to vaccine hesitancy. Among Israeli Arabs, some residents of smaller villages encountered difficulties in reaching vaccination sites, and that also slowed the rate of vaccination. The challenges were addressed via a mix of messaging, incentives, extensions to the initial vaccine delivery system, and other measures. Many of the measures addressed the general population, while others were targeted at subgroups with below-average vaccination rates. Once the early adopters had been vaccinated, it took hard, creative work to increase population coverage from 40 to 60% and beyond. Significantly, some of the capacities and strategies that helped Israel address vaccine hesitancy and geographic access barriers are different from those that enabled it to procure, distribute and administer the vaccines. Some of these strategies are likely to be relevant to other countries as they progress from the challenges of securing an adequate vaccine supply and streamlining distribution to the challenge of encouraging vaccine uptake.

Baseline characteristics of hospitalized severe or critical COVID-19 patients by vaccine status.

Disease outcomes by SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibody levels among the antibody cohort.

In 2023, there were ******* visits made from Israel to the United Kingdom, which was an increase over the previous year. In the years 2020 and *****, international travel was restricted during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, and visitation rates duly dropped. The 2023 figure was the highest since data collection began in 2004.

This study examines the impact of health crisis threats on political participation. Health crises impose psychological costs, such as elevated threat perception and fear, and physical costs, including the bodily impact of diseases and reduced mobility, which can affect voting behavior. We use the case of Israel, which held three election cycles in less than a year, with the last election occurring shortly after the onset of COVID-19 but before the pandemic’s full economic and political consequences were evident. Using a difference-in-differences approach that leverages the geographic variation of populations more vulnerable to and potentially more concerned about the disease, and the temporal variation of the three close elections. Our findings show that the health crisis negatively impacted voter turnout among vulnerable groups. Areas with higher proportions of vulnerable voters exhibited relatively lower participation rates, indicating that even the early phases of a health crisis, or health crises with little physical impact, are a hurdle to in-person voter turnout. We use individual-level data to confirm the connection between concerns about health and diminishing intention to participate in elections.

As of March 2020, 79 percent of Lebanese respondents considered coronavirus (COVID-19) a high threat in varying degree to their country. In comparison, only 66 percent of respondents from the United Arab Emirates shared this opinion.

Global overview Worldwide over 665.9 thousand people have been infected by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-COV-2). Whilst over 142.5 thousand people have recovered from the infection, around 31 thousand people have not survived the pandemic. Whilst the majority of those who contract the coronavirus may just experience cold- or flu-like symptoms, for certain groups such as the elderly or people with a compromised immune system or pre-existing heart and lung conditions, this disease could cause pneumonia, multi-organ failure or other fatal complications. Therefore most countries have implemented social distancing measures to radically reduce airborne coronavirus transmission.

Political implication Among countries in the Middle East and North Africa, Iran has had the highest infection rate followed by Israel and Saudi Arabia. A substantial proportion of people in the MENA region support closing their countries’ borders to reduce the threat of the pandemic. Countries like Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates are already suffering economically from travel restrictions due to a fall in income from pilgrims and tourists respectively.

ABSTRACT BACKGROUND: Since February 2020, data on the clinical features of patients infected by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and their clinical evolution have been gathered and intensively discussed, especially in countries with dramatic dissemination of this disease. OBJECTIVE: To assess the clinical features of Brazilian patients with SARS-CoV-2 and analyze its local epidemiological features. DESIGN AND SETTING: Observational retrospective study conducted using data from an official electronic platform for recording confirmed SARS-CoV-2 cases. METHODS: We extracted data from patients based in the state of Pernambuco who were registered on the platform of the Center for Strategic Health Surveillance Information, between February 26 and May 25, 2020. Clinical signs/symptoms, case evolution over time, distribution of confirmed, recovered and fatal cases and relationship between age group and gender were assessed. RESULTS: We included 28,854 patients who were positive for SARS-CoV-2 (56.13% females), of median age 44.18 years. SARS-CoV-2 infection was most frequent among adults aged 30-39 years. Among cases that progressed to death, the most frequent age range was 70-79 years. Overall, the mortality rate in the cohort was 8.06%; recovery rate, 30.7%; and hospital admission rate (up to the end of follow-up), 17.3%. The average length of time between symptom onset and death was 10.3 days. The most commonly reported symptoms were coughing (42.39%), fever (38.03%) and dyspnea/respiratory distress with oxygen saturation < 95% (30.98%). CONCLUSION: Coughing, fever and dyspnea/respiratory distress with oxygen saturation < 95% were the commonest symptoms. The case-fatality rate was 8.06% and the hospitalization rate, 17.3%.

In 2023, the number of foreign cruise passengers arriving in Israel reached almost *******. That was a moderate increase compared to the previous year, and the highest rate of cruise visitors since 2013. Due to the outbreak of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic in 2020, the cruise industry did not begin to recover in Israel until 2022.

The changing nature of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic poses unprecedented challenges to the world's health systems. Emerging spike gene variants jeopardize global efforts to produce immunity and reduce morbidity and mortality. These challenges require effective real-time genomic surveillance solutions that the medical community can quickly adopt. The SARS-CoV-2 spike protein mediates host receptor recognition and entry into the cell and is susceptible to generation of variants with increased transmissibility and pathogenicity. The spike protein is the primary target of neutralizing antibodies in COVID-19 patients and the most common antigen for induction of effective vaccine immunity. Tight monitoring of spike protein gene variants is key to mitigating COVID-19 spread and generation of vaccine escape mutants. Currently, SARS-CoV-2 sequencing methods are labor intensive and expensive. When sequence demands are high sequencing resources are quickly exhausted. Consequently, most SARS-CoV-2 strains are sequenced in only a few developed countries and rarely in developing regions. This poses the risk that undetected, dangerous variants will emerge. In this work, we present HiSpike, a method for high-throughput cost effective targeted next generation sequencing of the spike gene. This simple three-step method can be completed in < 30 h, can sequence 10-fold more samples compared to conventional methods and at a fraction of their cost. HiSpike has been validated in Israel, and has identified multiple spike variants from real-time field samples including Alpha, Beta, Delta and the emerging Omicron variants. HiSpike provides affordable sequencing options to help laboratories conserve resources for widespread high-throughput, near real-time monitoring of spike gene variants.

In 2023, Israel registered around 8,800 road accidents with casualties. Of these, 5,727 happened on urban roads and 3,105 on non-urban roads. In 2020, the total number of road accidents declined, partly due to less traffic as a result of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic travel restrictions.