Is COVID-19 as Lethal as the Spanish Flu? The Australian Experience in 1919 and 2020 and the Role of Nonpharmaceutical Interventions (NPIs).

We conducted a comparative historical study to interrogate Professor Peter Doherty's warning to Australians in April 2020 that 'COVID-19 is just as lethal as the Spanish flu'. We identified the epicentres of both pandemics, namely, metropolitan Sydney in 1919 and metropolitan Melbourne in 2020 and compared the lethality of the Spanish Flu and COVID-19 in these two cities. Lethality was measured by the number and rate of hospital admissions, death rates, age-specific death rates and age-standardised mortality rates (ASMRs). Using these measures, we demonstrated the strikingly different waves of infection, their severity at various points in time and the cumulative impact of the viruses by the end of our study period, i.e., 30 September in 1919 and 2020. Hospital admissions and deaths from the Spanish Flu in 1919 were more than 30 times higher than those for COVID-19 in 2020. The ASMR per 100,000 population for the Spanish Flu was 383 compared to 7 for COVID-19: The former was about 55 times higher than the latter. These results suggest that the Spanish Flu was more lethal than COVID-19. Professor Doherty's warning was perhaps taken seriously and that partly explains the findings of this study. Containing infection in 1919 and 2020 threw the burden on nonpharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) such as 'protective sequestration' (quarantine), contact tracing, lockdowns and masks. It is likely that the persistent and detailed contact tracing scheme provides the best possible explanation for why NPIs in 2020 were more effective than in 1919 and therefore contributed to the lower lethality of the COVID-19 pandemic in its first year.

Can Self-Administered Rapid Antigen Tests (RATs) Help Rural India? An Evaluation of the CoviSelf Kit as a Response to the 2019-2022 COVID-19 Pandemic.

This paper evaluates India's first officially approved self-administered rapid antigen test kit against COVID-19, a device called CoviSelf. The context is rural India. Rapid antigen tests (RATs) are currently popular in situations where vaccination rates are low, where sections of the community remain unvaccinated, where the COVID-19 pandemic continues to grow and where easy or timely access to RTPCR (reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction) testing is not an option. Given that rural residents make up 66% of the Indian population, our evaluation focuses on the question of whether this self-administered RAT could help protect villagers and contain the Indian pandemic. CoviSelf has two components: the test and IT (information technology) parts. Using discourse analysis, a qualitative methodology, we evaluate the practicality of the kit on the basis of data in its instructional leaflet, reports about India's 'digital divide' and our published research on the constraints of daily life in Indian villages. This paper does not provide a scientific assessment of the effectiveness of CoviSelf in detecting infection. As social scientists, our contribution sits within the field of qualitative studies of medical and health problems. Self-administered RATs are cheap, quick and reasonably reliable. Hence, point-of-care testing at the doorsteps of villagers has much potential, but realising the benefits of innovative, diagnostic medical technologies requires a realistic understanding of the conditions in Indian villages and designing devices that work in rural situations. This paper forms part of a larger project regarding the COVID-19 pandemic in rural India. A follow-up study based on fieldwork is planned for 2022-2023.