In late-November 2021, the Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2 (the virus which causes COVID-19) was designated as a variant of concern by the World Health Organization due to fears about a higher transmissibility from the variant and a possible decrease in the effectiveness of vaccines against it. The Omicron variant has been detected in multiple countries since the discovery, and as of April 1, 2022, almost 965 thousand cases have been sequenced in the United Kingdom.

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 December 12, 2022, Japan had reported the highest number of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant cases in the Asia-Pacific region, with a total of over 290.4 thousand cases. India followed, having reported around 121.5 thousand cases of the coronavirus (COVID-19) variant Omicron as of December 12, 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.

Data for CDC’s COVID Data Tracker site on Rates of COVID-19 Cases and Deaths by Vaccination Status. Click 'More' for important dataset description and footnotes

Dataset and data visualization details: These data were posted on October 21, 2022, archived on November 18, 2022, and revised on February 22, 2023. These data reflect cases among persons with a positive specimen collection date through September 24, 2022, and deaths among persons with a positive specimen collection date through September 3, 2022.

Vaccination status: A person vaccinated with a primary series had SARS-CoV-2 RNA or antigen detected on a respiratory specimen collected ≥14 days after verifiably completing the primary series of an FDA-authorized or approved COVID-19 vaccine. An unvaccinated person had SARS-CoV-2 RNA or antigen detected on a respiratory specimen and has not been verified to have received COVID-19 vaccine. Excluded were partially vaccinated people who received at least one FDA-authorized vaccine dose but did not complete a primary series ≥14 days before collection of a specimen where SARS-CoV-2 RNA or antigen was detected. Additional or booster dose: A person vaccinated with a primary series and an additional or booster dose had SARS-CoV-2 RNA or antigen detected on a respiratory specimen collected ≥14 days after receipt of an additional or booster dose of any COVID-19 vaccine on or after August 13, 2021. For people ages 18 years and older, data are graphed starting the week including September 24, 2021, when a COVID-19 booster dose was first recommended by CDC for adults 65+ years old and people in certain populations and high risk occupational and institutional settings. For people ages 12-17 years, data are graphed starting the week of December 26, 2021, 2 weeks after the first recommendation for a booster dose for adolescents ages 16-17 years. For people ages 5-11 years, data are included starting the week of June 5, 2022, 2 weeks after the first recommendation for a booster dose for children aged 5-11 years. For people ages 50 years and older, data on second booster doses are graphed starting the week including March 29, 2022, when the recommendation was made for second boosters. Vertical lines represent dates when changes occurred in U.S. policy for COVID-19 vaccination (details provided above). Reporting is by primary series vaccine type rather than additional or booster dose vaccine type. The booster dose vaccine type may be different than the primary series vaccine type. ** Because data on the immune status of cases and associated deaths are unavailable, an additional dose in an immunocompromised person cannot be distinguished from a booster dose. This is a relevant consideration because vaccines can be less effective in this group. Deaths: A COVID-19–associated death occurred in a person with a documented COVID-19 diagnosis who died; health department staff reviewed to make a determination using vital records, public health investigation, or other data sources. Rates of COVID-19 deaths by vaccination status are reported based on when the patient was tested for COVID-19, not the date they died. Deaths usually occur up to 30 days after COVID-19 diagnosis. Participating jurisdictions: Currently, these 31 health departments that regularly link their case surveillance to immunization information system data are included in these incidence rate estimates: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, New York City (New York), North Carolina, Philadelphia (Pennsylvania), Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Washington, and West Virginia; 30 jurisdictions also report deaths among vaccinated and unvaccinated people. These jurisdictions represent 72% of the total U.S. population and all ten of the Health and Human Services Regions. Data on cases among people who received additional or booster doses were reported from 31 jurisdictions; 30 jurisdictions also reported data on deaths among people who received one or more additional or booster dose; 28 jurisdictions reported cases among people who received two or more additional or booster doses; and 26 jurisdictions reported deaths among people who received two or more additional or booster doses. This list will be updated as more jurisdictions participate. Incidence rate estimates: Weekly age-specific incidence rates by vaccination status were calculated as the number of cases or deaths divided by the number of people vaccinated with a primary series, overall or with/without a booster dose (cumulative) or unvaccinated (obtained by subtracting the cumulative number of people vaccinated with a primary series and partially vaccinated people from the 2019 U.S. intercensal population estimates) and multiplied by 100,000. Overall incidence rates were age-standardized using the 2000 U.S. Census standard population. To estimate population counts for ages 6 months through 1 year, half of the single-year population counts for ages 0 through 1 year were used. All rates are plotted by positive specimen collection date to reflect when incident infections occurred. For the primary series analysis, age-standardized rates include ages 12 years and older from April 4, 2021 through December 4, 2021, ages 5 years and older from December 5, 2021 through July 30, 2022 and ages 6 months and older from July 31, 2022 onwards. For the booster dose analysis, age-standardized rates include ages 18 years and older from September 19, 2021 through December 25, 2021, ages 12 years and older from December 26, 2021, and ages 5 years and older from June 5, 2022 onwards. Small numbers could contribute to less precision when calculating death rates among some groups. Continuity correction: A continuity correction has been applied to the denominators by capping the percent population coverage at 95%. To do this, we assumed that at least 5% of each age group would always be unvaccinated in each jurisdiction. Adding this correction ensures that there is always a reasonable denominator for the unvaccinated population that would prevent incidence and death rates from growing unrealistically large due to potential overestimates of vaccination coverage. Incidence rate ratios (IRRs): IRRs for the past one month were calculated by dividing the average weekly incidence rates among unvaccinated people by that among people vaccinated with a primary series either overall or with a booster dose. Publications: Scobie HM, Johnson AG, Suthar AB, et al. Monitoring Incidence of COVID-19 Cases, Hospitalizations, and Deaths, by Vaccination Status — 13 U.S. Jurisdictions, April 4–July 17, 2021. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2021;70:1284–1290. Johnson AG, Amin AB, Ali AR, et al. COVID-19 Incidence and Death Rates Among Unvaccinated and Fully Vaccinated Adults with and Without Booster Doses During Periods of Delta and Omicron Variant Emergence — 25 U.S. Jurisdictions, April 4–December 25, 2021. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2022;71:132–138

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.

The Coronavirus Disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is not just a health crisis but also a social crisis. Confronted with the resurgence of variants with massive infections, the triggered activities from personal needs may promote the spread, which should be considered in risk management. Meanwhile, it is important to ensure that the policy responses on citizen life to a lower level. In the face of Omicron mutations, we need to sum up the control experience accumulated, adapting strategies in the dynamic coevolution process while balancing life resumption and pandemic control, to meet challenges of future crises. We collected 46 cases occurring between 2021 and 2022, mainly from China, but also including five relevant cases from other countries around the world. Based on case studies, we combine micro-view individual needs/behaviors with macro-view management measures linking Maslow’s hierarchy of needs with the transmission chain of Omicron clusters. The proposed loophole chain could help identify both individual and management loopholes in the spread of the virus. The systematic actions that were taken have effectively combated these ubiquitous vulnerabilities at lower costs and lesser time. In the dynamic coevolution process, the Chinese government has made effective and more socially acceptable prevention policies while meeting the divergent needs of the entire society at the minimum costs. Systematic actions do help maintain the balance between individuals’ satisfaction and pandemic containment. This implies that risk management policies should reasonably consider individual needs and improve the cooperation of various stakeholders with targeted flexible measures, securing both public health and life resumption.

The Coronavirus Disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is not just a health crisis but also a social crisis. Confronted with the resurgence of variants with massive infections, the triggered activities from personal needs may promote the spread, which should be considered in risk management. Meanwhile, it is important to ensure that the policy responses on citizen life to a lower level. In the face of Omicron mutations, we need to sum up the control experience accumulated, adapting strategies in the dynamic coevolution process while balancing life resumption and pandemic control, to meet challenges of future crises. We collected 46 cases occurring between 2021 and 2022, mainly from China, but also including five relevant cases from other countries around the world. Based on case studies, we combine micro-view individual needs/behaviors with macro-view management measures linking Maslow’s hierarchy of needs with the transmission chain of Omicron clusters. The proposed loophole chain could help identify both individual and management loopholes in the spread of the virus. The systematic actions that were taken have effectively combated these ubiquitous vulnerabilities at lower costs and lesser time. In the dynamic coevolution process, the Chinese government has made effective and more socially acceptable prevention policies while meeting the divergent needs of the entire society at the minimum costs. Systematic actions do help maintain the balance between individuals’ satisfaction and pandemic containment. This implies that risk management policies should reasonably consider individual needs and improve the cooperation of various stakeholders with targeted flexible measures, securing both public health and life resumption.

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.

Vaccination has emerged as a pandemic off-ramp across the world, but waning immunity over time and the emergence of new variants have illustrated the importance of booster shots in achieving and sustaining immunity. This research studies the factors that affect the likelihood that individuals will receive the booster. Between December 14-17, 2021, a choice-based conjoint was conducted to estimate respondents’ likelihood of receiving a booster. The analysis focuses on the 549 respondents who were fully vaccinated but had not yet received a COVID-19 booster at the time of our survey. Booster attributes included efficacy defined as protection against symptomatic illness, protection duration, manufacturer, and monetary incentives. Attributes were randomly assigned for hypothetical vaccines. Conjoint analysis showed high efficacy rates had the largest impact on reported likelihood of receiving a booster, followed by financial incentives. Protection duration and protection against future variants had modest effects. Subjects most preferred a booster by Pfizer, followed by Moderna, and then by Johnson & Johnson. Finally, an opening contextual experimental prime telling respondents that early results suggest the omicron variant could be more contagious, but less lethal than earlier variants (vs. a control group baseline in which both were described as unknown) significantly increased likelihood of receiving the booster.

As of December 21, 2022, around 57 percent of domestic coronavirus (COVID-19) cases diagnosed in South Korea belonging to the dominant Omicron strain were identified as belonging to the subvariant BA.5. Around 31 percent of imported cases belong to the same subvariant. While domestic cases were overwhelmingly of the BA.5 subvariant, imported cases were more varied, with the recent BA.2.75 mutation referred to as BN.1 accounting for a significant share of cases brought into the country. Tracking of BA.5 first began in April 2022, after which it quickly became the dominant strain across many countries worldwide as it has proven more transmissible than prior subvariants. South Korea's handling of the coronavirus (COVID-19) was initially widely praised, though the government's handling of vaccine distribution has been criticized.

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

Financial overview and grant giving statistics of Omicron Foundation Inc

The rapid spread and evolving nature of COVID-19 variants have raised concerns regarding their competitive dynamics and coinfection scenarios. In this study, we assess the competitive interactions between the Omicron variant and other prominent variants (Alpha, Beta and Delta) on a social network, considering both single infection and coinfection states. Using the SIRS model, we simulate the progression of these variants and analyze their impact on infection rates, mortality and overall disease burden. Our findings demonstrate that the Alpha and Beta strains exhibit comparable contagion levels, with the Alpha strain displaying higher infection and mortality rates. Moreover, the Delta strain emerges as the most prevalent and virulent strain, surpassing the other variants. When introduced alongside the less virulent Omicron strain, the Delta strain results in higher infection and mortality rates. However, the Omicron strain’s dominance leads to an overall increase in disease statistics. Remarkably, our study highlights the efficacy of the Omicron variant in supplanting more virulent strains and its potential role in mitigating the spread of infectious diseases. The Omicron strain demonstrates a competitive advantage over the other variants, suggesting its potential to reduce the severity of the disease and alleviate the burden on healthcare systems. These findings underscore the importance of monitoring and understanding the dynamics of COVID-19 variants, as they can inform effective prevention and mitigation strategies, particularly with the emergence of variants that possess a relative advantage in controlling disease transmission.

BackgroundCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) may lead to long-term sequelae. This study aimed to understand the acute and post-acute burden of SARS-CoV-2 infection and to identify high-risk groups for post-COVID-19 conditions (PCC).MethodsA retrospective observational study of the Bahraini population was conducted between 1 May 2021 and 30 April 2023, utilizing the national administrative database. PCC cases were defined according to WHO guidelines. All COVID-19 cases were confirmed using real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR).ResultsOf 13,067 COVID-19 cases, 12,022 of them experienced acute COVID-19, and 1,045 of them developed PCC. Individuals with PCC tended to be older women with risk factors and instances of SARS-CoV-2 reinfection. The incidence rates per 100,000 individuals during the Alpha pandemic surge (2020), Delta pandemic surge (2021), and Omicron pandemic surge (2022) were 2.2, 137.2, and 222.5 for acute COVID-19, and 0.27, 10.5, and 19.3, respectively, for PCC cases. The death rates per 100,000 individuals during the Alpha, Delta, and Omicron pandemic surges were 3, 112, and 76, respectively, for acute COVID-19 and 1, 10, and 8, respectively, for PCC. The death rate was highest among those aged 65 and older during the Delta pandemic surge.ConclusionThese findings suggest the need for a timely national vaccination program prior to new COVID-19 surges to prevent complications related to SARS-CoV-2 infection, particularly in the older adult and in non-older adult individuals with risk factors.

As of August 28, 2023, confirmed coronavirus (COVID-19) patients in their forties made up the largest share of patients in South Korea, amounting to around 15.2 percent of all positive cases. The first wave lasted until April, with the second wave following in August of 2020. This was further followed by a fourth wave, driven by the delta and omicron variants. Though the country has since achieved high vaccination rates, the omicron variant led to record new daily cases in 2022.

Patient profile

In South Korea, the infection rate of coronavirus was the highest among people in the twenties due to their social activities. Indeed, the new infections related to the clubgoers in Seoul are likely to increase the infection rate between young people. 158 out of 261 clubgoer-related confirmed patients were in teenagers or in their twenties, and 36 patients were in their thirties. The mortality rate of coronavirus by age group was somewhat different from the age distribution of total infection cases. It was highest among people in their eighties, with this group making up around 59.6 percent of deaths related to the coronavirus in South Korea. Mortality declined with each younger age group.

Daily life changes

In South Korea, a new policy of "With Corona" has been launched in order to ease society back into a new norm of living with the virus, without having too many restrictions in place. This is based on high vaccination rates, and includes strict quarantine measures for those who are infected and their close contacts. There are plans to improve the verification of vaccination and test certificates for use in public spaces. Most South Koreans have responded to rising numbers by once again avoiding crowded places or going out. It is common to wear masks regardless of diseases, so people are continuing to wear masks when they need to go out. Also, people prefer to do online shopping than physical shopping, and online sales of food and health-related products have increased by more than 700 percent compared to last year. Spending on living, cooking, and furniture has increased significantly as people spend more time at home.

BackgroundLarge sample of pregnant women vaccinated with COVID-19 vaccine has not been carried out in China. The objective of this study was to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 inactivated vaccine in pregnant women infected with the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant.MethodsA total of 1,024 pregnant women and 120 newborns were enrolled in this study. 707 pregnant women received one to three doses of the inactivated COVID-19 vaccine, and 317 unvaccinated patients served as the control group. A comparison was made between their clinical and laboratory data at different stages of pregnancy.ResultsThe incidence rate of patients infected with Omicron variant in the first, the second, and the third trimesters of pregnancy was 27.5%, 27.0%, and 45.5% in patients during, respectively. The corresponding length of hospital stay was 8.7 ± 3.3 days, 9.5 ± 3.3 days, and 11 ± 4.3 days, respectively. The hospitalization time of pregnant women who received 3 doses of vaccine was (8.8 ± 3.3) days, which was significantly shorter than that of non-vaccinated women (11.0 ± 3.9) days. (P

Financial overview and grant giving statistics of Omicron Chapter House Society Inc

The global spread of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has put an enormous pressure on human societies, at both health and economic levels. Early diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2, the causative agent of 2019 coronavirus disease (COVID-19), has proved an efficient method to rapidly isolate positive individuals and reduce transmission rates, thus alleviating its negative impact on society’s well-being and economic growth. In this work, through a coordinated and centralized effort to monitor SARS-CoV-2 circulation in companies from the State of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, we have detected and linked an early rise of infection rates in January 2022 to the introduction of the Omicron variant of concern (VoC) (BA.1). Interestingly, when the Omicron genomic isolates were compared to correlates from public datasets, it was revealed that introduction events were multiple, with possible migration routes mapping to: Mali; Oman and United States; and Italy, Latin America, and United States. In addition, we have built a haplotype network with our genomic dataset and found no strong evidence of transmission chains, between and within companies. Considering Omicron’s particularly high transmissibility, and that most of our samples (>87%) arose from 3 out of 10 companies, these findings suggest that workers from such environments were exposed to SARS-CoV-2 outside their company boundaries. Thus, using a mixed strategy in which quick molecular diagnosis finds support in comprehensive genomic analysis, we have shown that a successfully implemented occupational health program should contribute to document emerging VoC and to limit the spread of SARS-CoV-2 at the workplace.

The effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines wanes over time and the emergence of the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant led to the accelerated expansion of efforts for booster vaccination. However, the effect and contribution of booster vaccination with inactivated COVID-19 vaccines remain to be evaluated. We conducted a retrospective close contacts cohort study to analyze the epidemiological characteristics and Omicron infection risk, and to evaluate the effectiveness of booster vaccination with inactivated COVID-19 vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 infection, symptomatic COVID-19, and COVID-19 pneumonia during the outbreaks of Omicron BA.2 infection from 1 February to 31 July 2022 in Guangdong, China. A total of 46,547 close contacts were identified while 6.3% contracted Omicron BA.2 infection, 1.8% were asymptomatic infection, 4.1% developed mild COVID-19, and 0.3% had COVID-19 pneumonia. We found that females and individuals aged 0-17 or ≥ 60 years old were more prone to SARS-CoV-2 infection. The vaccinated individuals showed lower infection risk when compared with the unvaccinated people. The effectiveness of booster vaccination with inactivated COVID-19 vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 infection and symptomatic COVID-19 was 28.6% (95% CI: 11.6%, 35.0%) and 39.6% (95% CI: 30.0, 47.9) among adults aged ≥ 18 years old, respectively when compared with full vaccination. Booster vaccination provided a moderate level of protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection (VE: 49.9%, 95% CI: 22.3%-67.7%) and symptomatic COVID-19 (VE: 62.6%, 95% CI: 36.2%-78.0%) among adults aged ≥ 60 years old. Moreover, the effectiveness of booster vaccination was 52.2% (95% CI: 21.3%, 70.9%) and 83.8% (95% CI: 28.1%, 96.3%) against COVID-19 pneumonia in adults aged ≥ 18 and ≥ 60 years old, respectively. The reduction of absolute risk rate of COVID-19 pneumonia in the booster vaccination group was 0·96% (95% CI: 0.33%, 1.11%), and the number needed to vaccinate to prevent one case of COVID-19 pneumonia was 104 (95% CI: 91, 303) in adults aged ≥ 60 years old. In summary, booster vaccination with inactivated COVID-19 vaccines provides a low level of protection against infection and symptomatic in adults of 18-59 years old, and a moderate level of protection in older adults of more than 60 years old, but a high level of protection against COVID-19 pneumonia in older adults.

599 Global import shipment records of Omicron Make with prices, volume & current Buyer's suppliers relationships based on actual Global export trade database.