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.

Updates

• Notice of data discontinuation: Since the start of the pandemic, AP has reported case and death counts from data provided by Johns Hopkins University. Johns Hopkins University has announced that they will stop their daily data collection efforts after March 10. As Johns Hopkins stops providing data, the AP will also stop collecting daily numbers for COVID cases and deaths. The HHS and CDC now collect and visualize key metrics for the pandemic. AP advises using those resources when reporting on the pandemic going forward.

  • CDC Weekly case and death counts (national and state level)
  • CDC County level cases and deaths
  • HHS New hospital admissions
  • CDC NowCast COVID variant proportions (national and regional level)

• April 9, 2020

  • The population estimate data for New York County, NY has been updated to include all five New York City counties (Kings County, Queens County, Bronx County, Richmond County and New York County). This has been done to match the Johns Hopkins COVID-19 data, which aggregates counts for the five New York City counties to New York County.

• April 20, 2020

  • Johns Hopkins death totals in the US now include confirmed and probable deaths in accordance with CDC guidelines as of April 14. One significant result of this change was an increase of more than 3,700 deaths in the New York City count. This change will likely result in increases for death counts elsewhere as well. The AP does not alter the Johns Hopkins source data, so probable deaths are included in this dataset as well.

• April 29, 2020

  • The AP is now providing timeseries data for counts of COVID-19 cases and deaths. The raw counts are provided here unaltered, along with a population column with Census ACS-5 estimates and calculated daily case and death rates per 100,000 people. Please read the updated caveats section for more information.

• September 1st, 2020

  • Johns Hopkins is now providing counts for the five New York City counties individually.

• February 12, 2021

  • The Ohio Department of Health recently announced that as many as 4,000 COVID-19 deaths may have been underreported through the state’s reporting system, and that the "daily reported death counts will be high for a two to three-day period."
  • Because deaths data will be anomalous for consecutive days, we have chosen to freeze Ohio's rolling average for daily deaths at the last valid measure until Johns Hopkins is able to back-distribute the data. The raw daily death counts, as reported by Johns Hopkins and including the backlogged death data, will still be present in the new_deaths column.

• February 16, 2021

  - Johns Hopkins has reconciled Ohio's historical deaths data with the state.

  Overview

The AP is using data collected by the Johns Hopkins University Center for Systems Science and Engineering as our source for outbreak caseloads and death counts for the United States and globally.

The Hopkins data is available at the county level in the United States. The AP has paired this data with population figures and county rural/urban designations, and has calculated caseload and death rates per 100,000 people. Be aware that caseloads may reflect the availability of tests -- and the ability to turn around test results quickly -- rather than actual disease spread or true infection rates.

This data is from the Hopkins dashboard that is updated regularly throughout the day. Like all organizations dealing with data, Hopkins is constantly refining and cleaning up their feed, so there may be brief moments where data does not appear correctly. At this link, you’ll find the Hopkins daily data reports, and a clean version of their feed.

The AP is updating this dataset hourly at 45 minutes past the hour.

To learn more about AP's data journalism capabilities for publishers, corporations and financial institutions, go here or email kromano@ap.org.

Queries

Use AP's queries to filter the data or to join to other datasets we've made available to help cover the coronavirus pandemic

• Filter cases by state here

• Rank states by their status as current hotspots. Calculates the 7-day rolling average of new cases per capita in each state: https://data.world/associatedpress/johns-hopkins-coronavirus-case-tracker/workspace/query?queryid=481e82a4-1b2f-41c2-9ea1-d91aa4b3b1ac

• Find recent hotspots within your state by running a query to calculate the 7-day rolling average of new cases by capita in each county: https://data.world/associatedpress/johns-hopkins-coronavirus-case-tracker/workspace/query?queryid=b566f1db-3231-40fe-8099-311909b7b687&showTemplatePreview=true

• Join county-level case data to an earlier dataset released by AP on local hospital capacity here. To find out more about the hospital capacity dataset, see the full details.

• Pull the 100 counties with the highest per-capita confirmed cases here

• Rank all the counties by the highest per-capita rate of new cases in the past 7 days here. Be aware that because this ranks per-capita caseloads, very small counties may rise to the very top, so take into account raw caseload figures as well.

Interactive

The AP has designed an interactive map to track COVID-19 cases reported by Johns Hopkins.

@(https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/nRyaf/15/)

Interactive Embed Code

<iframe title="USA counties (2018) choropleth map Mapping COVID-19 cases by county" aria-describedby="" id="datawrapper-chart-nRyaf" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/nRyaf/10/" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" style="width: 0; min-width: 100% !important;" height="400"></iframe><script type="text/javascript">(function() {'use strict';window.addEventListener('message', function(event) {if (typeof event.data['datawrapper-height'] !== 'undefined') {for (var chartId in event.data['datawrapper-height']) {var iframe = document.getElementById('datawrapper-chart-' + chartId) || document.querySelector("iframe[src*='" + chartId + "']");if (!iframe) {continue;}iframe.style.height = event.data['datawrapper-height'][chartId] + 'px';}}});})();</script>

Caveats

• This data represents the number of cases and deaths reported by each state and has been collected by Johns Hopkins from a number of sources cited on their website.
• In some cases, deaths or cases of people who've crossed state lines -- either to receive treatment or because they became sick and couldn't return home while traveling -- are reported in a state they aren't currently in, because of state reporting rules.
• In some states, there are a number of cases not assigned to a specific county -- for those cases, the county name is "unassigned to a single county"
• This data should be credited to Johns Hopkins University's COVID-19 tracking project. The AP is simply making it available here for ease of use for reporters and members.
• Caseloads may reflect the availability of tests -- and the ability to turn around test results quickly -- rather than actual disease spread or true infection rates.
• Population estimates at the county level are drawn from 2014-18 5-year estimates from the American Community Survey.
• The Urban/Rural classification scheme is from the Center for Disease Control and Preventions's National Center for Health Statistics. It puts each county into one of six categories -- from Large Central Metro to Non-Core -- according to population and other characteristics. More details about the classifications can be found here.

Johns Hopkins timeseries data - Johns Hopkins pulls data regularly to update their dashboard. Once a day, around 8pm EDT, Johns Hopkins adds the counts for all areas they cover to the timeseries file. These counts are snapshots of the latest cumulative counts provided by the source on that day. This can lead to inconsistencies if a source updates their historical data for accuracy, either increasing or decreasing the latest cumulative count. - Johns Hopkins periodically edits their historical timeseries data for accuracy. They provide a file documenting all errors in their timeseries files that they have identified and fixed here

Attribution

This data should be credited to Johns Hopkins University COVID-19 tracking project

This dataset reports the daily reported number of the 7-day moving average rates of Deaths involving COVID-19 by vaccination status and by age group.

Learn how the Government of Ontario is helping to keep Ontarians safe during the 2019 Novel Coronavirus outbreak.

Effective November 14, 2024 this page will no longer be updated. Information about COVID-19 and other respiratory viruses is available on Public Health Ontario’s interactive respiratory virus tool: https://www.publichealthontario.ca/en/Data-and-Analysis/Infectious-Disease/Respiratory-Virus-Tool

Data includes:

• Date on which the death occurred
• Age group
• 7-day moving average of the last seven days of the death rate per 100,000 for those not fully vaccinated
• 7-day moving average of the last seven days of the death rate per 100,000 for those fully vaccinated
• 7-day moving average of the last seven days of the death rate per 100,000 for those vaccinated with at least one booster

Additional notes

As of June 16, all COVID-19 datasets will be updated weekly on Thursdays by 2pm.

As of January 12, 2024, data from the date of January 1, 2024 onwards reflect updated population estimates. This update specifically impacts data for the 'not fully vaccinated' category.

On November 30, 2023 the count of COVID-19 deaths was updated to include missing historical deaths from January 15, 2020 to March 31, 2023.

CCM is a dynamic disease reporting system which allows ongoing update to data previously entered. As a result, data extracted from CCM represents a snapshot at the time of extraction and may differ from previous or subsequent results. Public Health Units continually clean up COVID-19 data, correcting for missing or overcounted cases and deaths. These corrections can result in data spikes and current totals being different from previously reported cases and deaths. Observed trends over time should be interpreted with caution for the most recent period due to reporting and/or data entry lags.

The data does not include vaccination data for people who did not provide consent for vaccination records to be entered into the provincial COVaxON system. This includes individual records as well as records from some Indigenous communities where those communities have not consented to including vaccination information in COVaxON.

“Not fully vaccinated” category includes people with no vaccine and one dose of double-dose vaccine. “People with one dose of double-dose vaccine” category has a small and constantly changing number. The combination will stabilize the results.

Spikes, negative numbers and other data anomalies: Due to ongoing data entry and data quality assurance activities in Case and Contact Management system (CCM) file, Public Health Units continually clean up COVID-19, correcting for missing or overcounted cases and deaths. These corrections can result in data spikes, negative numbers and current totals being different from previously reported case and death counts.

Public Health Units report cause of death in the CCM based on information available to them at the time of reporting and in accordance with definitions provided by Public Health Ontario. The medical certificate of death is the official record and the cause of death could be different.

Deaths are defined per the outcome field in CCM marked as “Fatal”. Deaths in COVID-19 cases identified as unrelated to COVID-19 are not included in the Deaths involving COVID-19 reported.

Rates for the most recent days are subject to reporting lags

All data reflects totals from 8 p.m. the previous day.

This dataset is subject to change.

The New York Times is releasing a series of data files with cumulative counts of coronavirus cases in the United States, at the state and county level, over time. We are compiling this time series data from state and local governments and health departments in an attempt to provide a complete record of the ongoing outbreak.

Since late January, The Times has tracked cases of coronavirus in real time as they were identified after testing. Because of the widespread shortage of testing, however, the data is necessarily limited in the picture it presents of the outbreak.

We have used this data to power our maps and reporting tracking the outbreak, and it is now being made available to the public in response to requests from researchers, scientists and government officials who would like access to the data to better understand the outbreak.

The data begins with the first reported coronavirus case in Washington State on Jan. 21, 2020. We will publish regular updates to the data in this repository.

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

Abstract

Cause of death data based on VA interviews were contributed by fourteen INDEPTH HDSS sites in sub-Saharan Africa and eight sites in Asia. The principles of the Network and its constituent population surveillance sites have been described elsewhere [1]. Each HDSS site is committed to long-term longitudinal surveillance of circumscribed populations, typically each covering around 50,000 to 100,000 people. Households are registered and visited regularly by lay field-workers, with a frequency varying from once per year to several times per year. All vital events are registered at each such visit, and any deaths recorded are followed up with verbal autopsy interviews, usually 147 undertaken by specially trained lay interviewers. A few sites were already operational in the 1990s, but in this dataset 95% of the person-time observed related to the period from 2000 onwards, with 58% from 2007 onwards. Two sites, in Nairobi and Ouagadougou, followed urban populations, while the remainder covered areas that were generally more rural in character, although some included local urban centres. Sites covered entire populations, although the Karonga, Malawi, site only contributed VAs for deaths of people aged 12 years and older. Because the sites were not located or designed in a systematic way to be representative of national or regional populations, it is not meaningful to aggregate results over sites.

All cause of death assignments in this dataset were made using the InterVA-4 model version 4.02 [2]. InterVA-4 uses probabilistic modelling to arrive at likely cause(s) of death for each VA case, the workings of the model being based on a combination of expert medical opinion and relevant available data. InterVA-4 is the only model currently available that processes VA data according to the WHO 2012 standard and categorises causes of death according to ICD-10. Since the VA data reported here were collected before the WHO 2012 standard was formulated, they were all retrospectively transformed into the WHO 2012 and InterVA-4 input format for processing.

The InterVA-4 model was applied to the data from each site, yielding, for each case, up to three possible causes of death or an indeterminate result. Each cause for a case is a single record in the dataset. In a minority of cases, for example where symptoms were vague, contradictory or mutually inconsistent, it was impossible for InterVA-4 to determine a cause of death, and these deaths were attributed as entirely indeterminate. For the remaining cases, one to three likely causes and their likelihoods were assigned by InterVA-4, and if the sum of their likelihoods was less than one, the residual component was then assigned as being indeterminate. This was an important process for capturing uncertainty in cause of death outcome(s) from the model at the individual level, thus avoiding over-interpretation of specific causes. As a consequence there were three sources of unattributed cause of death: deaths registered for which VAs were not successfully completed; VAs completed but where the cause was entirely indeterminate; and residual components of deaths attributed as indeterminate.

In this dataset each case has between one and four records, each with its own cause and likelihood. Cases for which VAs were not successfully completed has a single record with the cause of death recorded as “VA not completed” and a likelihood of one. Thus the overall sum of the likelihoods equated to the total number of deaths. Each record also contains a population weighting factor reflecting the ratio of the population fraction for its site, age group, sex and year to the corresponding age group and sex fraction in the standard population (see section on weighting).

In this context, all of these data are secondary datasets derived from primary data collected separately by each participating site. In all cases the primary data collection was covered by site-level ethical approvals relating to on-going demographic surveillance in those specific locations. No individual identity or household location data are included in this secondary data.

1. Sankoh O, Byass P. The INDEPTH Network: filling vital gaps in global epidemiology. International Journal of Epidemiology 2012; 41:579-588.

2. Byass P, Chandramohan D, Clark SJ, D’Ambruoso L, Fottrell E, Graham WJ, et al. Strengthening standardised interpretation of verbal autopsy data: the new InterVA-4 tool. Global Health Action 2012; 5:19281.

Geographic coverage

Demographic surveiallance areas (countries from Africa, Asia and Oceania) of the following HDSSs:

Code  Country    INDEPTH Centre

BD011 Bangladesh   ICDDR-B : Matlab

BD012 Bangladesh   ICDDR-B : Bandarban

BD013 Bangladesh   ICDDR-B : Chakaria

BD014 Bangladesh   ICDDR-B : AMK 
BF031 Burkina Faso  Nouna 
BF041 Burkina Faso  Ouagadougou

CI011 Côte d'Ivoire Taabo 
ET031 Ethiopia    Kilite Awlaelo

GH011 Ghana     Navrongo

GH031 Ghana     Dodowa

GM011 The Gambia   Farafenni 
ID011 Indonesia   Purworejo 
IN011 India     Ballabgarh

IN021 India     Vadu

KE011 Kenya     Kilifi

KE021 Kenya     Kisumu

KE031 Kenya     Nairobi

MW011 Malawi     Karonga

SN011 Senegal    IRD : Bandafassi 
VN012 Vietnam    Hanoi Medical University : Filabavi

ZA011 South Africa  Agincourt 
ZA031 South Africa  Africa Centre 

Analysis unit

Death Cause

Universe

Surveillance population Deceased individuals Cause of death

Kind of data

Verbal autopsy-based cause of death data

Frequency of data collection

Rounds per year varies between sites from once to three times per year

Sampling procedure

No sampling, covers total population in demographic surveillance area

Mode of data collection

Face-to-face [f2f]

Research instrument

The Verbal Autopsy Questionnaires used by the various sites differed, but in most cases they were a derivation from the original WHO Verbal Autopsy questionnaire.

http://www.who.int/healthinfo/statistics/verbalautopsystandards/en/index1.html

Cleaning operations

One cause of death record was inserted for every death where a verbal autopsy was not conducted. The cuase of death assigned in these cases is "XX VA not completed"

Context

In the shadows of the Covid-19 pandemic, there is another global health crisis that has gone largely unnoticed. This is the Noncommunicable Disease (NCD) pandemic.

The WHO website describes NCDs as follows:

Noncommunicable diseases (NCDs), also known as chronic diseases, tend to be of long duration and are the result of a combination of genetic, physiological, environmental and behaviours factors.

The main types of NCDs are cardiovascular diseases (like heart attacks and stroke), cancers, chronic respiratory diseases (such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and asthma) and diabetes.

NCDs disproportionately affect people in low- and middle-income countries where more than three quarters of global NCD deaths – 32million – occur.

Key facts:

• Noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) kill 41 million people each year, equivalent to 71% of all deaths globally.
• Each year, 15 million people die from a NCD between the ages of 30 and 69 years; over 85% of these "premature" deaths occur in low- and middle-income > * countries.
• Cardiovascular diseases account for most NCD deaths, or 17.9 million people annually, followed by cancers (9.0 million), respiratory diseases (3.9million), and diabetes (1.6 million).
• These 4 groups of diseases account for over 80% of all premature NCD deaths.
• Tobacco use, physical inactivity, the harmful use of alcohol and unhealthy diets all increase the risk of dying from a NCD.
• Detection, screening and treatment of NCDs, as well as palliative care, are key components of the response to NCDs.

Content

This data repository consists of 3 CSV files: WHO-cause-of-death-by-NCD.csv is the main dataset, which provides the percentage of deaths caused by NCDs out of all causes of death, for each nation globally. Metadata_Country.csv and Metadata_Indicator.csv provide additional metadata which is helpful for interpreting the main CSV.

The data collected spans a period from 2000 to 2016. The main CSV has columns for every year from 1960 to 2019. It is advisable to drop all redundant columns where no data was collected.

Furthermore, it is advisable to merge Metadata_Country.csv with the main CSV as it provides valuable additional information, particularly on the economic situation of each nation.

Acknowledgements

This dataset has been extracted from The World Bank 'Cause of death, by non-communicable diseases (% of total)' Dataset, derived based on the data from WHO's Global Health Estimates. It is freely provided under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0), with the additional terms as stated on the World Bank website: World Bank Terms of Use for Datasets.

Inspiration

I would be interested to see some good data wrangling (dropping redundant columns), as well as kernels interpreting additional information in 'SpecialNotes' column in Metadata_country.csv

It would also be great to see what different factors influence NCDs: most of all, the geopolitical factors. Would be great to see some choropleth visualisations to get an idea of which regions are most affected by NCDs.

Context

This Data is related to the World Fight against the Infectious Disease COVID-19 (CoronaVirus).

Content

This DataSet contains the World Data of Total Cases, Total Death, Total Tests and more by each Country and Continents.

Acknowledgements

This data is collected by Web Scraping. In this, I Scrap the data from the website Worldometers by writing the code in Python. For more, please Check the Code. Special Thanks to the Website Worldometers for providing such data. https://www.kaggle.com/samrat77/coronavirus-data-web-scraping

Inspiration

Inspired by all the others kagglers who are posting datasets and kernels on a daily bases.

This dataset contains data from WHO's data portal covering the following categories:

Adolescent, Ageing, Air pollution, Assistive technology, Child, Child mortality, Cross-cutting, Dementia diagnosis, treatment and care, Environment and health, Foodborne Diseases Estimates, Global Dementia Observatory (GDO), Global Health Estimates: Life expectancy and leading causes of death and disability, Global Information System on Alcohol and Health, Global Patient Safety Observatory, Global strategy, HIV, Health financing, Health systems, Health taxes, Health workforce, Hepatitis, Immunization coverage and vaccine-preventable diseases, Malaria, Maternal and newborn, Maternal and reproductive health, Mental health, Neglected tropical diseases, Noncommunicable diseases, Nutrition, Oral Health, Priority health technologies, Resources for Substance Use Disorders, Road Safety, SDG Target 3.8 | Achieve universal health coverage (UHC), Sexually Transmitted Infections, Tobacco control, Tuberculosis, Vaccine-preventable communicable diseases, Violence prevention, Water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH), World Health Statistics.

For links to individual indicator metadata, see resource descriptions.

BackgroundSustainable Development Goal 3 (SDG 3), focusing on ensuring healthy lives and well-being for all, holds global significance and is particularly vital for Bangladesh. Neonatal Mortality Rate (NMR), Under-5 Mortality Rate (U5MR), Maternal Mortality Ratio (MMR) and Death Rate Due to Road Traffic Injuries (RTI) are considered responsible indicators of SDG 3 progress in Bangladesh. The objective of the study is to forecast these indicators of Bangladesh up to 2030 and compare these forecasts with predetermined 2030 targets. The data is obtained from the World Bank’s (WB) website.MethodFor forecasting, time series models were employed, specifically Autoregressive Integrated Moving Average- ARIMA (0,2,1) with Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) 94.6 for NMR and ARIMA (2,1,2) with AIC 423.2 for U5MR, selected based on their lowest AIC values. Additionally, Machine Learning (ML) models, including Bidirectional Recurrent Neural Networks (BRNN) and Elastic Neural Networks (ENET), were employed for all the indicators.ResultsENET demonstrates superior performance compared to both BRNN and ARIMA in the context of NMR, achieving a Root Mean Absolute Error (RMAE) of 0.603446 and a Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) of 0.451162. Furthermore, when considering U5MR, MMR, and Death Rate Due to RTI, ENET consistently exhibits lower error metrics compared to the alternative models. Following the time series and ML analyses, a consistent trend emerges in the forecasted values for NMR and U5MR, which consistently fall below their respective 2030 targets. This promising finding suggests that Bangladesh is making significant progress toward meeting its 2030 targets for NMR and U5MR. However, in the cases of MMR and Death Rate Due to RTI, the forecasted values exceeded 2030 targets. This indicates that Bangladesh faces challenges in meeting the 2030 targets for MMR and Death Rate Due to RTI.ConclusionThe analyses underscore the importance of SDG 3 in Bangladesh and its progress towards ensuring healthy lives and well-being for all. While there is optimism regarding NMR and U5MR, more focused efforts may be needed to address the challenges posed by MMR and Death Rate Due to RTI to align with the 2030 targets. This study contributes valuable insights into Bangladesh’s journey toward sustainable development in the realm of health and well-being.

BackgroundSustainable Development Goal 3 (SDG 3), focusing on ensuring healthy lives and well-being for all, holds global significance and is particularly vital for Bangladesh. Neonatal Mortality Rate (NMR), Under-5 Mortality Rate (U5MR), Maternal Mortality Ratio (MMR) and Death Rate Due to Road Traffic Injuries (RTI) are considered responsible indicators of SDG 3 progress in Bangladesh. The objective of the study is to forecast these indicators of Bangladesh up to 2030 and compare these forecasts with predetermined 2030 targets. The data is obtained from the World Bank’s (WB) website.MethodFor forecasting, time series models were employed, specifically Autoregressive Integrated Moving Average- ARIMA (0,2,1) with Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) 94.6 for NMR and ARIMA (2,1,2) with AIC 423.2 for U5MR, selected based on their lowest AIC values. Additionally, Machine Learning (ML) models, including Bidirectional Recurrent Neural Networks (BRNN) and Elastic Neural Networks (ENET), were employed for all the indicators.ResultsENET demonstrates superior performance compared to both BRNN and ARIMA in the context of NMR, achieving a Root Mean Absolute Error (RMAE) of 0.603446 and a Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) of 0.451162. Furthermore, when considering U5MR, MMR, and Death Rate Due to RTI, ENET consistently exhibits lower error metrics compared to the alternative models. Following the time series and ML analyses, a consistent trend emerges in the forecasted values for NMR and U5MR, which consistently fall below their respective 2030 targets. This promising finding suggests that Bangladesh is making significant progress toward meeting its 2030 targets for NMR and U5MR. However, in the cases of MMR and Death Rate Due to RTI, the forecasted values exceeded 2030 targets. This indicates that Bangladesh faces challenges in meeting the 2030 targets for MMR and Death Rate Due to RTI.ConclusionThe analyses underscore the importance of SDG 3 in Bangladesh and its progress towards ensuring healthy lives and well-being for all. While there is optimism regarding NMR and U5MR, more focused efforts may be needed to address the challenges posed by MMR and Death Rate Due to RTI to align with the 2030 targets. This study contributes valuable insights into Bangladesh’s journey toward sustainable development in the realm of health and well-being.

BackgroundSustainable Development Goal 3 (SDG 3), focusing on ensuring healthy lives and well-being for all, holds global significance and is particularly vital for Bangladesh. Neonatal Mortality Rate (NMR), Under-5 Mortality Rate (U5MR), Maternal Mortality Ratio (MMR) and Death Rate Due to Road Traffic Injuries (RTI) are considered responsible indicators of SDG 3 progress in Bangladesh. The objective of the study is to forecast these indicators of Bangladesh up to 2030 and compare these forecasts with predetermined 2030 targets. The data is obtained from the World Bank’s (WB) website.MethodFor forecasting, time series models were employed, specifically Autoregressive Integrated Moving Average- ARIMA (0,2,1) with Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) 94.6 for NMR and ARIMA (2,1,2) with AIC 423.2 for U5MR, selected based on their lowest AIC values. Additionally, Machine Learning (ML) models, including Bidirectional Recurrent Neural Networks (BRNN) and Elastic Neural Networks (ENET), were employed for all the indicators.ResultsENET demonstrates superior performance compared to both BRNN and ARIMA in the context of NMR, achieving a Root Mean Absolute Error (RMAE) of 0.603446 and a Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) of 0.451162. Furthermore, when considering U5MR, MMR, and Death Rate Due to RTI, ENET consistently exhibits lower error metrics compared to the alternative models. Following the time series and ML analyses, a consistent trend emerges in the forecasted values for NMR and U5MR, which consistently fall below their respective 2030 targets. This promising finding suggests that Bangladesh is making significant progress toward meeting its 2030 targets for NMR and U5MR. However, in the cases of MMR and Death Rate Due to RTI, the forecasted values exceeded 2030 targets. This indicates that Bangladesh faces challenges in meeting the 2030 targets for MMR and Death Rate Due to RTI.ConclusionThe analyses underscore the importance of SDG 3 in Bangladesh and its progress towards ensuring healthy lives and well-being for all. While there is optimism regarding NMR and U5MR, more focused efforts may be needed to address the challenges posed by MMR and Death Rate Due to RTI to align with the 2030 targets. This study contributes valuable insights into Bangladesh’s journey toward sustainable development in the realm of health and well-being.

Seasonal influenza leads to 2–3 million infections and up to 650,000 global deaths annually, with particularly high mortality in Asia and relatively low annual vaccination rates for prevention. Relatively lower attention is paid to antiviral treatment as a facet of influenza response strategy both in research and national policy. This study compares national influenza treatment guidelines across countries in the Asia Pacific region, and assesses the antiviral recommendations, comprehensiveness, availability, and quality, compared with World Health Organisation (WHO) guidelines. Ministry of Health websites were searched, and key stakeholders were contacted to obtain national influenza treatment guidelines. Official guidelines detailing pharmacologic treatment for seasonal influenza were included. Key data for comparison were extracted and quality appraisal was conducted using the AGREE II instrument. Out of 49 countries and areas in the World Health Organisation Western Pacific and South-East Asia regions, under half (14/49; 28.6%) had established national influenza treatment guidelines. Nine (9/49; 18.4%) reported no seasonal flu guidelines at all, and information could not be obtained for 25 (51.0%). All guidelines recommend oseltamivir in line with WHO recommendations, although rationale and evidence reviews were often missing. There was variation in recommendations for other antivirals, indications for treatment, definitions of severity and recency of publication. The AGREE II tool quality assessments revealed the highest average scores were observed in the ‘presentation’ domain and lowest scores in ‘editorial independence’ and ‘rigour of development’ domains, demonstrating limited evidence-based guideline development. The variability in recommendations and definitions highlight the need for a stronger evidence base with direct comparisons of antiviral treatment for hard and soft endpoints, and improvements in systematic guideline development. Established treatment guidelines are a key component of national influenza response strategy and in the post-covid pandemic era, renewed attention to seasonal influenza management is surely warranted.

BackgroundThe global burden of digestive diseases has been rising in the last 30 years. The rates and trends of incidence, deaths, and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) for digestive diseases need to be investigated.MethodsWe extracted the data on overall digestive diseases and by cause between 1990–2019 from the Global Burden of Diseases 2019 website, including the absolute number and the corresponding age-standardized rates of incidence (ASIR), deaths (ASDR), and DALYs (ASDALYs).ResultsGlobally, the incident cases, deaths, and DALYs of digestive diseases in 2019 increased by 74.44, 37.85, and 23.46%, respectively, compared with that in 1990, with an increasing ASIR of 0.09%, as well as decreasing ASDR and ASDALYs of 1.38 and 1.32% annually. The sociodemographic index (SDI) of overall digestive diseases showed a slight increase in ASIR from low to middle-low regions. The downtrend in ASDR and ASDALYs was found in all SDI regions. The burden of incidence was higher in females, while the burden of deaths and DALYs was higher in males for the overall digestive diseases and most causes. The estimated annual percentage changes were significantly associated with the baseline ASIR, ASDR, and ASDALYs for the overall digestive diseases, and the negative correlations between ASDR, ASDALYs, and human development index both in 1990 (R = −0.68, R = −0.69) and 2019 (R = −0.71, R = −0.73) were noticed.ConclusionThe findings indicate that digestive diseases remain a significant public health burden, with substantial variation across countries, sexes, and age groups. Therefore, implementing age, gender, and country-specific policies for early screening and targeted interventions could significantly reduce the global burden of digestive diseases.

HIV/AIDS deaths in the U.S. have dropped significantly in recent years. In 1995, the death rate from HIV per 100,000 people was ****. That number has since decreased to *** per 100,000 as of 2023. The reduction in the HIV death rate in the U.S. can be attributed to an increase in access to HIV medications. HIV/AIDS in the U.S. Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) cause a systemic viral infection that damages the immune system. AIDS is a syndrome that is caused by HIV. AIDS is when the immune system is severely weakened by HIV and the body can no longer fight off infections. Among all U.S. states, Georgia, followed by Florida and Louisiana, had the highest rates of new HIV diagnoses in 2022. HIV/AIDS treatments in the U.S. HIV/AIDS treatments include antiretroviral medications to reduce the levels of HIV within the body. The largest funders for HIV/AIDS medications and research are the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the Ryan White Program. The top HIV drug worldwide, based on revenue generated in 2023 was Biktarvy. Around the world, access to antiretroviral treatment has increased dramatically in recent years, a huge step in reducing the number of HIV-related deaths. There is currently no cure for HIV.

Cancer was responsible for around *** deaths per 100,000 population in the United States in 2023. The death rate for cancer has steadily decreased since the 1990’s, but cancer still remains the second leading cause of death in the United States. The deadliest type of cancer for both men and women is cancer of the lung and bronchus which will account for an estimated ****** deaths among men alone in 2025. Probability of surviving Survival rates for cancer vary significantly depending on the type of cancer. The cancers with the highest rates of survival include cancers of the thyroid, prostate, and testis, with five-year survival rates as high as ** percent for thyroid cancer. The cancers with the lowest five-year survival rates include cancers of the pancreas, liver, and esophagus. Risk factors It is difficult to determine why one person develops cancer while another does not, but certain risk factors have been shown to increase a person’s chance of developing cancer. For example, cigarette smoking has been proven to increase the risk of developing various cancers. In fact, around ** percent of cancers of the lung, bronchus and trachea among adults aged 30 years and older can be attributed to cigarette smoking. Other modifiable risk factors for cancer include being obese, drinking alcohol, and sun exposure.