Global ecological analysis of COVID-19 mortality and comparison between "the East" and "the West".

Although SARS-CoV-2 was first reported in China and neighbouring countries, the pandemic quickly spread around the globe. This paper explores national drivers of the pandemic and the radically different epidemiology and response in the West and in the East. We studied coronavirus disease (COVID-19) mortality until 31st December 2020, using an ecological study design, considering baseline characteristics and responses that might account for the uneven impact of the pandemic. A multivariable regression model was developed to explore key determinants. Key variables in the West were contrasted with those in the East, and speed of response was examined. Worldwide, 2.24 million COVID-19 deaths were documented in 2020. Western countries reported a median mortality 114 times that of the East (684 vs. 6.0 per million). Significant correlates of mortality in countries with at least 1 million population were median age, obesity prevalence, and democracy index; political stability and experience of SARS in 2002-2003 were protective; health system variables and income inequality were not associated. Outputs of the model were consistent when adjusted for stringency index, timeliness of stay-at-home requirements, and geographical autocorrelation. The West experiences a much higher COVID-19 mortality than the East. Despite structural advantages in the West, delays in national responses early on resulted in a loss of control over the spread of SARS-CoV-2. Although the early success of the East was sustained in the second half of 2020, the region remains extremely vulnerable to COVID-19 until enough people are immunized.

Applying an equity lens to interventions: using PROGRESS ensures consideration of socially stratifying factors to illuminate inequities in health.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the utility of an acronym, place of residence, race/ethnicity/culture/language, occupation, gender/sex, religion, education, socioeconomic status, and social capital ("PROGRESS"), in identifying factors that stratify health opportunities and outcomes. We explored the value of PROGRESS as an equity lens to assess effects of interventions on health equity. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We assessed the utility of PROGRESS by using it in 11 systematic reviews and methodological studies published between 2008 and 2013. To develop the justification for each of the PROGRESS elements, we consulted experts to identify examples of unfair differences in disease burden and an intervention that can effectively address these health inequities. RESULTS: Each PROGRESS factor can be justified on the basis of unfair differences in disease burden and the potential for interventions to reduce these differential effects. We have not provided a rationale for why the difference exists but have attempted to explain why these differences may contribute to disadvantage and argue for their consideration in new evaluations, systematic reviews, and intervention implementation. CONCLUSION: The acronym PROGRESS is a framework and aide-memoire that is useful in ensuring that an equity lens is applied in the conduct, reporting, and use of research.