In early-February 2020, the first cases of COVID-19 in the United Kingdom (UK) were confirmed. As of December 2023, the South East had the highest number of confirmed first episode cases of the virus in the UK with 3,180,101 registered cases, while London had 2,947,727 confirmed first-time cases. Overall, there has been 24,243,393 confirmed cases of COVID-19 in the UK as of January 13, 2023.

COVID deaths in the UK COVID-19 was responsible for 202,157 deaths in the UK as of January 13, 2023, and the UK had the highest death toll from coronavirus in western Europe. The incidence of deaths in the UK was 297.8 per 100,000 population as January 13, 2023.

Current infection rate in Europe The infection rate in the UK was 43.3 cases per 100,000 population in the last seven days as of March 13, 2023. Austria had the highest rate at 224 cases per 100,000 in the last week.

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

In early-February, 2020, the first cases of the coronavirus (COVID-19) were reported in the United Kingdom (UK). The number of cases in the UK has since risen to 24,243,393, with 1,062 new cases reported on January 13, 2023. The highest daily figure since the beginning of the pandemic was on January 6, 2022 at 275,646 cases.

COVID deaths in the UK COVID-19 has so far been responsible for 202,157 deaths in the UK as of January 13, 2023, and the UK has one of the highest death toll from COVID-19 in Europe. As of January 13, the incidence of deaths in the UK is 298 per 100,000 population.

Regional breakdown The South East has the highest amount of cases in the country with 3,123,050 confirmed cases as of January 11. London and the North West have 2,912,859 and 2,580,090 cases respectively.

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

On March 4, 2020, the first death as a result of coronavirus (COVID-19) was recorded in the United Kingdom (UK). The number of deaths in the UK has increased significantly since then. As of January 13, 2023, the number of confirmed deaths due to coronavirus in the UK amounted to 202,157. On January 21, 2021, 1,370 deaths were recorded, which was the highest total in single day in the UK since the outbreak began.

Number of deaths among highest in Europe
The UK has had the highest number of deaths from coronavirus in western Europe. In terms of rate of coronavirus deaths, the UK has recorded 297.8 deaths per 100,000 population.

Cases in the UK The number of confirmed cases of coronavirus in the UK was 24,243,393 as of January 13, 2023. The South East has the highest number of first-episode confirmed cases of the virus in the UK with 3,123,050 cases, while London and the North West have 2,912,859 and 2,580,090 confirmed cases respectively. As of January 16, the UK has had 50 new cases per 100,000 in the last seven days.

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

Due to changes in the collection and availability of data on COVID-19 this page will no longer be updated. The webpage will no longer be available as of 11 May 2023. On-going, reliable sources of data for COVID-19 are available via the COVID-19 dashboard, Office for National Statistics, and the UKHSA This page provides a weekly summary of data on deaths related to COVID-19 published by NHS England and the Office for National Statistics. More frequent reporting on COVID-19 deaths is now available here, alongside data on cases, hospitalisations, and vaccinations. This update contains data on deaths related to COVID-19 from: NHS England COVID-19 Daily Deaths - last updated on 28 June 2022 with data up to and including 27 June 2022. ONS weekly deaths by Local Authority - last updated on 16 August 2022 with data up to and including 05 August 2022. Summary notes about each these sources are provided at the end of this document. Note on interpreting deaths data: statistics from the available sources differ in definition, timing and completeness. It is important to understand these differences when interpreting the data or comparing between sources. Weekly Key Points An additional 24 deaths in London hospitals of patients who had tested positive for COVID-19 and an additional 5 where COVID-19 was mentioned on the death certificate were announced in the week ending 27 June 2022. This compares with 40 and 3 for the previous week. A total of 306 deaths in hospitals of patients who had tested positive for COVID-19 and 27 where COVID-19 was mentioned on the death certificate were announced for England as whole. This compares with 301 and 26 for the previous week. The total number of COVID-19 deaths reported in London hospitals of patients who had tested positive for COVID-19 is now 19,102. The total number of deaths in London hospitals where COVID-19 was mentioned on the death certificate is now 1,590. This compares to figures of 119,237 and 8,197 for English hospitals as a whole. Due to the delay between death occurrence and reporting, the estimated number of deaths to this point will be revised upwards over coming days These figures do not include deaths that occurred outside of hospitals. Data from ONS has indicated that the majority (79%) of COVID-19 deaths in London have taken place in hospitals. Recently announced deaths in Hospitals 21 June 22 June 23 June 24 June 25 June 26 June 27 June London No positive test 0 0 1 4 0 0 0 London Positive test 3 7 2 10 0 0 2 Rest of England No positive test 2 6 4 4 0 0 6 Rest of England Positive test 47 49 41 58 6 0 81 16 May 23 May 30 May 06 June 13 June 20 June 27 June London No positive test 14 3 4 0 4 3 5 London Positive test 45 34 55 20 62 40 24 Rest of England No positive test 41 58 33 23 47 23 22 Rest of England Positive test 456 375 266 218 254 261 282 Deaths by date of occurrence 21 June 22 June 23 June 24 June 25 June 26 June 27 June London 20,683 20,686 20,690 20,691 20,692 20,692 20,692 Rest of England 106,604 106,635 106,679 106,697 106,713 106,733 106,742 Interpreting the data The data published by NHS England are incomplete due to: delays in the occurrence and subsequent reporting of deaths deaths occurring outside of hospitals not being included The total deaths reported up to a given point are therefore less than the actual number that have occurred by the same point. Delays in reporting NHS provide the following guidance regarding the delay between occurrence and reporting of deaths: Confirmation of COVID-19 diagnosis, death notification and reporting in central figures can take up to several days and the hospitals providing the data are under significant operational pressure. This means that the totals reported at 5pm on each day may not include all deaths that occurred on that day or on recent prior days. The data published by NHS England for reporting periods from April 1st onward includes both date of occurrence and date of reporting and so it is possible to illustrate the distribution of these reporting delays. This data shows that approximately 10% of COVID-19 deaths occurring in London hospitals are included in the reporting period ending on the same day, and that approximately two-thirds of deaths were reported by two days after the date of occurrence. Deaths outside of hospitals The data published by NHS England does not include deaths that occur outside of hospitals, i.e. those in homes, hospices, and care homes. ONS have published data for deaths by place of occurrence. This shows that, up to 05 August, 79% of deaths in London recorded as involving COVID-19 occurred in hospitals (this compares with 44% for all causes of death). This would suggest that the NHS England data may underestimate overall deaths from COVID-19 by around 20%. Comparison of data sources Note on data sources NHS England provides numbers of patients who have died in hospitals in England and had tested positive for COVID-19, and from 25 April, the number of patients where COVID-19 is mentioned on the death certificate and no positive COVID-19 test result was received. Figures are updated each day at 2pm with deaths reported up to 5pm the previous day. There is a delay between the occurrence of a death to it being captured in the daily reporting. The data can be presented both as reported deaths by day and death occurrences by day. Reported occurrences for recent days should be considered incomplete as likely to be revised upwards as more data becomes available. The location of a death reflects the location of the hospital in which it occurred. Source: NHS England COVID-19 Daily Deaths The Office for National Statistics publishes deaths for England and Wales by the week in which they were registered. Due to the delay between the occurrence of a death and its registration, many deaths that occur in a given week will appear in the data for a subsequent week. For 2018, ONS estimated that 74% of deaths were registered within seven days. Additional delays in registration can occur over public holidays, with significant changes in numbers being observable over Easter and Christmas. The location of a death reflects the usual residence of the deceased. There are some differences in total numbers reported for different geographical levels. The figures published at the local authority level have been used in this analysis. The data is updated each Tuesday at 9.30am with data for the week ending eleven days prior. For the 2020 series, ONS has included the number of deaths where coronavirus (COVID-19) was mentioned on the death certificate. This data includes deaths for all places of occurrence. The ONS started publishing deaths in care homes notified to the Care Quality Commission on 28th April for local authorities in England by date of notification. This data includes an additional week of data compared to the main ONS publication. Source: Deaths registered weekly in England and Wales, provisional, Death registrations and occurrences by local authority, Deaths in care homes notified to the Care Quality Commission, report

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

Context:

The fate of the world changed in 2020.

Daily activities were impacted, impeded, and wouldn't be the same forever.

In partnership with Microsoft and the University of Oxford, A Tale of Two Cities is a Data AI hackathon that aims to address trends during and after the pandemic.

I will present my work at this hackathon through my association with the University of Oxford as an AI Tutor for the Artificial Intelligence: Cloud and Edge Implementations course.

Acknowledgments:

I'd like to thank the original authors of these data sources!

Relevant data was extracted from these sources and split into two phases: - COVID era (before 1st February, 2022), and - Post COVID era (after 1st February, 2022)

This helped me to compare trends in New York and London over time. https://i.imgur.com/KFRaB51.png" alt="">

As of January 12, 2023, COVID-19 has been responsible for 202,157 deaths in the UK overall. The North West of England has been the most affected area in terms of deaths at 28,116, followed by the South East of England with 26,221 coronavirus deaths. Furthermore, there have been 22,264 mortalities in London as a result of COVID-19.

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

As of October 3, 2023, there were 2,189,008 confirmed cases of coronavirus (COVID-19) in Scotland. The Greater Glasgow and Clyde health board has the highest amount of confirmed cases at 514,117, although this is also the most populated part of Scotland. The Lothian health board has 368,930 confirmed cases which contains Edinburgh, the capital city of Scotland.

Situation in the rest of the UK Across the whole of the UK there have been 24,243,393 confirmed cases of coronavirus as of January 2023. Scotland currently has fewer cases than four regions in England. As of December 2023, the South East has the highest number of confirmed first-episode cases of the virus in the UK with 3,180,101 registered cases, while London and the North West have 2,947,7271 and 2,621,449 confirmed cases, respectively.

COVID deaths in the UK COVID-19 has so far been responsible for 202,157deaths in the UK as of January 13, 2023, and the UK has had the highest death toll from coronavirus in Western Europe. The incidence of deaths in the UK is 297.8 per 100,000 population.

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

Although an international chain, its base and the majority of Pret a Manger (Pret) stores are in the UK and in London in particular. The continual development and communication strategies that the company has undertaken in this market have demonstrated both the long-term strategies that foodservice operators need to build on in order to comply with consumer demands and lifestyles but also the short-term engagement opportunities that are vital in maintaining and inspiring a loyal consumer base, especially during the developing coronavirus pandemic. Read More

Vaccinations in London Between 8 December 2020 and 15 September 2021 5,838,305 1st doses and 5,232,885 2nd doses have been administered to London residents.

Differences in vaccine roll out between London and the Rest of England London Rest of England Priority Group Vaccinations given Percentage vaccinated Vaccinations given Percentage vaccinated Group 1 Older Adult Care Home Residents 21,883 95% 275,964 96% Older Adult Care Home Staff 29,405 85% 381,637 88% Group 2 80+ years 251,021 83% 2,368,284 93% Health Care Worker 174,944 99% 1,139,243 100%* Group 3 75 - 79 years 177,665 90% 1,796,408 99% Group 4 70 - 74 years 252,609 90% 2,454,381 97% Clinically Extremely Vulnerable 278,967 88% 1,850,485 95% Group 5 65 - 69 years 285,768 90% 2,381,250 97% Group 6 At Risk or Carer (Under 65) 983,379 78% 6,093,082 88% Younger Adult Care Home Residents 3,822 92% 30,321 93% Group 7 60 - 64 years 373,327 92% 2,748,412 98% Group 8 55 - 59 years 465,276 91% 3,152,412 97% Group 9 50 - 54 years 510,132 90% 3,141,219 95% Data as at 15 September 2021 for age based groups and as at 12 September 2021 for non-age based groups * The number who have received their first dose exceeds the latest official estimate of the population for this group There is considerable uncertainty in the population denominators used to calculate the percentage vaccinated. Comparing implied vaccination rates for multiple sources of denominators provides some indication of uncertainty in the true values. Confidence is higher where the results from multiple sources agree more closely. Because the denominator sources are not fully independent of one another, users should interpret the range of values across sources as indicating the minimum range of uncertainty in the true value. The following datasets can be used to estimate vaccine uptake by age group for London:

ONS 2020 mid-year estimates (MYE). This is the population estimate used for age groups throughout the rest of the analysis.


Number of people ages 18 and over on the National Immunisation Management Service (NIMS)


ONS Public Health Data Asset (PHDA) dataset. This is a linked dataset combining the 2011 Census, the General Practice Extraction Service (GPES) data for pandemic planning and research and the Hospital Episode Statistics (HES). This data covers a subset of the population.

Vaccine roll out in London by Ethnic Group Understanding how vaccine uptake varies across different ethnic groups in London is complicated by two issues:

Ethnicity information for recipients is unavailable for a very large number of the vaccinations that have been delivered. As a result, estimates of vaccine uptake by ethnic group are highly sensitive to the assumptions about and treatment of the Unknown group in calculations of rates.

For vaccinations given to people aged 50 and over in London nearly 10% do not have ethnicity information available,

The accuracy of available population denominators by ethnic group is limited. Because ethnicity information is not captured in official estimates of births, deaths, and migration, the available population denominators typically rely on projecting forward patterns captured in the 2011 Census. Subsequent changes to these patterns, particularly with respect to international migration, leads to increasing uncertainty in the accuracy of denominators sources as we move further away from 2011.

Comparing estimated population sizes and implied vaccination rates for multiple sources of denominators provides some indication of uncertainty in the true values. Confidence is higher where the results from multiple sources agree more closely. Because the denominator sources are not fully independent of one another, users should interpret the range of values across sources as indicating the minimum range of uncertainty in the true value. The following population estimates are available by Ethnic group for London:

GLA Ethnic group population projections - 2016 as at 2021


ONS Population Denominators produced for Race Disparity Audit as at 2018


ETHPOP population projections produced by the University of Leeds as at 2020

Antibody prevalence estimates As part of the ONS Coronavirus (COVID-19) Infection Survey ONS publish a modelled estimate of the percent of the adult population testing positive for antibodies to Coronavirus by region. Antibodies can be generated by vaccination or previous infection.

Vaccine effects on cases, hospitalisations and deaths When the vaccine roll out began in December 2020 coronavirus cases, hospital admissions and deaths were rising steeply. The peak of infections came in London in early January 2021, before reducing during the national lockdown and as the vaccine roll out progressed. As the vaccine roll out began in older age groups the effect of vaccinations can be separated from the effect of national lockdown by comparing changes in cases, admissions and deaths

These files comprise the publicly available data for the COG-UK hospital-onset COVID-19 infection study. The individual CSV files provided are: - HOCI_public_dataset: Anonymized version of main study dataset, with one row per HOCI case included in the final analysis - HOCI_public_varlist: Variable descriptions for main study dataset - epi_data_combined: Weekly data on total SARS-CoV-2 +ve (cov_pos_epi) and -ve (cov_neg_epi) inpatients at each study site -community_incidence_summary: Weekly local community incidence data for each study site, per 100,000 people per week, obtained from UK government testing dashboard and weighted according to outer postcodes of inpatients at each site.

Notes on anonymisation: HOCI_public_dataset is an anonymised version of the main HOCI study database. In order to fully anonymise individuals, and because the focus of the study was on infection control actions rather than patient outcomes, all individual-level patient demographic and clinical characteristics have been removed. Site and ward names have been changed to anonymized codes, and all free text fields have been removed as some of these contained unblinded details of hospitals and wards. All date fields have been removed, with study week of SARS-CoV-2 +ve test result for each HOCI case provided.

Notes on acronyms: In ‘HOCI_public_varlist’, the following acronyms are used: AGP, aerosol-generating procedure CR, contact restrictions CT, contact tracing DIPC, Director of IPC HCAI, healthcare-associated infection HCW, healthcare worker IPC, infection prevention and control SR, sequence report SRO, sequence report output QM, quality management

Introduction

The 2023 mid-year estimate (MYE) is the current official estimate of the population for local authorities in England and Wales. Estimates are produced annually by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) and the 2023 MYE was published on 15 July 2024.

Comparison to previous MYE data

The previous MYE series (for the period 2012-2020) starts with the 2011 census estimate. Each subsequent year’s population is calculated by adding estimates of births, deaths and migration to the previous year’s population. The 2021 MYE represents a break in this series as it uses the 2021 census as its base.

The ONS revised the 2012-2020 MYE series to bring it in line with the 2021 MYE, so that comparisons could be made between between this series and the previous series. The values plotted on the chart are the revised values of the previously published estimates for 2011 to 2022, together with the estimates for 2023.

Key Points

• London’s mid-2023 population was 8.945 million
• London’s population increased by 76,300 persons compared to the previous mid-year value
• Components of change were as follows:
• 105,100 births and 53,500 deaths (natural change of 51,600)
• Net domestic migration was an outflow of 129,200
• Net international migration was an inflow of 154,100

Population Change

London’s 2023 population was 8,945,310. The first chart below shows the 2023 MYE in the context of previous estimates. There is an uptick after a temporary decrease in population which we attribute to the COVID-19 pandemic.

https://cdn.datapress.cloud/london/img/dataset/763802e7-af17-4b77-995d-44c494fb68af/2025-06-09T20%3A56%3A29/666cd938678c5361c953cb608e532416.webp" width="1152" alt="Embedded Image" />

Components of Change

Births, deaths and migration form the components of population change.

The 2023 MYE value for births was 4% lower than that in 2022, and for deaths 3% higher. The consequent value for natural change (births - deaths) was 10% lower than in 2022.

At -129,000, the value for domestic migration (migration within the UK) was nearly 3% higher than the 2022 value, so still significantly lower than the peak net outflow during the COVID-19 pandemic of -186,000. An outflow of domestic migrants from London is normal and this has been the case each year for the last two decades. This flow is partly because many international in-migrants initially settle in London before moving out to other parts of the UK. The second move in this sequence is counted as a domestic migration.

There has been a marked change in immigration since 2021. This can be attributed to the end of free movement for EU nationals, easing of travel restrictions following the COVID 19 pandemic, and the war in Ukraine. At over 150,000, the 2023 MYE value for London’s net international migration was more than 18% higher than 2022, and represents a considerable increase from 78,000 in 2021.

https://cdn.datapress.cloud/london/img/dataset/763802e7-af17-4b77-995d-44c494fb68af/2025-06-09T20%3A56%3A29/cb537d44954e11f7f7b7e2189ae74629.webp" width="1152" alt="Embedded Image" />

Age structure of the population

https://cdn.datapress.cloud/london/img/dataset/763802e7-af17-4b77-995d-44c494fb68af/2025-06-09T20%3A56%3A29/6d4cf55b96888dbc3aacfc1de5c664ec.webp" width="1152" alt="Embedded Image" />

Future Updates

The release of the next mid-year estimates is expected in July 2025.

The full ONS mid-year population estimates release and back series can be found on the ONS website: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates.

For information relating to London’s population see the demography pages of the London Datastore: https://data.london.gov.uk/demography/ or email demography@london.gov.uk.

An in-depth review of the available evidence for population change in London since the start of the coronavirus pandemic has been produced by GLA Demography: https://data.london.gov.uk/dataset/population-change-in-london-during-the-pandemic.

COVID-19 causes significant mortality in elderly and vulnerable people and spreads easily in care homes where one in seven individuals aged > 85 years live. However, there is no surveillance for infection in care homes, nor are there systems (or research studies) monitoring the impact of the pandemic on individuals or systems. Usual practices are disrupted during the pandemic, and care home staff are taking on new and unfamiliar roles, such as advanced care planning. Understanding the nature of these changes is critical to mitigate the impact of COVID-19 on residents, relatives and staff. 20 care homes staff members were interviewed using semi-structured interviews.

The COVID-19 pandemic poses a substantial risk to elderly and vulnerable care home residents and COVID-19 can spread rapidly in care homes. We have national, daily data on people with COVID-19 and deaths, but there is no similar data for care homes. This makes it difficult to know the scale of the problem, and plan how to keep care home residents safe. We also want to understand the impact of COVID-19 on care home staff and residents. Researchers from University College London (UCL) will measure the number of cases of COVID-19 in care homes, using data from Four Seasons Healthcare, a large care home chain. FSHC remove residents' names and addresses before sending the dataset to UCL, protecting resident's confidentiality. Since we cannot visit care homes during the pandemic, we will hold virtual (online) discussion meetings with care home stakeholders (staff, residents, relatives, General Practice teams) every 6-8 weeks, to learn rapid lessons about managing COVID-19 in care homes and identify pragmatic solutions. Our findings will be shared with FHSC, GPs and Public Health England, patients and the public, and support the national response to COVID-19. Patients and the public will be involved in all stages of the research.

Early epidemiology indicated older members of Britain’s Bangladeshi communities were disproportionately affected by COVID-19 related morbidity and mortality. Bangladeshis were more likely to have comorbidities and live in poorer, overcrowded areas in the UK’s urban centres where viral contagion was more likely. This cross-section of socioeconomic, geographical and health related factors underlined the need for clear messaging about social distancing in a complex and shifting risk scenario – messages that this vulnerable group, who speak an oral language (Sylheti), may not have been able to access directly due to low literacy and English language proficiency.

This study identified the practices adopted by Bangladeshis in East London in response to the pandemic, the underlying attitudes and beliefs and whether and how these had been influenced by messages about social distancing. Drawing on our earlier work, it examined the role of social learning in how messages were accessed and interpreted and whether and how the health interactions of this older group were mediated by friends, family members and acquaintances. Remote interviews with older Bangladeshis and their social contacts who performed this mediating role provided insights into how linguistically and culturally appropriate messaging could build on existing beliefs and practices to promote compliance, and on social mediation as a dissemination strategy. We identified the role of choice of language (English or Sylheti), the differences between written and oral representations of COVID-19 risk, and the manifold ways in which linguistic choices give salience to aspects of a risk scenario.

Early epidemiology indicated older members of Britain’s Bangladeshi communities were disproportionately affected by COVID-19 related morbidity and mortality. Bangladeshis were more likely to have comorbidities and live in poorer, overcrowded areas in the UK’s urban centres where viral contagion was more likely. This cross-section of socioeconomic, geographical and health related factors underlined the need for clear messaging about social distancing in a complex and shifting risk scenario – messages that this vulnerable group, who speak an oral language (Sylheti), may not have been able to access directly due to low literacy and English language proficiency.

This study identified the practices adopted by Bangladeshis in East London in response to the pandemic, the underlying attitudes and beliefs and whether and how these had been influenced by messages about social distancing. Drawing on our earlier work, it examined the role of social learning in how messages were accessed and interpreted and whether and how the health interactions of this older group were mediated by friends, family members and acquaintances. Remote interviews with older Bangladeshis and their social contacts who performed this mediating role provided insights into how linguistically and culturally appropriate messaging could build on existing beliefs and practices to promote compliance, and on social mediation as a dissemination strategy. We identified the role of choice of language (English or Sylheti), the differences between written and oral representations of COVID-19 risk, and the manifold ways in which linguistic choices give salience to aspects of a risk scenario.

For the week ending August 29, 2025, weekly deaths in England and Wales were 985 below the number expected, compared with 855 below what was expected in the previous week. In late 2022 and through early 2023, excess deaths were elevated for a number of weeks, with the excess deaths figure for the week ending January 13, 2023, the highest since February 2021. In the middle of April 2020, at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, there were almost 12,000 excess deaths a week recorded in England and Wales. It was not until two months later, in the week ending June 19, 2020, that the number of deaths began to be lower than the five-year average for the corresponding week. Most deaths since 1918 in 2020 In 2020, there were 689,629 deaths in the United Kingdom, making that year the deadliest since 1918, at the height of the Spanish influenza pandemic. As seen in the excess death figures, April 2020 was by far the worst month in terms of deaths during the pandemic. The weekly number of deaths for weeks 16 and 17 of that year were 22,351, and 21,997 respectively. Although the number of deaths fell to more usual levels for the rest of that year, a winter wave of the disease led to a high number of deaths in January 2021, with 18,676 deaths recorded in the fourth week of that year. For the whole of 2021, there were 667,479 deaths in the UK, 22,150 fewer than in 2020. Life expectancy in the UK goes into reverse In 2022, life expectancy at birth for women in the UK was 82.6 years, while for men it was 78.6 years. This was the lowest life expectancy in the country for ten years, and came after life expectancy improvements stalled throughout the 2010s, and then declined from 2020 onwards. There is also quite a significant regional difference in life expectancy in the UK. In the London borough of Kensington and Chelsea, for example, the life expectancy for men was 81.5 years, and 86.5 years for women. By contrast, in Blackpool, in North West England, male life expectancy was just 73.1 years, while for women, life expectancy was lowest in Glasgow, at 78 years.

The UCL COVID-19 Social Study at University College London (UCL) was launched on 21 March 2020. Led by Dr Daisy Fancourt and Professor Andrew Steptoe from the Department of Behavioural Science and Health, the team designed the study to track in real-time the psychological and social impact of the virus across the UK.

The study quickly became the largest in the country, growing to over 70,000 participants and providing rare and privileged insight into the effects of the pandemic on people’s daily lives. Through our participants’ remarkable two-year commitment to the study, 1.2 million surveys were collected over 105 weeks, and over 100 scientific papers and 44 public reports were published.

During COVID-19, population mental health has been affected both by the intensity of the pandemic (cases and death rates), but also by lockdowns and restrictions themselves. Worsening mental health coincided with higher rates of COVID-19, tighter restrictions, and the weeks leading up to lockdowns. Mental health then generally improved during lockdowns and most people were able to adapt and manage their well-being. However, a significant proportion of the population suffered disproportionately to the rest, and stay-at-home orders harmed those who were already financially, socially, or medically vulnerable. Socioeconomic factors, including low SEP, low income, and low educational attainment, continued to be associated with worse experiences of the pandemic. Outcomes for these groups were worse throughout many measures including mental health and wellbeing; financial struggles;self-harm and suicide risk; risk of contracting COVID-19 and developing long Covid; and vaccine resistance and hesitancy. These inequalities existed before the pandemic and were further exacerbated by COVID-19, and such groups remain particularly vulnerable to the future effects of the pandemic and other national crises.

Further information, including reports and publications, can be found on the https://www.covidsocialstudy.org/">UCL COVID-19 Social Study website.

Parameter tuning in the UK case.

This is a summary report on the economic impact of COVID-19 on London’s small and medium enterprises (SMEs). It presents a uniquely granular and timely analysis of the impacts on London’s SMEs by sectoral, financial, employment, and risk indicators and includes deep dive case studies on the economic impact on the Night Time Economy, high streets and town centres, and the Culture and Creative industries. The analysis was undertaken on a pro bono basis by Bloomberg Associates, for and in close collaboration with the GLA providing guidance and direction. Partners supporting Bloomberg Associates included Slalom, Burning Glass Technologies, DueDil and CK Delta. It leverages a combination of public and private data from a range of financial, economic, behavioural, sociographic and demographic sources and complements the macro-economic scenarios for the London economy. The study was conducted between March 2020 and June 2020 and leverages the most updated data that was available at the time. It is important to note that new data and evidence constantly emerges and could be integrated in a potential future iteration of this work. The report has sought to: Illustrate the impact of the pandemic on London’s SMEs and local employment and improve understanding of the scale and scope of the economic challenges that London faces in recovery. Demonstrate the application of “bottom-up” and localised data to create a more complete, granular picture of overall economic impact Show the intersection of impact by sectors and geographies, exploring the relationship between these two factors to demonstrate the risk hot spots across Greater London. If you have any comments or questions related to the report, please email GLA Economics