As of May 2, 2023, the outbreak of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) had been confirmed in almost every country in the world. The virus had infected over 687 million people worldwide, and the number of deaths had reached almost 6.87 million. The most severely affected countries include the U.S., India, and Brazil.

COVID-19: background information COVID-19 is a novel coronavirus that had not previously been identified in humans. The first case was detected in the Hubei province of China at the end of December 2019. The virus is highly transmissible and coughing and sneezing are the most common forms of transmission, which is similar to the outbreak of the SARS coronavirus that began in 2002 and was thought to have spread via cough and sneeze droplets expelled into the air by infected persons.

Naming the coronavirus disease Coronaviruses are a group of viruses that can be transmitted between animals and people, causing illnesses that may range from the common cold to more severe respiratory syndromes. In February 2020, the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses and the World Health Organization announced official names for both the virus and the disease it causes: SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19, respectively. The name of the disease is derived from the words corona, virus, and disease, while the number 19 represents the year that it emerged.

As of June 13, 2023, there have been almost 768 million cases of coronavirus (COVID-19) worldwide. The disease has impacted almost every country and territory in the world, with the United States confirming around 16 percent of all global cases.

COVID-19: An unprecedented crisis Health systems around the world were initially overwhelmed by the number of coronavirus cases, and even the richest and most prepared countries struggled. In the most vulnerable countries, millions of people lacked access to critical life-saving supplies, such as test kits, face masks, and respirators. However, several vaccines have been approved for use, and more than 13 billion vaccine doses had already been administered worldwide as of March 2023.

The coronavirus in the United Kingdom Over 202 thousand people have died from COVID-19 in the UK, which is the highest number in Europe. The tireless work of the National Health Service (NHS) has been applauded, but the country’s response to the crisis has drawn criticism. The UK was slow to start widespread testing, and the launch of a COVID-19 contact tracing app was delayed by months. However, the UK’s rapid vaccine rollout has been a success story, and around 53.7 million people had received at least one vaccine dose as of July 13, 2022.

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

Where are these numbers coming from?

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

A word on the flaws of numbers like this

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

*The dataset is a collection of data undertaken by the members of Work Package 2 (WP2), of the ASPIRE COVID-19 project, funded by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), as part of UK Research and Innovation’s rapid response to COVID-19 [grant number ES/V004581/1]. Full details of the main study are available via ResearchRegistry (researchregistry5911) and via UKRI Gateway (https://gtr.ukri.org/projects?ref=ES%2FV004581%2F1). This dataset contains interviews (n=13) with leads (stakeholders in maternal and neonatal care) in relevant national governmental, professional, and service user organisations in the Netherlands (See section WP2 – point 3). *13 anonymised semi-structured interviews – transcribed (NL only). *The relevant UK dataset can be found here: https://doi.org/10.17030/uclan.data.00000319

UK policy is for safe, personalised maternity care. However, during COVID-19 tests and visits have been reduced in some places, and some women with worrying symptoms are not going to hospital. Other places are trying new solutions, including remote access technologies. Some Trusts have reduced community maternity services, including home and birthcentre births; barred birth companions in early labour; and separated mothers, babies, and partners during labour, and in neonatal units. There are reports of women giving birth at home without professional help, possibly due to fear of infection, or of family separation. In contrast, the Netherlands has a policy of increased community maternity services during COVID-19. We want to find out how best to provide care for mothers, babies, and partners during and after a pandemic. We will look at what documents and national leads say about service organisation in the UK and the Netherlands, and at women's and parents experiences. We will also look in detail at what happened in 8 UK Trusts during the pandemic. We will find out how their services have been organised during COVID-19, what parents and staff think, and what the outcomes are, including infections. We will then share the findings with key stakeholders to agree a final organisational model that can be used to ensure safe, personalised routine and crisis maternity care, now, and in future. This will include useful resources and links relating to innovative best practices that we find out about during the study.

The data collection consists of 40 qualitative interviews with Polish migrant essential workers living in the UK and 10 in-depth expert interviews with key stakeholders providing information and support to migrant workers in the UK. All migrant interviews are in Polish. Six of the expert interviews with key stakeholders are in English and four are in Polish. Fieldwork was conducted fully online during the Covid-19 pandemic between March and August 2021, following the third UK-wide Covid-19 lockdown. Restrictions were still in place in some localities. Interviews took place shortly after the end of the transition period concluding the UK’s European Union exit on 1 January 2021. All Polish migrant worker interviewees entered the UK before 1 January 2021 and had the option to apply to the EU Settlement Scheme.

The objectives of the qualitative fieldwork were to: 1. To synthesise empirical and theoretical knowledge on the short- and long-term impacts of COVID-19 on migrant essential workers. 2. To establish how the pandemic affected Polish migrant essential worker's lives; and expert interviews with stakeholders in the public and third/voluntary sector to investigate how to best support and retain migrant essential workers in COVID-19 recovery strategies. The project also involved: - co-producing policy outputs with partner organisations in England and Scotland; and - an online survey to measure how Polish migrant essential workers across different roles and sectors were impacted by COVID-19 in regard to health, social, economic and cultural aspects, and intentions to stay in the UK/return to Poland (deposited separately to University of Sheffield). Key findings included significant new knowledge about the health, social, economic and cultural impacts of Covid-19 on migrant essential workers. Polish essential workers were severely impacted by the pandemic with major mental health impacts. Mental health support was insufficient throughout the UK. Those seeking support typically turned to private (online) services from Poland as they felt they could not access them in the UK because of language or cultural barriers, lack of understanding of the healthcare system and pathways to mental health support, support being offered during working hours only, or fear of the negative impact of using mental health services on work opportunities. Some participants were in extreme financial hardship, especially those with pre-settled status or those who arrived in the UK during the pandemic. The reasons for financial strain varied but there were strong patterns linked to increased pressure at work, greater exposure to Covid-19 as well as redundancies, pay cuts and rejected benefit applications. There was a tendency to avoid applying for state financial support. These impacts were compounded by the sense of isolation, helplessness, or long-distance grief due to inability to visit loved ones in Poland. Covid-19 impacted most detrimentally on women with caring responsibilities, single parents and people in the health and teaching sectors. The most vulnerable Polish migrant essential workers - e.g. those on lower income, with pre-existing health conditions, restricted access to support and limited English proficiency - were at most risk. Discrimination was reported, including not feeling treated equally in the workplace. The sense of discrimination two-fold: as essential workers (low-paid, low-status, unsafe jobs) and as Eastern Europeans (frequent disciplining practices, treated as threat, assumed to be less qualified). In terms of future plans, some essential workers intended to leave the UK or were unsure about their future place of residence. Brexit was a major reason for uncertain settlement plans. Vaccine hesitancy was identified, based on doubts about vaccination, especially amongst younger respondents who perceived low risks of Covid-19 for their own health, including women of childbearing age, who may have worries over unknown vaccine side-effects for fertility. Interview participants largely turned to Polish language sources for vaccination information, especially social media, and family and friends in Poland. This promoted the spread of misinformation as Poland has a strong anti-vaccination movement.

COVID-19 has exposed the UK's socio-economic dependence on a chronically insecure migrant essential workforce. While risking their lives to offset the devastating effects of the pandemic, migrant workers reportedly find themselves in precarious professional and personal circumstances (temporary zero-hours contracts, work exploitation, overcrowded accommodation, limited access to adequate health/social services including Universal Credit). This project will investigate the health, social, economic and cultural impacts of COVID-19 on the migrant essential workforce and how these might impact on their continued stay in the UK. It will focus on the largest non-British nationality in the UK, the Polish...

The submission is a collection of metadata for clinical and organisational data. Analysis was undertaken by the members of Work Package 5 (WP5), of the ASPIRE COVID-19 project, funded by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), as part of UK Research and Innovation’s rapid response to COVID-19 [grant number ES/V004581/1]. Full details of the main study are available via Related Resources. This record contains metadata for monthly maternity clinical data from seven NHS trusts in England from January 2018 to September 2021, as well as metadata for organisational-level data.

UK policy is for safe, personalised maternity care. However, during COVID-19 tests and visits have been reduced in some places, and some women with worrying symptoms are not going to hospital. Other places are trying new solutions, including remote access technologies. Some Trusts have reduced community maternity services, including home and birthcentre births; barred birth companions in early labour; and separated mothers, babies, and partners during labour, and in neonatal units. There are reports of women giving birth at home without professional help, possibly due to fear of infection, or of family separation. In contrast, the Netherlands has a policy of increased community maternity services during COVID-19. We want to find out how best to provide care for mothers, babies, and partners during and after a pandemic. We will look at what documents and national leads say about service organisation in the UK and the Netherlands, and at women's and parents experiences. We will also look in detail at what happened in 8 UK Trusts during the pandemic. We will find out how their services have been organised during COVID-19, what parents and staff think, and what the outcomes are, including infections. We will then share the findings with key stakeholders to agree a final organisational model that can be used to ensure safe, personalised routine and crisis maternity care, now, and in future. This will include useful resources and links relating to innovative best practices that we find out about during the study.

As of November 24, 2024 there were over 274 million confirmed cases of coronavirus (COVID-19) across the whole of Europe since the first confirmed cases in France in January 2020. France has been the worst affected country in Europe with 39,028,437 confirmed cases, followed by Germany with 38,437,756 cases. Italy and the UK have approximately 26.8 million and 25 million cases respectively. For further information about the coronavirus pandemic, please visit our dedicated Facts and Figures page.

Age-standardised mortality rates for deaths involving coronavirus (COVID-19), non-COVID-19 deaths and all deaths by vaccination status, broken down by age group.

The dataset is a collection of data undertaken by the members of Work Package 2 (WP2), of the ASPIRE COVID-19 project, funded by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), as part of UK Research and Innovation’s rapid response to COVID-19 [grant number ES/V004581/1]. This dataset contains interviews (n=26) with leads (stakeholders in maternal and neonatal care) in relevant national governmental, professional, and service user organisations in the UK . The dataset contains 26 anonymised semi-structured interviews – transcribed (UK only).

*Interview Schedule: A detailed interview schedule including an introduction and reiterate key information was used. Interviews were started with an opening question regarding participants views on the most important issues for maternity and neonatal care provision that have come out of COVID-19. Then participants were asked about changes/adaptations to service delivery, decision making processes, communication and implementation, impact, barriers and facilitators, and recommendations and sustainability.

File description: STUDY NAME_WORK PACKAGE NUMBER_PARTICIPANT NUMBER_COUNTRY (e.g. ASPIRE_WP2_S1_UK)

UK policy is for safe, personalised maternity care. However, during COVID-19 tests and visits have been reduced in some places, and some women with worrying symptoms are not going to hospital. Other places are trying new solutions, including remote access technologies. Some Trusts have reduced community maternity services, including home and birthcentre births; barred birth companions in early labour; and separated mothers, babies, and partners during labour, and in neonatal units. There are reports of women giving birth at home without professional help, possibly due to fear of infection, or of family separation. In contrast, the Netherlands has a policy of increased community maternity services during COVID-19. We want to find out how best to provide care for mothers, babies, and partners during and after a pandemic. We will look at what documents and national leads say about service organisation in the UK and the Netherlands, and at women's and parents experiences. We will also look in detail at what happened in 8 UK Trusts during the pandemic. We will find out how their services have been organised during COVID-19, what parents and staff think, and what the outcomes are, including infections. We will then share the findings with key stakeholders to agree a final organisational model that can be used to ensure safe, personalised routine and crisis maternity care, now, and in future. This will include useful resources and links relating to innovative best practices that we find out about during the study.

This is a collection of data undertaken by the members of Work Package 2 (WP2), of the ASPIRE COVID-19 project, funded by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), as part of UK Research and Innovation’s rapid response to COVID-19 [grant number ES/V004581/1].

The collection contains two datasets: 1) Anonymised Babies Born Better survey responses (quantitative only) recorded between 18th June 2020 and December 31st 2020 for women who gave birth to their most recent baby between 2017 and December 2020 in the UK and the Netherlands(available under standard Safeguarded access); 2) Anonymised Babies Born Better survey responses (qualitative only) recorded between 18th June 2020 and December 31st 2020 for women who gave birth to their most recent baby between 2017 and December 2020 in the UK and the Netherlands (available under Permission Only Saefguarded access).

UK policy is for safe, personalised maternity care. However, during COVID-19 tests and visits have been reduced in some places, and some women with worrying symptoms are not going to hospital. Other places are trying new solutions, including remote access technologies. Some Trusts have reduced community maternity services, including home and birthcentre births; barred birth companions in early labour; and separated mothers, babies, and partners during labour, and in neonatal units. There are reports of women giving birth at home without professional help, possibly due to fear of infection, or of family separation. In contrast, the Netherlands has a policy of increased community maternity services during COVID-19. We want to find out how best to provide care for mothers, babies, and partners during and after a pandemic. We will look at what documents and national leads say about service organisation in the UK and the Netherlands, and at women's and parents experiences. We will also look in detail at what happened in 8 UK Trusts during the pandemic. We will find out how their services have been organised during COVID-19, what parents and staff think, and what the outcomes are, including infections. We will then share the findings with key stakeholders to agree a final organisational model that can be used to ensure safe, personalised routine and crisis maternity care, now, and in future. This will include useful resources and links relating to innovative best practices that we find out about during the study.

According to a survey conducted in the United Kingdom (UK) in April 2022, 4.13 percent of all people aged between 35 and 49 years reported to be suffering from long COVID symptoms, the highest share across all age groups. Furthermore, around 3.7 percent of the population aged 50 to 69 years were estimated to suffer from long COVID. Overall, around 863 thousand people in the UK reported their ability to undertake daily activities and routines was affected a little by long COVID symptoms.

Present state of COVID-19 As of May 2022, over 22 million COVID-19 cases had been reported in the UK. The largest surge of cases was noted over the winter period 2021/22. The incidence of cases in the county since the pandemic began stood at around 32,624 per 100,000 population. Cyprus had the highest incidence of COVID-19 cases among its population in Europe at 75,798 per 100,000 people, followed by a rate of 51,573 in Iceland. Over 175 thousand COVID-19 deaths have been reported in the UK. The deadliest day on record was January 20, 2021, when 1,820 deaths were recorded. In the UK, a COVID-19 death is defined as a person who died within 28 days of a positive test.

Preventing long COVID through vaccination According to the WHO, being fully vaccinated alongside a significant proportion of the population also vaccinated is the best way to avoid the spread of COVID-19 or serious symptoms associated with the virus. It is therefore regarded that receiving a vaccine course as well as subsequent booster vaccines limits the chance of developing long COVID symptoms. As of April 27, 2022, around 53.2 million first doses, 49.7 million second doses, and 39.2 booster doses had been administered in the UK.

With COVID-19 at the forefront, people may not have been aware of the importance of seeking medical help for early signs of cancer or taking up screening, when available, to diagnose cancer sooner. In addition, some people may not have wanted to be referred to a hospital for diagnostic tests due to fear of catching coronavirus in the healthcare setting. COVID-19 may have also affected whether people took part in healthy behaviours that could reduce the chances of getting cancer. These factors may have led to more cancers occurring, and more cancers being diagnosed at a late stage when treatment may be less successful.

To understand peoples experiences and attitudes towards potential symptoms of cancer, their help-seeking behaviours and engagement in prevention behaviours (i.e. smoking, diet, exercise, alcohol consumption) during the pandemic we carried out a large study in adults aged 18+ across the UK. We aimed to include adults from a range of different backgrounds.

Working closely with Cancer Research UK, we carried out an online survey with over 7,500 people to ask about any recent symptoms, cancer screening and health behaviours during the UK lockdown period. Survey questions included the time taken to visit the GP with a range of possible cancer symptoms, attitudes to cancer screening, anxiety about seeking help in the current situation, other barriers to seeking help, health behaviours including smoking, alcohol, diet and physical activity, and preferred ways of receiving public health information. The survey was repeated 6 months later to assess any changes in attitudes.

We also interview 26 people (by telephone) who had taken part in the survey across two timepoints (autumn 2020 and spring 2021) to understand their attitudes and behaviours in more detail and how these changed during the course of the pandemic.

Our study findings have been used to help in rapidly developing clear public health messages to encouraging people to act on the early signs of cancer, take up cancer screening when it became available and engage in healthy behaviours. Results from our study have been used to help to reduce the negative impact of COVID-19 on cancer outcomes in the longer term.

Background: The impact of COVID-19 on the UK public attitude towards cancer and potential cancer symptom help-seeking is likely to be considerable, translating into impact on the NHS from delayed referrals, missed screening and later-stage cancer diagnosis.

Aim: The aim of this study was to generate rapid self-report evidence on public views/responses of the covid-19 pandemic on caner symptoms to support and inform public health interventions with the potential to encourage: 1. timely symptom presentation, 2. engagement with cancer screening services and 3. improve cancer-related health behaviours I the wake of the pandemic.

Design: Prospective mixed-methods cohort study in the UK population.

Methods: During June-August 2020, and again six month later, we will conduct UK-wide online population survey of adults ages 18+. We measured attitudes and behaviour in the domains of 1. cancer symptom presentation, 2. intentions to engage with cancer screening, 3. Engagement in cancer-risk behaviours such as smoking, increased alcohol, poor diet and reduced physical activity. We sampled from established online cohorts (via CRUK and HealthWise Wales), supplemented with social media recruitment. Qualitative interviews were conducted with a sub-sample of survey participants to understand contextual influences on cancer attitudes and behaviours.

The COVID-19 Psychological Research Consortium (C19PRC) Study aims to monitor and assess the long-term psychological, social, political and economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the UK general population. A longitudinal, internet panel survey was designed to assess: (1) COVID-19 related knowledge, attitudes and behaviours, (2) the occurrence of common mental health disorders, as well as the role of (3) psychological factors, and (4) social and political attitudes in influencing the public’s response to the pandemic. Quota sampling was used to recruit a nationally representative sample of adults in terms of age, sex and household income. The first C19PRC survey was launched on 23 March 2020 (Wave 1), the day that a strict lockdown was enforced across the UK, and recruited 2025 UK adults. As of February 2022, six follow-up surveys have been conducted: Wave 2, April/May 2020; Wave 3, July/August 2020; Wave 4, Nov/Dec 2020; Wave 5, March/April 2021; Wave 6, Aug/Sept 2021; and Wave 7, Nov/Dec 2021. The baseline sample was representative of the UK population in relation to economic activity, ethnicity, and household composition. Data collection for the C19PRC Study is ongoing, with subsequent follow-up surveys being conducted during 2022 (Waves 8 and 9). C19PRC Study data has strong generalisability to facilitate and stimulate interdisciplinary research on important pandemic-related public health questions. It will allow changes in mental health and psychosocial functioning to be investigated from the beginning of the pandemic, identifying vulnerable groups in need of support. Find out more about the study at https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/psychology-consortium-covid19

The COVID-19 pandemic has led to unprecedented global restrictions on freedom of movement, social and economic activity. Pandemics may cause fear in the population, affecting behaviour which in turn may propagate or restrict the further spread of the virus. Social and economic restrictions may also have a major impact on population mental health, especially affecting vulnerable groups, influencing the nation's ability to recover once the pandemic is over. To investigate these mental health effects, it is necessary to collect data using validated measures capturing mental health and decision-making early and throughout the pandemic. Prior to our work leading to this application, no research has addressed this. With initial seed funding from the Universities of Sheffield and Ulster, we assessed mental health and other relevant variables in 2025 UK adults who are highly representative of the UK population in the week of March 23rd, and followed them up in a second wave between April 20th and 30th, with a 69% follow-up rate. We measured not only mental health but many other social and Our work is already being used by the Cabinet Office, Public Health England and the Department of Health and Social Care. We request funding for five further waves of data collection (including one wave of increased sampling to ensure that the four nations/provinces of the UK are fully represented). We also seek funding for more detailed investigations of subgroups within our sample using qualitative interviews of vulnerable people (e.g. older people, people with pre-existing medical conditions) conducted over the telephone, cognitive testing of decision-making processes relevant to the perception of infection risk, and momentary experience sampling (in which people are contact at random intervals throughout the day to ask them about their experiences and feelings) extending until March 2021 after the hoped-for end of the crisis. We will achieve a complete picture of the psychology of a country during crisis and release our findings to the public and government in a timely manner, and make the data available to other scientists.

Serological testing is important methodfor diagnosis of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. Nucleocapsid (N) protein is the most abundant virus derived protein and strong immunogen. We aimed to find its efficient, low-cost production. SARS-CoV-2 recombinant fragment of nucleocapsid protein (rfNP; 58-419 aa) was expressed in E. coli in soluble form, purified and characterized biochemically and immunologically. Purified rfNP has secondary structure of full-length recombinant N protein, with high percentage of disordered structure (34.2 %) and of β-sheet (40.7 %). rfNP was tested in immunoblot using sera of COVID-19 convalescent patients. ELISA was optimized with sera of RT-PCR confirmed positive symptomatic patients and healthy individuals. IgG detection sensitivity was 96% (47/50) and specificity 97% (67/68), while IgM detection was slightly lower (94% and 96.5%, respectively). Cost-effective approach for soluble recombinant N protein fragment production was developed, with reliable IgG and IgM antibodies detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

According to a study conducted in March 2020, the most used sources of news and information regarding the coronavirus among news consumers worldwide were major news organizations, with 64 percent of respondents sayng that they got most of their information about the virus from larger news companies. The study also showed that social media was a popular news source for COVID-19 updates in several countries around the world. Despite social networking sites being the least trusted media source worldwide, for many consumers social media was a more popular source of information for updates on the coronavirus pandemic than global health organizations like the WHO or National health authorities like the CDC, particularly in Japan, South Africa, and Brazil.

Government sources also varied in popularity among consumers in different parts of the world. Whilst 63 percent of Italian respondents relied mostly on national government sources, just 22 percent of UK news consumers did the same, preferring to get their updates from larger organizations. Similarly, twice as many Italians used local government sources to keep up to date than adults in the United Kingdom, and U.S. consumers were also less likely to rely on news from the government.

The Social Distancing and Development Study (SDDS) aimed to examine how changes in sleep, parenting style, social interactions, screen use and activities affect young children’s language and cognitive development since the Spring 2020 UK lockdown.

This longitudinal study followed a cohort of nearly 900 children aged 8 to 36 months of age, enrolled in an online study at the onset or during the Spring 2020 UK lockdown, to capture changes in their environment and measure their impact on children’s vocabulary size and executive function. Since Spring 2020, we have collected data at three additional timepoints: T2 – End of the Spring 2020 lockdown, T3 – November 2020 lockdown, and T4 – One-year follow-up.

On 20th March 2020, the UK Government instigated a nationwide nursery and school closure in response to the COVID-19 outbreak, followed by instructions for people to stay at home. For millions of children, this brought stark changes to their routines, with a decrease in outdoor activities and interactions with others.

The environments children grow up in heavily influence key elements of cognitive development such as language and executive functions, which in turn associate with later educational and occupational attainment as well as health and wellbeing. The COVID-19 pandemic is a unique, once-in-a-lifetime situation that has dramatically changed the daily lives of millions of families. Several environmental factors likely to be affected by quarantine measures (such as sleep, parenting style and social interactions, screen use, and outdoor activities/exercise) are known predictors of language and executive function development.

The proposed study will follow up a UK-wide cohort of 600 children aged 8 to 36 months of age, enrolled in an online study at the onset of social distancing measures, to capture changes in key environmental variables and measure their impact on children's vocabulary size and executive function. Using sophisticated analyses on a large and diverse sample, we will examine the role of each factor on children's cognitive abilities. At this time of unforeseen and ongoing change, it is imperative to understand the impacts of the lockdown on cognition during a critical period for development (0 to 3 years of age), and then find strategies to minimise disruption to this cohort. Our findings will identify approaches that mitigate the temporary loss of formal early years' education, identify those groups most at risk of adverse consequences, and inform policy on how to remediate the negative impacts of lockdown post-COVID-19.

This research draws on interview-based research that took place between May and June 2021 to capture the experience of staff and volunteers at a London food co-op that set up a shopping service for vulnerable people at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. As well as reflecting on the food co-op, what it is and their relationship to it, participants discuss the foundation of the shopping (shop and drop) service and their relationship to it. They also explore broader topics such as the wider impacts of COVID-19 on their own lives and life in the UK, their opinion on the governmental response to COVID-19, and their understanding of concepts such as mutual aid, cooperation and community, which became so prevalent during the pandemic.

The financial crisis of 2008 and resultant period of austerity have had a significant impact on the nature of politics, the economy and the lives of everyday citizens in Britain. These political-economic shifts have informed and adjusted the ideals, practices and structures of community organising, raising questions about the nature of citizenship, grassroots political action and the structures of society in Britain today. The COVID-19 pandemic is further highlighting issues of inequality, while catalysing more community organising and network building. In the wake of Brexit, tensions around issues such as welfare, immigration and identity have also become increasingly polarising. This research takes an ethnographic approach to experiences of social and political-economic change, community-building and collective organising to offer a nuanced representation of life in contemporary Britain and the impacts of increasingly neoliberal policies on food and housing.

Despite the fact that Britain is one of the richest countries in the world, more than 8 million people are suffering from food insecurity today (Lambie-Mumford 2017). Where food has historically been one of the biggest income expenditures, it now averages just 10-16% for the lowest income households in the UK (DEFRA 2017). The fact that many people in Britain are unable to afford to eat despite this reduction, highlights one of the stark realities of life in Britain. The country is also undergoing a severe housing crisis, which is felt most acutely in cities such as London (Minton 2017). While housing used to be more affordable than food, by the 1990s this had become the main cost for the average household (Hickman 2008; Cribb et al. 2012). This raises questions about how the social and financial value of food and housing and the levels of urgency attached to each impact on how people mobilise and organise around them today, whether as activists or humanitarians; and what structures, practices and ideologies they draw on.

As part of my doctoral work I conducted two years of ethnographic research with grassroots, retail food co-ops in London. This focused on practices of politics, aid and care in the face of austerity and the growing humanitarian crisis around food. The Politics of Food and Housing in Changing Times aims to consolidate and disseminate my PhD findings, and draw out the issues around housing which were already present in the thesis. In order to further my understanding of housing issues and the forms of collective organising used in relation to them, I will build on my established networks and contacts in London to do two months of fieldwork with housing activists. I will develop a research funding proposal from this work which makes a theoretical contribution to the social sciences on food, housing, political economy, and creates impact for the groups involved. In addition to the production of this new research and proposal, key outputs for the fellowship will include: A monograph based on the PhD thesis that engages with public and social scientific debates on austerity, food and activism, therefore appealing to both academics and practitioners. Three research participant workshops for people and organisations that contributed to my doctoral work. A practitioner workshop on food access and sustainability. I will also present at two international conferences. The fellowship activities are designed to build on each other, benefitting my career progression, while also creating pathways to impact. Drawing on my existing networks in London, the South West and mainland Europe, they will engage academics and practitioners across a range of disciplinary and professional backgrounds to share experiences and findings and develop tools in relation to the politics of food and housing, sustainability, poverty alleviation, community-building and social cohesion; and to build on local and international networks in order to share resources and findings.