COVID-19 is a infectious Disease which has infected more than 500 people in UK and many more people world-wide.

Acknowledgements Sincere thanks to Public Health England and Local governments. Source of Data: UK Government and Public Health UK

****Notes on the methodology**** This service shows case numbers as reported to Public Health England (PHE), matched to Administrative Geography Codes from the Office of National Statistics. Cases include people who have recovered.

Events are time-stamped on the date that PHE was informed of the new case or death.

The map shows circles that grow or shrink in line with the number of cases in that geographic area.

Data from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland is represented on the charts, total indicators and on the country level map layer.

Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database right 2020. Contains National Statistics data © Crown copyright and database right 2020.

Terms of Use No special restrictions or limitations on using the item’s content have been provided.

This feature service contains COVID-19 data automatically updated from the Public Health England (PHE) API service, daily. Using this API, this service takes the current day request minus two days. Therefore the data will always be two days behind. This is a result of the delay between PHE's specimen date and reporting date.The Polygon Layers, which all contain spatial data, provide information about the latest cumulative figures at three geographies; Local Authority, Regions and Nations. The Tables, which are not spatially aware, provide historical data for each feature. The format of these tables allow you to use the Join tool with the Polygon Layers and create a time enabled layer. This can be used within a dashboard or on the animation tool to view patterns over time.

The COVID-19 dashboard includes data on city/town COVID-19 activity, confirmed and probable cases of COVID-19, confirmed and probable deaths related to COVID-19, and the demographic characteristics of cases and deaths.

This mapping tool enables you to see how COVID-19 deaths in your area may relate to factors in the local population, which research has shown are associated with COVID-19 mortality. It maps COVID-19 deaths rates for small areas of London (known as MSOAs) and enables you to compare these to a number of other factors including the Index of Multiple Deprivation, the age and ethnicity of the local population, extent of pre-existing health conditions in the local population, and occupational data. Research has shown that the mortality risk from COVID-19 is higher for people of older age groups, for men, for people with pre-existing health conditions, and for people from BAME backgrounds. London boroughs had some of the highest mortality rates from COVID-19 based on data to April 17th 2020, based on data from the Office for National Statistics (ONS). Analysis from the ONS has also shown how mortality is also related to socio-economic issues such as occupations classified ‘at risk’ and area deprivation. There is much about COVID-19-related mortality that is still not fully understood, including the intersection between the different factors e.g. relationship between BAME groups and occupation. On their own, none of these individual factors correlate strongly with deaths for these small areas. This is most likely because the most relevant factors will vary from area to area. In some cases it may relate to the age of the population, in others it may relate to the prevalence of underlying health conditions, area deprivation or the proportion of the population working in ‘at risk occupations’, and in some cases a combination of these or none of them. Further descriptive analysis of the factors in this tool can be found here: https://data.london.gov.uk/dataset/covid-19--socio-economic-risk-factors-briefing

This file contains the digital vector boundaries for Covid Infection Survey Geography, in the United Kingdom, as at December 2020.The boundaries available are: (BFE) Full resolution - extent of the realm (usually this is the Mean Low Water mark but in some cases boundaries extend beyond this to include off shore islands).Contains both Ordnance Survey and ONS Intellectual Property Rights.

REST URL of Feature Access Service – https://services1.arcgis.com/ESMARspQHYMw9BZ9/arcgis/rest/services/Covid_Infection_Survey_Dec_2020_UK_BFE/FeatureServerREST URL of WFS Server –https://dservices1.arcgis.com/ESMARspQHYMw9BZ9/arcgis/services/Covid_Infection_Survey_Dec_2020_UK_BFE/WFSServer?service=wfs&request=getcapabilitiesREST URL of Map Server –https://services1.arcgis.com/ESMARspQHYMw9BZ9/arcgis/rest/services/Covid_Infection_Survey_Dec_2020_UK_BFE/MapServer

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.

This file contains the digital vector boundaries for Covid Infection Survey Geography, in the United Kingdom, as at December 2020.The boundaries available are: (BUC) Ultra generalised (500m) - clipped to the coastline (Mean High Water mark).Contains both Ordnance Survey and ONS Intellectual Property Rights.

REST URL of Feature Access Service – https://services1.arcgis.com/ESMARspQHYMw9BZ9/arcgis/rest/services/Covid_Infection_Survey_Dec_2020_UK_BUC/FeatureServerREST URL of WFS Server –https://dservices1.arcgis.com/ESMARspQHYMw9BZ9/arcgis/services/Covid_Infection_Survey_Dec_2020_UK_BUC/WFSServerREST URL of Map Server –https://services1.arcgis.com/ESMARspQHYMw9BZ9/arcgis/rest/services/Covid_Infection_Survey_Dec_2020_UK_BUC/MapServer

The following dashboards provide data on contagious respiratory viruses, including acute respiratory diseases, COVID-19, influenza (flu), and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) in Massachusetts. The data presented here can help track trends in respiratory disease and vaccination activity across Massachusetts.

Data for this publication are extracted each month as a snapshot in time from the Primary Care Registration database within the NHAIS (National Health Application and Infrastructure Services) system. This release is an accurate snapshot as at 1 February 2023. GP Practice; Primary Care Network (PCN); Sub Integrated Care Board Locations (SICBL); Integrated Care Board (ICB) and NHS England Commissioning Region level data are released in single year of age (SYOA) and 5-year age bands, both of which finish at 95+, split by gender. In addition, organisational mapping data is available to derive PCN; SICBL; ICB and Commissioning Region associated with a GP practice and is updated each month to give relevant organisational mapping. Quarterly publications in January, April, July and October will include Lower Layer Super Output Area (LSOA) populations. The outbreak of Coronavirus (COVID-19) has led to changes in the work of General Practices and subsequently the data within this publication. Until activity in this healthcare setting stabilises, we urge caution in drawing any conclusions from these data without consideration of the country's circumstances and would recommend that any uses of these data are accompanied by an appropriate caveat.

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 community, who - while employed across a range of roles and sectors - are overrepresented in lower-paid essential work. We will use this group as an illustrative case study to make wider claims and policy recommendations about migrant work during the pandemic. Using a mixed-methods approach, we will conduct: an online survey to map COVID-19 impacts; in-depth qualitative interviews to establish how the pandemic has affected worker's lives; and expert interviews with stakeholders to investigate how to best support and retain migrant essential workers in COVID-19 recovery strategies. The results will generate the first comprehensive UK-wide dataset on the experiences of migrant essential workers against the backdrop of COVID-19. The research, co-produced with partner organisations (Polish Expats Associations, Fife Migrants Forum, PKAVS Minority Communities Hub and Polish Social and Cultural Association), will generate a policy briefing, a toolkit for employers in the essential work sectors, information resources for migrant workers, alongside media and academic outputs.

The National Obesity Audit (NOA) publication series presents a developing set of nationally agreed measures, with the overarching aim to provide a comprehensive picture of activity, access to services and health outcomes of patients using weight management services (WMS) across England. This will allow providers to track, benchmark and improve the quality of these services in future. This release includes data from 2 sources, Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) for Tier 4 WMS, and the Community Services Data Set (CSDS) for Tier 2 and Tier 3 WMS. Disruption relating to the coronavirus illness (COVID-19) would seem to have affected the quality and coverage of some of our statistics, such as an increase in non-submissions for some datasets. We have also seen some different patterns in the submitted data. For example, fewer patients are being admitted to and discharged from hospital. Therefore, data should be interpreted with care over the COVID-19 period.