Coronavirus (COVID-19) roundup, 8 to 12 June 2020

This page contains data and analysis published by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) from 8 to 12 June 2020. Go to our live page for the most up-to-date insights on COVID-19.

12 June 2020

The coronavirus (COVID-19) has spread across the vast majority of neighbourhoods in England and Wales. The interactive map allows you to see the number of deaths occurring in the period March to May 2020, where COVID-19 was mentioned as a cause on the death certificate.

The size of the circle represents the number of deaths.

Enter your postcode or interact with the map to see the number of deaths in an area.

Number of deaths involving COVID-19 in Middle Layer Super Output Areas, death occurring between March to May 2020, England and Wales

12 June 2020

The most deprived areas of England experience more than twice the rate of deaths from the coronavirus (COVID-19) than the least deprived areas.

The most deprived neighbourhoods in England had a rate of 128.3 deaths per 100,000 people, compared with 58.8 in the least deprived areas.

In the period 1 March to 17 April, there were 25.3 deaths per 100,000 people in the least deprived areas, and 55.1 deaths per 100,000 people in the most deprived areas.

The data show that impact of COVID-19 has been and continues to be proportionally higher on those living in the most deprived neighbourhoods.

The coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has had a proportionally higher impact on the most deprived areas of England

Age-standardised mortality rates, all deaths and deaths involving the coronavirus (COVID-19), Index of Multiple Deprivation, England, deaths occurring between 1 March and 31 May 2020

Notes:

1. Deaths occurring between 1 March 2020 and 31 May 2020 and registered by 7 June 2020.
2. Figures exclude death of non-residents and are based on May 2020 boundaries.
3. Coronavirus (COVID-19) was the underlying cause or was mentioned on the death certificate as a contributory factor (ICD-10 codes U07.1 and U07.2).
4. Rates have been standardised using European Standard Population 2013 (ESP 2013) and are expressed per 100,000 people.
5. Deprivation quintiles are based on the English Index of Multiple Deprivation, version 2019.
6. Figures are provisional.

The percentage increase in age-standardised mortality rate of deaths involving COVID-19 is worse for the most deprived deciles (1 to 3) than all deaths.

In Wales, deprivation is measured differently and is not directly comparable with England.

The most deprived fifth of areas (quintile) in Wales had a rate of 109.5 COVID-19 related deaths per 100,000 population. This was almost twice as high as the least deprived areas (57.5 deaths per 100,000 population).

12 June 2020

For the first time, we've been able to examine numbers of deaths involving coronavirus (COVID-19) across all four nations of the UK. This analysis brings together information from Office for National Statistics, National Records of Scotland and Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency, using deaths registered by 15 May 2020.

In March and April 2020, there were 38,156 deaths in the UK involving COVID-19. This is around a quarter (25.8%) of all deaths occurring in those two months.

The number of deaths from all causes in the UK was 147,785 – this is 43% higher than the average for the same time period over the last five years (2015 to 2019).

Age-standardised mortality rates take into account the size and age structure of the population. These showed that there was a significant difference between each country within the UK when looking at both all deaths and those involving COVID-19.

Scotland continues to have the highest all-cause mortality rate but only the second-highest rate of deaths involving COVID-19 (333.1 per 100,000 population). England had the highest rate of deaths involving COVID-19 (363.8 per 100,000 population) and Northern Ireland had the lowest (185.9).

Further analysis looks at the number of deaths occurring in care homes compared with the period 2015 to 2019. In England the number of deaths in care homes from all causes was more than double (102%) the five-year average – the biggest overall rise of the four UK nations. However, Scotland had the highest percentage of deaths in care homes above the five-year average that involved COVID-19.

12 June 2020

UK gross domestic product (GDP) fell by 10.4% in the three months to April 2020, as government restrictions on movement dramatically reduced economic activity. Today’s GDP monthly estimate release captures the direct effects of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic across the economy.

All the headline sectors provided a negative contribution to GDP growth in the three months to April 2020. The services sector fell by 9.9%, production by 9.5% and construction by 18.2%.

The fall of 10.4% is unprecedented, when compared with quarterly growth rates

UK GDP growth, Quarter 1 (Jan to Mar) 2005 until February to April 2020

Notes:

1. Q1 refers to Quarter 1 (Jan to Mar), Q2 refers to Quarter 2 (Apr to June), Q3 refers to Quarter 3 (July to Sep), Q4 refers to Quarter 4 (Oct to Dec).
2. Rolling three-month estimates are calculated by comparing GDP in a three-month period with GDP in the previous three-month period. For example, GDP in February to April compared with the previous November to January. Monthly GDP fell by 20.4% in April 2020, following the previous fall of 5.8% in March 2020.

12 June 2020

Output in the UK economy in April 2020 was significantly affected by the coronavirus (COVID-19), across all sectors. There were record falls between March 2020 and April 2020: 19.0% in the Index of Services, 20.3% in the Index of Production and 40.1% in Construction output.

The dominant driver of negative growth in services was the wholesale and retail trade; repair of motor vehicles and motorcycles sector. Falls were large and widespread throughout the services industries, with notable falls occurring in air transport, which fell 92.8%, and travel and tourism, which fell 89.2%.

Manufacturing provided the largest downward contribution to production output, with a fall of 24.3%. There was widespread weakness across manufacturing sub-sectors, which was led by transport equipment, and motor vehicles, trailers and semi-trailers.

The construction sector saw decreases across all types of new work, and repair and maintenance. The closure of sites and suspension of work, because of quarantine guidelines, led to many businesses in the construction sector being unable to conduct work. 42.5% of these respondents to our Monthly Business Survey provided a zero turnover response – in comparison with 12.5% in March 2020.

Detailed analysis of all industries can be found in Coronavirus and the impact on output in the UK economy: April 2020.

12 June 2020

Falls to both imports and exports in the three months to April 2020 are detailed in today’s UK trade publication. This included falls to both trade in goods, and trade in services.

This release covers UK trade data for February to April 2020, during which the UK as well as many of its major trading partners introduced lockdown measures to combat the coronavirus (COVID-19).

The total trade balance, excluding non-monetary gold and other precious metals, decreased by £3.2 billion to a deficit of £1.2 billion in the three months to April 2020, as exports fell £33.1 billion and imports fell by a lesser £29.9 billion.

The falls in both exports and imports, excluding precious metals, in the three months to April 2020, were the largest falls since comparable records began in 1998. They were mainly driven by trade in services, which saw falls of £19.5 billion in exports and £18.1 billion in imports.

Within trade in goods, the largest contributor to the decreases in both imports and exports was machinery and transport equipment. Exports of these goods fell by £7.1 billion (20.4%), while imports fell by £5.6 billion (13.5%), the largest contribution coming from road vehicles.

11 June 2020

To estimate the potential impact of the coronavirus (COVID-19) on UK spending, and the extent to which people might be able to cut back, we have categorised household spending from before the pandemic into three groups.

• Spending that has been prevented during lockdown (such as holidays and meals out)
• Non-discretionary spending (such as food and housing costs)
• Discretionary spending (such as alcohol and takeaways)

In the financial year ending March 2019, UK households spent an average of £182 per week on activities that have since been largely prevented by the lockdown.

This is equivalent to 22% of a usual weekly budget of £831, money that households could be saving, spending in other areas or using to cover any loss of income.

Younger households, those who are renting and those living in London spend a lot proportionally on essentials and relatively little on goods and services that have been unavailable under lockdown. This could limit their ability to cut back on spending if their income were to fall.

Explore household spending with our interactive tool.

More than one-fifth of usual household spending has been prevented by the lockdown

Weekly household expenditure by category, UK, financial year ending March 2019

Notes:

1. Any payment holidays are temporary and money saved would need to be paid back.
2. We do not know how many households have been offered payment holidays, or how many have taken them up.

11 June 2020

Disabled people who report mental health, social or behavioural-related impairment tend to be more concerned over their well-being during the coronavirus (COVID-19) lockdown than those who report other forms of impairment.

Analysis of the social impacts on groups of disabled people who report specific types of impairments also showed differences in other aspects of life during the COVID-19 lockdown.

For example, those who reported hearing or dexterity impairments tend to be more concerned about access to essentials than those who report other forms of impairment.

Concerns about well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic tend to be more common among disabled people with social, behavioural or mental health impairments

Great Britain, May 2020

Notes:

1. Question: "In which ways is coronavirus (COVID-19) affecting your life?"
2. Respondents asked to select all that apply.
3. Base population for percentage: disabled adults who report the impairment indicated and said they were very worried or somewhat worried about the impacts of coronavirus.
4. May 2020 refers to the collection period 14 May to 24 May 2020.
5. *indicates a small sample size of respondents reported the impairment type indicated and that their well-being being was affected or that their access to groceries, medications and essentials was being affected by coronavirus (COVID-19). As such these estimates and comparisons made using them should be interpreted with caution.
6. Impairment type is self-reported by disabled people as activities the person cannot perform or has difficulty performing because of their health condition or illnesses. Respondents may select multiple impairment types.

The analysis indicated that in general, a higher proportion of disabled people than non-disabled people were worried about the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on their well-being (62.4% for disabled people compared with 49.6% of non-disabled people).

Higher proportions of disabled people than non-disabled people also had concerns over access to groceries, medication and essentials (44.9% compared with 21.9%), access to healthcare and treatment for non-coronavirus related issues (40.6% compared with 21.2%) and their health being affected (20.2% compared with 7.3%).

Examining how things vary for disabled people who reported different types of impairments, we found that those who reported mental health or socio-behavioural impairments tended to report higher ratings for anxiety than those who report dexterity, mobility or stamina impairments.

10 June 2020

The industry by physical proximity dataset gives an indication of how closely people worked with others in the UK in 2019, according to the industry in which they work.

Working in a shared office is considered to be an example of slightly close, while the closest proximity category captures those who work within arm’s length of other people to touching distance.

The results show that workers in industries including “residential care” and “human health activities”, as well as “air transport”, predominantly come in closest contact with other people. This is also the case for “other personal service activities”, which includes hairdressing.

The government is looking to re-open non-essential shops in England, and these results show that in retail trade only 8.5% of workers are regularly within arm’s length or touching distance of others. The “libraries, archives, museums” industry, which includes zoos, has just 6.6% in this closest proximity category. However, for workers in the “food and beverage service activities”, 40% are in this range.

More information on how proximity to others is measured, as well as the breakdown by occupations and personal characteristics, can be found in Which occupations have the highest potential exposure to the coronavirus (COVID-19)?.

Workers in the residential care sector are most likely to come into close contact with others

Proportion of workers who come into physical proximity to other people, selected industries, UK, 2019

9 June 2020

The business impact of coronavirus, analysis over time, shows how UK businesses’ response to the virus changed during the period 23 March to 17 May 2020.

This is taken from the fortnightly Business Impact of Coronavirus (COVID-19) Survey, which has captured businesses’ views on the impact the coronavirus has had on turnover, expected workforce size and the level of international trade. The results directly compare Wave 2 of the survey (reference period of 23 March to 5 April 2020) against Wave 5 (reference period of 4 to 17 May 2020).

The largest impact was seen in Wave 2, compared with normal expectations. In Wave 5, businesses were still impacted by the pandemic but less so than in Wave 2.

Expected workforce size has varied across each of the waves. Of businesses who continued to trade over this period, a net negative 28 percentage points (ppt) reported a decrease in expected workforce size in Wave 2, compared with negative 1 ppt in Wave 5.

In Wave 2, 30% of businesses who continued to trade expected their workforce to decrease, compared with 9% in Wave 5

Responding businesses who continued to trade, expectations of workforce size in the two weeks from completion of each wave, UK, 23 March to 7 May 2020

Notes:

1. Final results of waves 2 to 5 of the Office for National Statistics’ (ONS) Business Impact of Coronavirus (COVID-19) Survey (BICS) panel. (n = 2,548)
2. Businesses had to respond they were trading all waves 2 to 5 to be included in the chart. This equates to 2,548 businesses who responded out of the total 3,521.
3. These proportions have not been applied to actual workforce numbers in this article. Analysis to derive a measure of total workforce apportioned to each working status has been published in a dedicated detailed fortnightly BICS bulletin; Coronavirus and the economic impacts on the UK.
4. The flows in the Sankey Diagram show the number of businesses who responded to each option for Wave 2 and separately for Wave 5. A business could have responded with any of the other options in Waves 3 and 4. The different response options across Waves 2 to 5 can be found in the separate data set.

8 June 2020

People aged between 16 and 64 years in Great Britain who live alone are among those more likely to say their well-being had been affected through having felt lonely in the previous seven days.

A survey in the period 3 April to 3 May revealed some important characteristics of people affected by what has been called ‘lockdown loneliness’.

The ‘lockdown lonely’ shared some other characteristics with the ‘chronically lonely’; such as being in 'bad' or ’very bad‘ health, in rented accommodation or who were single, divorced or separated.

The ‘lockdown lonely’ were more likely than the Great Britain average to carry out activities such as watching a film to help them cope with their situation, and less likely to use some other tools to cope such as gardening or spending time with other household members.

When asked whether or not there were people in the community who could support them, of those who had felt lonely in the past seven days, 56.7% ‘agreed’ or ‘strongly agreed’ that support would be available. This was lower than the Great Britain average of 66.3%.