Coronavirus tracked: the latest figures as countries reopen – all you need to know – Owl!

The Financial Times is making key coronavirus coverage free to read to keep everyone informed during this extraordinary crisis. This is one such article.

FT Visual & Data Journalism team yesterday (12 August) 

The human cost of coronavirus has continued to mount, with more than 20.2m cases confirmed globally and more than 733,800 people known to have died.

The World Health Organization declared the outbreak a pandemic in March and it has spread to more than 200 countries, with severe public health and economic consequences. This page provides an up-to-date visual narrative of the spread of Covid-19, so please check back regularly because we are refreshing it with new graphics and features as the story evolves.


  • July 29: Links added to pandemic crisis economic recovery tracker
  • May 6: Links added to epidemic trajectory and government response interactive graphics to replace static charts
  • May 5: All charts now include deaths away from hospitals where reported
  • April 29: Excess mortality charts added, showing that official Covid-19 death counts may significantly underestimate the pandemic’s true toll
Surge in Latin America means global daily death toll on the rise once again. Streamgraph and stacked column charts, showing regional daily deaths of patients diagnosed with coronavirus

Latin America is the current epicentre of the pandemic, with the region accounting for almost half of all deaths each day. This has been fuelled by a surge in Covid-19 fatalities in Brazil, Mexico and several other countries in Central and South America.

Europe’s average count of coronavirus-related deaths overtook Asia’s in early March, with Italy, Spain and the UK becoming the global hotspots. From mid-April the focus shifted to the US, where the number of deaths has remained consistently high, with the country currently accounting for 18 per cent of global fatalities, although the focus of the epidemic has shifted from the northeast to southern and western states.

Has your country’s epidemic peaked?

Explore the data here

This FT interactive tool allows you to explore data about the pandemic to better understand the disease’s spread and trajectory in countries around the world, and in US states.

Global coronavirus cases and deaths have climbed again since the beginning of June. The centre of the pandemic has shifted to Latin America with Panama, Peru, Bolivia, Brazil, Mexico, and Colombia currently reporting the greatest number of daily deaths as a share of population.

Large emerging market countries such as Brazil, Russia, Mexico, India and South Africa are all showing fatalities on an upward trend.

New confirmed cases have also been increasing in the US, particularly in southern and western states such as Florida, Texas, Arizona and California, and there are indications of a resurgence of cases in several EU countries.

Charts showing excess mortality during the coronavirus pandemic in selected countries. Data updated July 13.

There are concerns, however, that reported Covid-19 deaths are not capturing the true impact of coronavirus on mortality around the world. The FT has gathered and analysed data on excess mortality — the numbers of deaths over and above the historical average — across the globe, and has found that numbers of deaths in some countries are more than 50 per cent higher than usual. In many countries, these excess deaths exceed reported numbers of Covid-19 deaths by large margins.

Charts showing excess mortality during the coronavirus pandemic in selected regions and municipalities. Data updated July 13.

The picture is even starker in the hardest-hit cities and regions. In Ecuador’s Guayas province, there have been 10,000 more deaths than normal since the start of March, an increase of more than 300 per cent. London has seen overall deaths more than double, and New York City’s total death numbers since mid-March are more than four times the norm.

There are several different ways of comparing excess deaths figures between countries. In absolute numbers, more people than would usually be expected have died in the in the US than in any of the other countries for which recent all-cause mortality data is available.

Bar charts ranking countries on various measures of excess mortality during the coronavirus pandemic. Data updated July 13.

Adjusting for population size, the hardest hit countries are Peru and Ecuador, each of which have seen more than 1,000 excess deaths per million inhabitants. The two Latin American countries also have the highest excess percentage — excess deaths expressed as a share of normal deaths for the same period.

A live-updating heatmap graphic showing the relative stringency of selected countries’ Coronavirus lockdown measures, based on data from the Blavatnik School of Government, University of Oxford

Exiting lockdowns


From business closures to movement restrictions, some countries’ policies show first signs of easing. Follow the changes here using our interactive tool. 

As Covid-19 spread beyond China, governments responded by implementing containment measures with varying degrees of restriction. Researchers at the University of Oxford’s Blavatnik School of Government have compiled data on a range of government response measures, such as school and workplace closures and restrictions on travel and gatherings, to create a stringency index.

East Asian countries including South Korea and Vietnam were the first to follow China in implementing widespread containment measures, with much of Europe, North America and Africa taking much longer to bring in tough measures.

India’s sudden implementation of a strict 21-day lockdown propelled it to the top of the index, making it the first country reported to have hit the index’s upper limit of 100 for more than a single day.

Help the Blavatnik School of Government at Oxford university improve the stringency index used in this map by providing direct feedback.

Live-updating proportional symbol map of the world showing the cumulative death toll from Covid-19 by country. Data updated daily.
Live-updating proportional symbol map of Europe showing the cumulative death toll from Covid-19 by country. Data updated daily.

The death toll has now passed 100 in 31 European countries. The region currently only accounts for 5 per cent of new daily cases, well down from the peak of more than 80 per cent in March.

Proportional symbol map showing the total number of deaths attributed to Covid-19 in each US state, using data from the Covid Tracking Project.

Coronavirus has spread to all 50 states in the US. More than 5.1m cases and 155,900 deaths have been confirmed in the country.


Unless otherwise stated, national-level case and deaths data come from the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control.

Data for the US its territories come from the Covid Tracking Project.

UK deaths data after January 28 come from the UK Department of Health and Social Care, including its revised time series after March 6. On July 2, the UK’s methodology for reporting positive cases changed to remove 30,302 duplicates identified when combining testing data from hospitals (“pillar 1”) and private sector labs (“pillar 2”). Prior to this date, the UK case data are the sum of the revised totals published by Public Health EnglandPublic Health ScotlandPublic Health Wales, and the Northern Ireland Department of Health.

Deaths data for Spain before July 3 come from revisions published by the Spanish Ministry of Health. 209 deaths that could not be attributed to a specific date have been distributed uniformly across the remaining distribution.

The data for Chile, China, France, India as well as for the US states of New York and New Jersey have been adjusted to redistribute additional cases or deaths that were added after they occured in proportion to the previous distribution of deaths or cases in that jurisdiction.

The full excess mortality dataset used for this analysis is freely available for download on Github. It is compiled from data originally produced by official statistics agencies or civil registries in each of the jurisdictions mentioned. The full list of sources is also available on our Github repository.

Help us improve these charts: Please email with feedback, requests or tips about additional sources of national or municipal all-cause mortality data. Thank you to the many readers who have already helped us with feedback and suggestions. We continue to incorporate your suggestions and data every day. We will respond to as many people as possible.

Reporting, data analysis and graphics by Steven BernardDavid BloodJohn Burn-MurdochMax HarlowJoanna S KaoCaroline NevittAlan SmithMartin StabeCale Tilford and Aleksandra Wisniewska. Edited by Adrienne Klasa

Corrections: Due to a typographical error, the first paragraph of this story incorrectly stated the number of people who had died from Covid-19 for several hours on April 9. At the time, that figure should have read 87,741. Due to a typographical error, a map on this story temporarily showed an incorrect number of deaths from Covid-19 in Italy on May 14. At the time, that figure should have read 31,106.

The public won’t forgive the government’s secrecy over frontline coronavirus deaths

“Trust in the government has slipped back from the high levels seen at the start of the pandemic. Ministers will need to retain what remains in order to secure the public’s cooperation during what is likely to be a difficult winter. The quid pro quo must be more openness and less secrecy. Transparency cannot be a rule that applies only when it suits the government.”


The government’s decision to review the deaths of more than 620 health and social care workers in England and Wales who contracted coronavirus is a welcome move. But its intention not to disclose the findings of NHS medical examiners is a mistake.

As we reveal today, the priority will be learning the lessons locally. Of course, it is vital to maximise the chances of preventing more suffering and deaths during a pandemic which is far from over. But the government also has a duty to be straight with the public. Some workers are bound to have caught the virus outside their workplace. Yet the public has a right to know whether the deaths of some who risked everything to work tirelessly on the front line might have been avoided if the government had ensured adequate provision of personal protective equipment.

If individual cases shed light on how the government fell woefully short at the start of the crisis, ministers should not hide behind a self-serving code of confidentiality.

Indeed, as the Doctors’ Association UK argues, there is a strong case for the deaths of all the frontline workers to be automatically investigated by the coroner, so the process would be totally independent of hospitals.

Similarly, the government should be open about whether the ethnicity of those who died was a factor. Its record on this question does not inspire confidence. Initially, ministers declined to publish in full the findings of a Public Health England review, which said: “Racism and discrimination experienced by Bame key workers [is] a root cause affecting health and exposure risk. For Bame communities, lack of trust of NHS services resulted in reluctance to seek care.”

The government insists a wider review is now under way, and that hospitals have already been told to risk assess workers who might be more susceptible to the virus, such as those from Bame backgrounds or with existing health conditions. But we still await a detailed plan to tackle the disproportionate death rate among Bame communities.

A worrying pattern of behaviour is emerging. There has also been a lack of transparency over the 22,000 deaths in care homes. Relatives of residents who died or survived the tragedy which unfolded behind closed doors were often unable to learn anything about the pandemic’s impact on individual homes.

It appears that providers, many of whom are struggling to survive after being left in the lurch by the government, fear a flood of legal actions by bereaved relatives. Such fears should not preclude an honest assessment of what went wrong – and right.

Downing Street is very keen on data science and the figures it publicised when it held a daily press conference on coronavirus served the public well. However, ministers are now developing a habit of citing unpublished data when announcing decisions, without disclosing the evidence in full. One example was when the government announced that people from two households would be banned from meeting in homes and gardens in parts of the north of England.

Nor should data be misused to garner favourable headlines. A forthcoming PHE study was selectively previewed to show that schoolchildren are unlikely to transmit the virus. But it is also believed to have found that secondary school pupils are as likely to pass it on as adults.

Some scientists who do not advise the government are rightly worried that crucial decisions on coronavirus are being made by a tight, closed circle of politicians, civil servants and scientific advisers privy to data that should be shared with the public in real time.

Trust in the government has slipped back from the high levels seen at the start of the pandemic. Ministers will need to retain what remains in order to secure the public’s cooperation during what is likely to be a difficult winter. The quid pro quo must be more openness and less secrecy. Transparency cannot be a rule that applies only when it suits the government.

Up to 6% of England’s population may have had Covid, study shows

About 3.4 million people in England – 6% of the population – have had Covid-19, with infections more common among members of black, Asian and minority ethnic communities, according to the results of a large home antibody testing study.

The results from the study, known as React-2, are based on home finger-prick antibody test results from 100,000 participants across the 314 local authorities in England.

“It gives us the most robust, cross-sectional estimate of the number of people who have been infected during the first wave of the pandemic,” said Prof Graham Cooke, a co-author of the research from Imperial College London. “Because we have done it in scale we can have more confidence about the differences between different groups,” he added.

Cooke said the study, which has not yet been peer reviewed, provides important insights, both for easing lockdown and preparing for a second wave.

“There is no evidence of anything near high-enough levels of herd immunity for this to be helpful at a population level and that it is likely there is a high proportion of susceptible people out there still that need to be protected,” he said.

The 3.4 million people that it represents is many times higher than the tally of known cases for the UK as posted by Johns Hopkins University in the US – whose aggregated numbers have become the main reference for monitoring the disease – and which listed the country’s case numbers at 315,546 as of Thursday morning.

The study tracked the spread of infection across England after the pandemic’s first peak, with randomly selected adults testing themselves at home between 20 June and 13 July.

The results show considerable geographical differences. While 13% of people in London had antibodies, this was the case for less than 3% of people in the south-west.

Infections were also more common members of BAME communities, at 17% for black ethnicity compared with 5% for white.

“That probably goes a long way to explain some of the differences in mortality that we have seen between black, Asian and white populations,” said Cooke. Cooked added this greater prevalence of infections can largely be explained by factors such as being more likely to have key-worker status, living in urban centres – particularly London – living in families with larger households, and living in more deprived areas, all of which were linked to a greater prevalence of antibodies.

“From what we can see, it is the social-demographic factors that make the greatest difference,” said Cooke.

People working in care homes (16%) and healthcare (12%) returned far higher results than people who were not key workers, at 5%.

The study also suggests 32% of people who had Covid-19 had no symptoms of the disease – previous research has suggested the figure could be anywhere between 30% and 70% of infections.

“The number we are coming up with is at the lower end, but it is clearly still a lot,” said Cooke.

Cooke said the test correctly picked up antibodies 84% of the time in individuals with non-hospitalised disease at over 21 days since their illness; nearly all those who had previously had a positive Covid-19 test were found to have antibodies.

The team used antibody test results from NHS healthcare workers who had previously tested positive for Covid, to estimate the proportion of people who have been infected but do not subsequently show antibodies. “We do see a clear association between severity of illness and the likelihood of having antibodies,” said Cooke.

Cooke said the team plan to do another round of the study in mid-September in 200,000 people to coincide with the return of schools. But Cooke warned such antibody tests remain of limited value for personal use, noting they are not yet accurate enough for such purpose while it is unclear how protective antibodies are against future Covid-19 infections, and at what levels or for how long.

Health minister Edward Argar said:“Large scale antibody surveillance studies are crucial to helping us understand how the virus has spread across the country and whether there are specific groups who are more vulnerable, as we continue our work to drive down the spread of the disease.”

David Heymann, an epidemiologist at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine who was not involved in the study welcomed the work.

“This is a very important study, and it shows that the population is very willing to participate in activities towards better understanding of Covid-19 and its spread within England – hopefully this will lead to greater interest in participating in activities that will decrease the risk of transmission.”

Devon’s low number of cases still not linked to tourists

The number of coronavirus cases in Devon remains among the lowest in the country, with no cases linked to tourists, and track and trace contacting nearly 100 per cent of their contacts.

Daniel Clark

The Team Devon Local Outbreak Engagement Board meeting on Wednesday morning heard that the county ‘remains on top of the situation’ around COVID-19, with just the one case confirmed in the South Hams in the last five days, only five cases in the county in the last week, with no clusters of cases.

Simon Chant, public health specialist, told the meeting that in the last ten weeks, there have only been two occasions when three or more cases in a week from a Middle Super Output Area – statistical areas of around 7,500 people – were recorded, and that in the most recent week of statistics, there were no areas in Devon that met the threshold.

Information from the Devon Coronavirus website

                              Information from the Devon Coronavirus website

And he said that of the cases that were being found in each of the district council areas, they were being distributed among the area with the cases ‘popping up in different areas and different towns’, but with no clusters of cases forming and with them being isolated incidents.

Steve Brown, the deputy director of public health, added that Devon was doing ‘much better’ than other parts of the country in terms of contact tracing, added: “In terms of more complex cases, we are contacting more of less 100 per cent of those people.”

At the previous Team Devon meeting two weeks ago, it was stated that none of the confirmed cases in county had been linked to tourism, and Dame Suzi Leather asked when would any impact of tourists flooded into the county show up in the dataset, or whether it would have already seen the impact if there was to be one.

In response, Mr Chant confirmed that the impact would have already started to emerge if it was there, but it was one that they continued to watch. He added: “To date, we have still not seen any cases related to tourism. The cases have been related to resident population and not tourists or any tourist accommodation site, but we continue to actively monitor this.”

Cllr John Hart, leader of the council, added: “The residents of Devon don’t need to worry about tourists coming to the area. People of Devon, please accept the tourists, but tourists please remember, the people of Devon live here. Tourism is the lifeblood of the economy and the lockdown has had a very serious impact on it.”

The meeting also heard how the new Coronavirus in Devon dashboard worked, with it collating all the information on confirmed cases, deaths, and MSOA clusters into one easy to use location.

Information from the Devon Coronavirus website

                                    Information from the Devon Coronavirus website

In the week from August 3 to August 9 – the latest available data after the Government dashboard was unable to update on Monday due to technical difficulties, there were five confirmed in Devon (one in East Devon, Torridge and West Devon, and two in the South Hams), two in Torbay, three in Plymouth, and 13 in Cornwall, with the confirmed rate per 100,000 in Devon being 0.6.

Mr Chant added: “The threshold for being on the Government watch list is around 20 per 100,000, so the Devon rate is a long way away from the threshold for further action.”

Mr Brown added that the positivity rate per test was between 0.1 and 0.3 per cent in Devon, well under the national average of 0.6 per cent, and the 5 per cent figure for which anything underneath suggests the pandemic is under control, showing that the low number of cases in Devon isn’t just because testing is not being carried out.

And answering questions about what may happen when schools, colleges, and universities go back in September, he added that Devon had a plan in place to deal with any outbreaks.

Information from the Devon Coronavirus website

                            Information from the Devon Coronavirus website

He said: “There are anxiety levels from some about all pupils returning to schools, but all schools have had guidance about what to do to prepare for September and we have put in place plans if there is an outbreak. There is similar concern about schools and pupils going back as there was to tourists coming to the region, but the data hasn’t supported those concerns. Ultimately, the confidence will be assured or not if we do or don’t have to deal with any outbreaks.”

Cllr Hart added: “There is currently no concern over community spread or linked cases,” but in the key messages from the meeting, added: “The number of cases are still very low in Devon and we want to keep it that way. We are continuing to monitor the local situation very closely based on good local data and local intelligence.

“It is vital that we continue to work together to encourage everyone to keep it up and to promote prevention measures, test and trace, and adherence to the latest government guidance. We will not hesitate to take appropriate and proportionate local action if it becomes necessary.”