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.

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.

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 first case of COVID-19 in Mexico was detected on March 1, 2020. By the end of the year, the total number of confirmed infections had surpassed 1.4 million. Meanwhile, the number of deaths related to the disease was nearing 148,000. On May 11, 2025, the number of cases recorded had reached 7.6 million, while the number of deaths amounted to around 335,000. The relevance of the Omicron variant Omicron, a highly contagious COVID-19 variant, was declared of concern by the World Health Organization (WHO) at the end of November 2021. As the pandemic unfolded, it became the variant with the highest share of COVID-19 cases in the world. In Latin America, countries such as Colombia, Argentina, Brazil, and Mexico were strongly affected. In fact, by 2023 nearly all analyzed sequences within these countries corresponded to an Omicron subvariant. Beyond a health crisis As the COVID-19 pandemic progressed worldwide, the respiratory disease caused by the virus SARS-CoV-2 virus first detected in Wuhan brought considerable economic consequences for countries and households. While Mexico’s gross domestic product (GDP) in current prices declined in 2020 compared to the previous year, a survey conducted among adults during the first months of 2021 showed COVID-19 impacted families mainly through finances and employment, with around one third of households in Mexico reporting an income reduction and the same proportion having at least one household member suffering from the disease.Find the most up-to-date information about the coronavirus pandemic in the world under Statista’s COVID-19 facts and figures site.

Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is an infectious disease caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

Most people infected with the virus will experience mild to moderate respiratory illness and recover without requiring special treatment. However, some will become seriously ill and require medical attention. Older people and those with underlying medical conditions like cardiovascular disease, diabetes, chronic respiratory disease, or cancer are more likely to develop serious illness. Anyone can get sick with COVID-19 and become seriously ill or die at any age.

The best way to prevent and slow down transmission is to be well informed about the disease and how the virus spreads. Protect yourself and others from infection by staying at least 1 metre apart from others, wearing a properly fitted mask, and washing your hands or using an alcohol-based rub frequently. Get vaccinated when it’s your turn and follow local guidance.

The virus can spread from an infected person’s mouth or nose in small liquid particles when they cough, sneeze, speak, sing or breathe. These particles range from larger respiratory droplets to smaller aerosols. It is important to practice respiratory etiquette, for example by coughing into a flexed elbow, and to stay home and self-isolate until you recover if you feel unwell.

Where are cases still high?

Daily global cases fell after a spike in the spring but are now rising again, with the emergence of the BA.4 and BA.5 subvariants of the Omicron variant.

Studies suggest that Omicron - which quickly became dominant in numerous countries - is milder than the Delta variant, but far more contagious. The subvariants are even more contagious.

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

IntroductionCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has caused more than 690 million deaths worldwide. Different results concerning the death rates of the Delta and Omicron variants have been recorded. We aimed to assess the secular trend of case fatality rate (CFR), identify risk factors associated with mortality following COVID-19 diagnosis, and investigate the risks of mortality and hospitalization during Delta and Omicron waves in the United States.MethodsThis study assessed 2,857,925 individuals diagnosed with COVID-19 in the United States from January 2020, to June 2022. The inclusion criterion was the presence of COVID-19 diagnostic codes in electronic medical record or a positive laboratory test of the SARS-CoV-2. Statistical analysis was bifurcated into two components, longitudinal analysis and comparative analysis. To assess the discrepancies in hospitalization and mortality rates for COVID-19, we identified the prevailing periods for the Delta and Omicron variants.ResultsLongitudinal analysis demonstrated four sharp surges in the number of deaths and CFR. The CFR was persistently higher in males and older age. The CFR of Black and White remained higher than Asians since January 2022. In comparative analysis, the adjusted hazard ratios for all-cause mortality and hospitalization were higher in Delta wave compared to the Omicron wave. Risk of all-cause mortality was found to be greater 14–30 days after a COVID-19 diagnosis, while the likelihood of hospitalization was higher in the first 14 days following a COVID-19 diagnosis in Delta wave compared with Omicron wave. Kaplan–Meier analysis revealed the cumulative probability of mortality was approximately 2-fold on day 30 in Delta than in Omicron cases (log-rank p 

BackgroundThe Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2 is more highly infectious and transmissible than prior variants of concern. It was unclear which factors might have contributed to the alteration of COVID-19 cases and deaths during the Delta and Omicron variant periods. This study aimed to compare the COVID-19 average weekly infection fatality rate (AWIFR), investigate factors associated with COVID-19 AWIFR, and explore the factors linked to the increase in COVID-19 AWIFR between two periods of Delta and Omicron variants.Materials and methodsAn ecological study has been conducted among 110 countries over the first 12 weeks during two periods of Delta and Omicron variant dominance using open publicly available datasets. Our analysis included 102 countries in the Delta period and 107 countries in the Omicron period. Linear mixed-effects models and linear regression models were used to explore factors associated with the variation of AWIFR over Delta and Omicron periods.FindingsDuring the Delta period, the lower AWIFR was witnessed in countries with better government effectiveness index [β = −0.762, 95% CI (−1.238)–(−0.287)] and higher proportion of the people fully vaccinated [β = −0.385, 95% CI (−0.629)–(−0.141)]. In contrast, a higher burden of cardiovascular diseases was positively associated with AWIFR (β = 0.517, 95% CI 0.102–0.932). Over the Omicron period, while years lived with disability (YLD) caused by metabolism disorders (β = 0.843, 95% CI 0.486–1.2), the proportion of the population aged older than 65 years (β = 0.737, 95% CI 0.237–1.238) was positively associated with poorer AWIFR, and the high proportion of the population vaccinated with a booster dose [β = −0.321, 95% CI (−0.624)–(−0.018)] was linked with the better outcome. Over two periods of Delta and Omicron, the increase in government effectiveness index was associated with a decrease in AWIFR [β = −0.438, 95% CI (−0.750)–(−0.126)]; whereas, higher death rates caused by diabetes and kidney (β = 0.472, 95% CI 0.089–0.855) and percentage of population aged older than 65 years (β = 0.407, 95% CI 0.013–0.802) were associated with a significant increase in AWIFR.ConclusionThe COVID-19 infection fatality rates were strongly linked with the coverage of vaccination rate, effectiveness of government, and health burden related to chronic diseases. Therefore, proper policies for the improvement of vaccination coverage and support of vulnerable groups could substantially mitigate the burden of COVID-19.

Peru is the country with the highest mortality rate due to the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) in Latin America. As of November 13, 2023, the country registered over 672 deaths per 100,000 inhabitants. It was followed by Brazil, with around 331.5 fatal cases per 100,000 population. In total, over 1.76 million people have died due to COVID-19 in Latin America and the Caribbean.

Are these figures accurate? Although countries like Brazil already rank among the countries most affected by the coronavirus disease (COVID-19), there is still room to believe that the number of cases and deaths in Latin American countries are underreported. The main reason is the relatively low number of tests performed in the region. For example, Brazil, one of the most impacted countries in the world, has performed approximately 63.7 million tests as of December 22, 2022. This compared with over one billion tests performed in the United States, approximately 909 million tests completed in India, or around 522 million tests carried out in the United Kingdom.

Capacity to deal with the outbreak With the spread of the Omicron variant, the COVID-19 pandemic is putting health systems around the world under serious pressure. The lack of equipment to treat acute cases, for instance, is one of the problems affecting Latin American countries. In 2019, the number of ventilators in hospitals in the most affected countries ranged from 25.23 per 100,000 inhabitants in Brazil to 5.12 per 100,000 people in Peru.

For further information about the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, please visit our dedicated Facts and Figures page.

Mexico, one of the countries severely affected by COVID-19, accumulated more than 5. 1 all-cause excess deaths/1,000 inhabitants and 2.5 COVID-19 confirmed deaths/1,000 inhabitants, in 2 years. In this scenario of high SARS-CoV-2 circulation, we analyzed the effectiveness of the country's vaccination strategy that used 7 different vaccines from around the world, and focused on vaccinating the oldest population first. We analyzed the national dataset published by Mexican health authorities, as a retrospective cohort, separating cases, hospitalizations, deaths and excess deaths by wave and age group. We explored if the vaccination strategy was effective to limit severe COVID-19 during the active outbreaks caused by Delta and Omicron variants. Vaccination of the eldest third of the population reduced COVID-19 hospitalizations, deaths and excess deaths by 46–55% in the third wave driven by Delta SARS-CoV-2. These adverse outcomes dropped 74–85% by the fourth wave driven by Omicron, when all adults had access to vaccines. Vaccine access for the pregnant resulted in 85–90% decrease in COVID-19 fatalities in pregnant individuals and 80% decrease in infants 0 years old by the Omicron wave. In contrast, in the rest of the pediatric population that did not access vaccination before the period analyzed, COVID-19 hospitalizations increased >40% during the Delta and Omicron waves. Our analysis suggests that the vaccination strategy in Mexico has been successful to limit population mortality and decrease severe COVID-19, but children in Mexico still need access to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines to limit severe COVID-19, in particular those 1–4 years old.

Overview:

This dataset provides a unique resource for researchers and data scientists interested in the global dynamics of the COVID-19 pandemic. It focuses on the impact of different SARS-CoV-2 variants and mutations on the duration of local epidemics. By combining variant information with epidemiological data, this dataset allows for a comprehensive analysis of factors influencing the trajectory of the pandemic.

Key Features:

• Global Coverage: Includes data from multiple countries.
• Variant-Specific Information: Detailed records for various SARS-CoV-2 variants.
• Epidemic Duration: Data on the duration of local epidemics, accounting for right-censoring.
• Epidemiological Variables: Includes mortality rates, a proxy for R0, transmission proxies, and other pertinent variables.
• Geographical characteristics: Include a continent variable for exploring geographical patterns
• Time varying variables: Include the number of waves and the number of variants in the different countries for more in-depth exploration.

Data Source: The data combines information from the Johns Hopkins University COVID-19 dataset (confirmed_cases.csv and deaths_cases.csv) and the covariants.org dataset (variants.csv). The dataset you see here is the combination of two datasets from Johns Hopkins University and covariants.org.

Questions to Inspire Users:

This dataset is designed for a diverse set of analytical questions. Here are some ideas to inspire the Kaggle community:

Survival Analysis:

1. How do different SARS-CoV-2 variants influence the duration of local epidemics?
2. Which factors (mortality, R0, etc.) are most strongly associated with shorter or longer epidemic durations?
3. Does the type of variant/mutation (mutation,S, Omicron, Delta, Other) have a significant impact on epidemic duration?
4. Is there a geographical pattern to the duration of epidemics?

Epidemiological Analysis:

1. How do local transmission rates (represented by our proxy of R0) affect the duration of an epidemic?
2. Do countries with higher mortality rates have different patterns of epidemic progression?
3. How can we predict the duration of an epidemic based on its initial characteristics?
4. How does the number of epidemic waves impact the duration of an epidemic?
5. Does the number of variants in a country affect the duration of an épidémie?

Data Science/Machine Learning:

1. Can we develop a machine learning model to predict the duration of an epidemic?
2. What features have the best predictive power ?
3. Can we identify clusters of variants/regions with similar epidemic patterns?
4. Are there interactions between variables that can explain the non-linearities that we have identified ?

As of July 2023, the Omicron variant was the most prevalent among selected countries in Latin America. The share of COVID-19 cases corresponding to the Omicron variant amounted to 100 percent of the analyzed sequences of SARS-CoV-2 in Colombia. The variant Omicron (XBB.1.5) accounted for nearly 81 percent of the sequenced cases in the country, while Omicron (XBB.1.9) added up to 14 percent. Similarly, Peru reported over 90 percent of its reviewed sequences corresponding to the variant Omicron (XBB.1.5), while Omicron (XBB) accounted for around 2.4 percent of cases studied. A regional overview The Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2 - the virus causing COVID-19 - was designated as a variant of concern by the World Health Organization in November 2021. Since then, it has been rapidly spreading, causing an unprecedented increase in the number of cases reported worldwide. In Latin America, Brazil had been the most affected country by the disease already before the emergence of the Omicron variant, with nearly 37.4 million cases and around 701,494 confirmed deaths as of May 2, 2023. However, it is Peru that has the largest mortality rate per 100,000 inhabitants due to the SARS-Cov-2 in the region, with roughly 672 deaths per 100,000 people. Vaccination campaigns in Latin America As the COVID-19 pandemic continues to cause social and economic harm worldwide, most Latin American and Caribbean countries advance their immunization programs. As of August 14, 2023, Brazil had administered the largest number of vaccines in the region, with over 486.4 million doses. Mexico and Argentina followed, with about 223.1 million and 116 million COVID-19 doses administered, respectively. However, Cuba had the highest vaccination rate not only in the region, but also the world, with around 391 vaccines given per 100 people.Find the most up-to-date information about the coronavirus pandemic in the world under Statista’s COVID-19 facts and figures site.

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: U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)For more information, visit the Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center.Trends represent the day-to-day rate of new cases with a focus on the most recent 10 to 14 days. Includes Puerto Rico, Guam, Northern Marianas, and U.S. Virgin Islands. Daily new case counts are volatile for many reasons and sometimes the trends reflect that volatility. Thus, we decided to include longer-term summaries here. County Trends as of 9 Mar 20230 (-0) in Emergent1135 (+51) in Spreading1664 (-63) in Epidemic230 (+10) in Controlled110 (+2) in End StageNotes: Many states now only report once per week, and FL only once every two weeks. On 3/7/2022 we adjusted the formula for active cases to reflect the Omicron Variant which is documented to cause lower rates of serious and severe illness. To produce these trends we analyze daily updates 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.For more information about COVID-19 trends, see our country level trends story map and the full methodology.Data Source: Johns Hopkins University CSSE US Cases by County dashboard and USAFacts for Utah County level Data.Feature layer generated from running the Join Features solution that is the basis for daily updates for the U.S. County COVID-19 Tends Story Map.

There has been a rapid surge of hospitalization due to the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Omicron variants globally. The severity of Omicron BA.2 in unexposed, unvaccinated, hospitalized children is unknown. We investigated the severity and clinical outcomes of COVID-19 infection during the Omicron wave in uninfected, unvaccinated hospitalized children and in comparison with influenza and parainfluenza viral infections. This population-based study retrieved data from the HK territory-wide CDARS database of hospitalisations in all public hospitals and compared severe outcomes for the Omicron BA.2-dominant fifth wave (5–28 February 2022, n = 1144), and influenza and parainfluenza viruses (1 January 2015–31 December 2019, n = 32212 and n = 16423, respectively) in children 0–11 years old. Two deaths (0.2%) out of 1144 cases during the initial Omicron wave were recorded. Twenty-one (1.8%) required PICU admission, and the relative risk was higher for Omicron than influenza virus (n = 254, 0.8%, adjusted RR = 2.1, 95%CI 1.3–3.3, p = 0.001). The proportion with neurological complications was 15.0% (n = 171) for Omicron, which was higher than influenza and parainfluenza viruses (n = 2707, 8.4%, adjusted RR = 1.6, 95%CI 1.4–1.9 and n = 1258, 7.7%, adjusted RR = 1.9, 95%CI 1.6–2.2, p < 0.001 for both, respectively). Croup occurred for Omicron (n = 61, 5.3%) more than influenza virus (n = 601, 1.9%, adjusted RR = 2.0, 95%CI 1.5–2.6, p < 0.001) but not parainfluenza virus (n = 889, 5.4%). Our findings showed that for hospitalized children who had no past COVID-19 or vaccination, Omicron BA.2 was not mild. Omicron BA.2 appeared to be more neuropathogenic than influenza and parainfluenza viruses. It targeted the upper airways more than influenza virus.

BackgroundThe global COVID-19 pandemic is still ongoing, and cross-country and cross-period variation in COVID-19 age-adjusted case fatality rates (CFRs) has not been clarified. Here, we aimed to identify the country-specific effects of booster vaccination and other features that may affect heterogeneity in age-adjusted CFRs with a worldwide scope, and to predict the benefit of increasing booster vaccination rate on future CFR.MethodCross-temporal and cross-country variations in CFR were identified in 32 countries using the latest available database, with multi-feature (vaccination coverage, demographic characteristics, disease burden, behavioral risks, environmental risks, health services and trust) using Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost) algorithm and SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP). After that, country-specific risk features that affect age-adjusted CFRs were identified. The benefit of booster on age-adjusted CFR was simulated by increasing booster vaccination by 1–30% in each country.ResultsOverall COVID-19 age-adjusted CFRs across 32 countries ranged from 110 deaths per 100,000 cases to 5,112 deaths per 100,000 cases from February 4, 2020 to Jan 31, 2022, which were divided into countries with age-adjusted CFRs higher than the crude CFRs and countries with age-adjusted CFRs lower than the crude CFRs (n = 9 and n = 23) when compared with the crude CFR. The effect of booster vaccination on age-adjusted CFRs becomes more important from Alpha to Omicron period (importance scores: 0.03–0.23). The Omicron period model showed that the key risk factors for countries with higher age-adjusted CFR than crude CFR are low GDP per capita and low booster vaccination rates, while the key risk factors for countries with higher age-adjusted CFR than crude CFR were high dietary risks and low physical activity. Increasing booster vaccination rates by 7% would reduce CFRs in all countries with age-adjusted CFRs higher than the crude CFRs.ConclusionBooster vaccination still plays an important role in reducing age-adjusted CFRs, while there are multidimensional concurrent risk factors and precise joint intervention strategies and preparations based on country-specific risks are also essential.

IntroductionIn November 2021, the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant of concern has emerged and is currently dominating the COVID-19 pandemic over the world. Omicron displays a number of mutations, particularly in the spike protein, leading to specific characteristics including a higher potential for transmission. Although Omicron has caused a significant number of deaths worldwide, it generally induces less severe clinical signs compared to earlier variants. As its impact on blood platelets remains unknown, we investigated platelet behavior in severe patients infected with Omicron in comparison to Delta.MethodsClinical and biological characteristics of severe COVID-19 patients infected with the Omicron (n=9) or Delta (n=11) variants were analyzed. Using complementary methods such as flow cytometry, confocal imaging and electron microscopy, we examined platelet activation, responsiveness and phenotype, presence of virus in platelets and induction of selective autophagy. We also explored the direct effect of spike proteins from the Omicron or Delta variants on healthy platelet signaling.ResultsSevere Omicron variant infection resulted in platelet activation and partial desensitization, presence of the virus in platelets and selective autophagy response. The intraplatelet processing of Omicron viral cargo was different from Delta as evidenced by the distribution of spike protein-positive structures near the plasma membrane and the colocalization of spike and Rab7. Moreover, spike proteins from the Omicron or Delta variants alone activated signaling pathways in healthy platelets including phosphorylation of AKT, p38MAPK, LIMK and SPL76 with different kinetics.DiscussionAlthough SARS-CoV-2 Omicron has different biological characteristics compared to prior variants, it leads to platelet activation and desensitization as previously observed with the Delta variant. Omicron is also found in platelets from severe patients where it induces selective autophagy, but the mechanisms of intraplatelet processing of Omicron cargo, as part of the innate response, differs from Delta, suggesting that mutations on spike protein modify virus to platelet interactions.

As of January 2022, the share of COVID-19 cases corresponding to the Omicron variant in Mexico amounted to over 90 percent of the country's analyzed sequences of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. A month earlier, this figure amounted to 60 percent of cases studied in the country. The Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2 - the virus causing COVID-19 - was designated as a variant of concern by the World Health Organization in November 2021 based on its trasmisibility level.

An increasing amount of cases

In Mexico, the spread of the Omicron variant led the Latin American country to reach over 5.6 million confirmed cases of COVID-19 by March 2022, with the surge of close to two million cases in a matter of four months. Never before since the start of the pandemic had there been so many cases recorded in such a short period of time in the country. During those months, approximately 30 thousand people died due to complications stemming from the disease, reaching 320 thousand deaths by March 2022.

A relatively low testing rate

Within the Latin American region, Mexico was the fourth country with the largest number of people infected, following Brazil, Argentina, and Colombia. However, the country is considered to have had a relatively low testing rate. According to recent estimates, around 117 thousand tests per million people were reported in Mexico as of March 2022, one of the lowest COVID-19 testing rates among the countries most affected by the pandemic. In contrast, Peru reached over 836 million tests per million population.

Find the most up-to-date information about the coronavirus pandemic in the world under Statista’s COVID-19 facts and figures site.

Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has caused unimaginable damage to public health and socio-economic structures worldwide; thus, an epidemiological depiction of the global evolving trends of this disease is necessary. As of March 31, 2022, the number of cases increased gradually over the four waves of the COVID-19 pandemic, indicating the need for continuous countermeasures. The highest total cases per million and total deaths per million were observed in Europe (240,656.542) and South America (2,912.229), despite these developed countries having higher vaccination rates than other continents, such as Africa. In contrast, the lowest of the above two indices were found in undeveloped African countries, which had the lowest number of vaccinations. These data indicate that the COVID-19 pandemic is positively related to the socio-economic development level; meanwhile, the data suggest that the vaccine currently used in these continents cannot completely prevent the spread of COVID-19. Thus, rethinking the feasibility of a single vaccine to control the disease is needed. Although the number of cases in the fourth wave increased exponentially compared to those of the first wave, ~43.1% of deaths were observed during the first wave. This was not only closely linked to multiple factors, including the inadequate preparation for the initial response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the gradual reduction in the severity of additional variants, and the protection conferred by prior infection and/or vaccination, but this also indicated the change in the main driving dynamic in the fourth wave. Moreover, at least 12 variants were observed globally, showing a clear spatiotemporal profile, which provides the best explanation for the presence of the four waves of the pandemic. Furthermore, there was a clear shift in the trend from multiple variants driving the spread of disease in the early stage of the pandemic to a single Omicron lineage predominating in the fourth wave. These data suggest that the Omicron variant has an advantage in transmissibility over other contemporary co-circulating variants, demonstrating that monitoring new variants is key to reducing further spread. We recommend that public health measures, along with vaccination and testing, are continually implemented to stop the COVID-19 pandemic.

Estimated basic model parameters and covariates, effect of vaccination, and difference among viral variants.

Introduction: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by SARS-CoV-2, has had a disastrous effect worldwide during the previous three years due to widespread infections with SARS-CoV-2 and its emerging variations. More than 674 million confirmed cases and over 6.7 million deaths have been attributed to successive waves of SARS-CoV-2 infections as of 29th January 2023. Similar to other RNA viruses, SARS-CoV-2 is more susceptible to genetic evolution and spontaneous mutations over time, resulting in the continual emergence of variants with distinct characteristics. Spontaneous mutations of SARS-CoV-2 variants increase its transmissibility, virulence, and disease severity and diminish the efficacy of therapeutics and vaccines, resulting in vaccine-breakthrough infections and re-infection, leading to high mortality and morbidity rates.Materials and methods: In this study, we evaluated 10,531 whole genome sequences of all reported variants globally through a computational approach to assess the spread and emergence of the mutations in the SARS-CoV-2 genome. The available data sources of NextCladeCLI 2.3.0 (https://clades.nextstrain.org/) and NextStrain (https://nextstrain.org/) were searched for tracking SARS-CoV-2 mutations, analysed using the PROVEAN, Polyphen-2, and Predict SNP mutational analysis tools and validated by Machine Learning models.Result: Compared to the Wuhan-Hu-1 reference strain NC 045512.2, genome-wide annotations showed 16,954 mutations in the SARS-CoV-2 genome. We determined that the Omicron variant had 6,307 mutations (retrieved sequence:1947), including 67.8% unique mutations, more than any other variant evaluated in this study. The spike protein of the Omicron variant harboured 876 mutations, including 443 deleterious mutations. Among these deleterious mutations, 187 were common and 256 were unique non-synonymous mutations. In contrast, after analysing 1,884 sequences of the Delta variant, we discovered 4,468 mutations, of which 66% were unique, and not previously reported in other variants. Mutations affecting spike proteins are mostly found in RBD regions for Omicron, whereas most of the Delta variant mutations drawn to focus on amino acid regions ranging from 911 to 924 in the context of epitope prediction (B cell & T cell) and mutational stability impact analysis protruding that Omicron is more transmissible.Discussion: The pathogenesis of the Omicron variant could be prevented if the deleterious and persistent unique immunosuppressive mutations can be targeted for vaccination or small-molecule inhibitor designing. Thus, our findings will help researchers monitor and track the continuously evolving nature of SARS-CoV-2 strains, the associated genetic variants, and their implications for developing effective control and prophylaxis strategies.