This page contains data and analysis published by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) from 22 to 26 June 2020. Go to our live page for the most up-to-date insights on COVID-19.

26 June 2020

Deaths involving COVID-19 by occupation

Men working in elementary occupations such as construction workers and cleaners had the highest rate of death involving the coronavirus (COVID-19), compared with people of the same sex and age in England and Wales.

Men working in those jobs had a rate of 39.7 deaths per 100,000 (421 deaths) and the occupation within this group with the highest death rates was security guards, with 74.0 deaths per 100,000 (104 deaths).

Because of the higher number of deaths among men, 17 specific occupations were found to have raised rates of death involving COVID-19, some of which included:

  • taxi drivers and chauffeurs (65.3 deaths per 100,000; 134 deaths)
  • bus and coach drivers (44.2 deaths per 100,000; 53 deaths)
  • chefs (56.8 deaths per 100,000; 49 deaths)
  • sales and retail assistants (34.2 deaths per 100,000; 43 deaths).

Among women, four specific occupations had raised rates including sales and retail assistants (15.7 deaths per 100,000 women; 64 deaths), national government administrative occupations (23.4 deaths per 100,000 women; 22 deaths) and care workers and home carers (25.9 deaths per 100,000 women; 134 deaths).

This analysis covers 4,761 deaths involving COVID-19 among those aged 20 to 64 years in England and Wales. The analysis includes deaths registered between 9 March and 25 May 2020.

24 June 2020

Furloughing of workers across UK businesses

According to the latest Business Impact of Coronavirus (COVID-19) Survey (BICS) which covers 18 to 31 May 2020, 30% of the workforce had been furloughed across the businesses that had responded and had not permanently stopped trading. This corresponds to 23% of the workforce in businesses that were continuing to trade and 85% of the workforce in businesses that have temporarily closed or paused trading.

Of businesses that temporarily paused trading, 60% furloughed more than 90% of their workforce, while only 3% of businesses that continued trading furloughed the same proportion of their workforce.

One in five businesses that continued to trade did not furlough any employees

Proportion of businesses, by proportion of the workforce that had been furloughed (ranges) and trading status, for responding businesses that have not permanently stopped trading, UK, 18 May to 31 May 2020

Embed code

Download the data

Our data show that, of businesses that reported continuing to trade, 5% of the workforce had returned from furlough, while 2% had returned from remote working to the normal workplace between 18 and 31 May 2020.

Of those businesses that had not permanently stopped trading, 81% reported they had applied for the government’s Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (CJRS). Looking only at businesses that have furloughed a proportion of their workforce, this percentage increases to 97% of currently trading businesses, and 98% of temporarily paused businesses. Just over half of these businesses reported that they are not topping up employee wages.

Rates of furloughing varied widely across industries, particularly for those businesses continuing to trade

Proportion of the workforce that had been furloughed, by industry and trading status of the employing business, for responding businesses that have not permanently stopped trading, UK, 18 May to 31 May 2020

Embed code

Download the data

The rate of furloughing was higher across businesses facing temporary closures with the highest proportion of the workforce being furloughed in the Accommodation and food service activities industry.

HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) has also published estimates on coronavirus (COVID-19) statistics, looking at data on the CJRS, the Self-Employment Income Support Scheme (SEISS), and the Value Added Tax (VAT) Payments Deferral Scheme. Any comparisons with HMRC and BICS estimates should be treated with caution.

24 June 2020

Travelling to work

The coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has led to major changes in commuter travel patterns. The amount of people travelling to work declined sharply since many were furloughed, began working from home or lost their jobs. Over the past month, there has been a gradual increase in the numbers of workers returning to the workplace. Analysis of travel patterns from before the pandemic gives context to transport planning issues facing the country.

Bus commuters are more likely than rail commuters to work in industries in which working from home is less possible. For example, 33% of bus commuters work in health and retail while 40% of train and underground commuters work in finance, information, communication and other professional services that are likely to be able to wait longer before returning to the workplace.

Bus commuters tend not to travel as far as those who take rail to work. In particular, 77% of them travel less than 10 kilometres (km), as opposed to 33% of train and underground commuters, indicating that bus travel is more likely to be replaced by walking and cycling. Further, 42% of journeys to work under 2km are already made on foot, while 5% of commutes under 5km are made by bicycle.

Rail users are disproportionately in London, with 55% of those whose workplace is in inner London travelling by rail or underground as opposed to 5% in other conurbations and 1% in rural local authorities.

Our map breaks down transport usage by local authority and, if you are not on mobile, by industry. Select different areas to see which industries local workers taking public transport are in.

Explore the industries of workers using public transport in your area

Percentage of workforce who take bus and rail to work by local authority of their workplace by industry

Embed code

Download the data

23 June 2020

Mortality rate down for May 2020

The mortality rate for deaths involving the coronavirus (COVID-19) in May 2020 was significantly lower than in April 2020, in both England and Wales.

Deaths involving COVID-19, England and Wales: deaths occurring in May 2020 provides detailed analysis of all deaths that occurred in England and Wales between 1 March and 31 May 2020, registered up to 6 June 2020, where COVID-19 was involved.

Taking into account the age structure of the population, the rate of deaths in the period due to COVID-19 was 210.3 per 100,000 persons in England compared with 193.3 per 100,000 persons in Wales.

COVID-19 remained the most frequent underlying cause of death for deaths occurring in May 2020, with a fifth of all deaths (21.6%). This was a smaller proportion than seen in April 2020, when 36.1% of deaths were due to COVID-19.

Dementia and Alzheimer disease was the most common main pre-existing condition found among deaths involving COVID-19 and was involved in 25.6% of all deaths involving COVID-19 in March to May 2020.

The age-standardised mortality rate (ASMR) in England for all ages combined was significantly higher in males (250.2 deaths per 100,000 males) than females (178.5 deaths per 100,000 females). The ASMR in Wales was also significantly higher in males.

In both England and Wales, those aged 90 years and over made up the largest proportion of COVID-19 deaths.

23 June 2020

Household income

Today’s analysis of household income in the financial year ending March 2019 highlights the possibility of widening economic inequalities as a result of the coronavirus (COVID-19) lockdown.

With most people having been expected to work from home where possible, we can see that people in jobs that had previously allowed homeworking had higher average incomes in the financial year ending 2019.

There is a positive correlation between occupations that allow homeworking and the average income of those employees

Median equivalised household disposable income in the financial year ending 2019, and proportion of employees reporting having ever worked from home, by occupation group, January to December 2019

Embed code

  1. Incomes are equivalised using the modified Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) equivalisation scale.

This is borne out by our estimates of potential exposure to disease (generally) and physical proximity for different types of job. Workers in the poorest fifth of people are more likely to work in occupations with high potential exposure to COVID-19, while those in the richest fifth are more likely to be in jobs with low exposure to the virus.

In many cases, people from low-income households – those less likely to be able to work from home and more likely to be exposed to COVID-19 – will have seen their jobs furloughed or hours reduced during the pandemic. Furloughing rates have been highest in low-paying sectors (such as accommodation and food services) and – outside of key services such as health – lowest in sectors such as IT where homeworking is far easier.

So, while today’s household income data do not capture direct effects of COVID-19 (it refers to the year up to March 2019), combined with other evidence it suggests that the lowest income households could be most affected financially during this period.

22 June 2020

Social impacts on young people

Among young people (aged 16 to 29 years) who were worried about the effect the coronavirus (COVID-19) was having on their lives, their main concerns were the effects on schools or universities and their well-being, work and household finances.

The social impacts of coronavirus on young people analysis covers the period between 3 April and 10 May 2020, when government advice across all three countries in Great Britain was to stay at home and only go out for specified reasons.

Young people were less likely to be very worried about the effect the coronavirus was having on their lives than the older age groups. They were also generally more optimistic about how long they expected the effect of the pandemic to last, as 55% reported they expect their lives to return to normal within six months.

Young people who reported that their well-being was being affected were much more likely to report being bored and lonely than other age groups. They were also more likely to say the lockdown was making their mental health worse.

The impact of the coronavirus on their relationships was also a greater concern for young people aged 16 to 29 years, many of whom were worried about their relationships with friends – which includes girlfriends and boyfriends.

22 June 2020

Social impacts on older people

Among older people (aged 60 years and over) who were worried about the effect the coronavirus (COVID-19) was having on their lives, their main concerns were being unable to make plans in general, personal travel plans such as holidays, and their own well-being.

The social impacts of coronavirus on older people analysis covers the period between 3 April and 10 May 2020, when government advice across all three countries in Great Britain was to stay at home and only go out for specified reasons.

Of those who said their well-being had been affected by the coronavirus, 70% of older people said that this had been because of being worried about the future. People aged in their 60s were the least optimistic about how long it will take for life to return to normal, with a higher proportion saying it will take more than a year or that life will never return to normal.

Among those who were worried about the effect that the coronavirus was having on their lives, older people were more likely to have had difficulties accessing essentials, and less likely to have had their finances impacted, than younger people.

Staying in touch with family and friends remotely was the main way those aged 60 years and over said they were staying at home.

Older people were more likely than younger people to be coping by reading or gardening during lockdown

Percentage of population aged 16 years and over reporting selected activities that helped them cope while staying at home, by age group, Great Britain, 3 April to 10 May 2020

Embed code

Download the data

Older people were also more likely to feel that the local community would help them. People aged in their 60s and 70s were more likely to have checked on neighbours who might need help three or more times, and they were equally as likely as those aged under 60 years to have gone shopping or done other tasks for neighbours at least one or two times.