Societal Impacts of Pandemics: Comparing COVID-19 With History to Focus Our Response.

COVID-19 has disrupted everyday life worldwide and is the first disease event since the 1918 H1N1 Spanish influenza (flu) pandemic to demand an urgent global healthcare response. There has been much debate on whether the damage of COVID-19 is due predominantly to the pathogen itself or our response to it. We compare SARS-CoV-2 against three other major pandemics (1347 Black Death, 1520's new world smallpox outbreaks, and 1918 Spanish Flu pandemic) over the course of 700 years to unearth similarities and differences in pathogen, social and medical context, human response and behavior, and long-term social and economic impact that should be used to shape COVID-19 decision-making. We conclude that <100 years ago, pandemic disease events were still largely uncontrolled and unexplained. The extensive damage wreaked by historical pandemics on health, economy, and society was a function of pathogen characteristics and lack of public health resources. Though there remain many similarities in patterns of disease spread and response from 1300 onwards, the major risks posed by COVID-19 arise not from the pathogen, but from indirect effects of control measures on health and core societal activities. Our understanding of the epidemiology and effective treatment of this virus has rapidly improved and attention is shifting toward the identification of long-term control strategies that balance consideration of health in at risk populations, societal behavior, and economic impact. Policymakers should use lessons from previous pandemics to develop appropriate risk assessments and control plans for now-endemic COVID-19, and for future pandemics.

Use of routine death and illness surveillance data to provide insight for UK pandemic planning: lessons from COVID-19.

OBJECTIVES: Reporting of COVID-19 cases, deaths and testing has often lacked context for appropriate assessment of disease burden within risk groups. The research considers how routine surveillance data might provide initial insights and identify risk factors, setting COVID-19 deaths early in the pandemic into context. This will facilitate the understanding of wider consequences of a pandemic from the earliest stage, reducing fear, aiding in accurately assessing disease burden and ensuring appropriate disease mitigation. SETTING: UK, 2020. PARTICIPANTS: The study is a secondary analysis of routine, public domain, surveillance data and information from Office for National Statistics (ONS), National Health Service (NHS) 111 and Public Health England (PHE) on deaths and disease. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Our principal focus is ONS data on deaths mentioning COVID-19 on the death certificate. We also consider information provided in NHS 111 and PHE data summaries. RESULTS: Deaths with COVID-19 significantly contributed to, yet do not entirely explain, abnormally elevated all-cause mortality in the UK from weeks 12-18 of 2020. Early in the UK epidemic, COVID-19 was the greatest threat to those with underlying illness, rarely endangering people aged under 40 years. COVID-19-related death rates differed by region, possibly reflecting underlying population structure. Risk of COVID-19-related death was greater for healthcare and social care staff and black, Asian and minority ethnic individuals, having allowed for documented risk factors. CONCLUSION: Early contextualisation of public health data is critical to recognising who gets sick, when and why. Understanding at-risk groups facilitates a targeted response considering indirect consequences of society's reaction to a pandemic alongside disease-related impacts. COVID-19-related deaths mainly mirror historical patterns, and excess non-COVID-19-related deaths partly reflect reduced access to and uptake of healthcare during lockdown. Future outbreak response will improve through better understanding of connectivity between disease monitoring systems to aid interpretation of disease risk patterns, facilitating nuanced mitigation measures.