RESUMO
Official COVID-19 mortality statistics are strongly influenced by local diagnostic capacity, strength of the healthcare and vital registration systems, and death certification criteria and capacity, often resulting in significant undercounting of COVID-19 attributable deaths. Excess mortality, which is defined as the increase in observed death counts compared to a baseline expectation, provides an alternate measure of the mortality shock - both direct and indirect - of the COVID-19 pandemic. Here, we use data from civil death registers from a convenience sample of 90 municipalities across the state of Gujarat, India, to estimate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on all-cause mortality. Using a model fit to weekly data from January 2019 to February 2020, we estimated excess mortality over the course of the pandemic from March 2020 to April 2021. We estimated 21,300 [95% CI: 20,700, 22,000] excess deaths across these municipalities in this period, representing a 44% [95% CI: 43%, 45%] increase over the expected baseline. The sharpest increase in deaths in our sample was observed in late April 2021, with an estimated 678% [95% CI: 649%, 707%] increase in mortality from expected counts. The 40 to 65 age group experienced the highest increase in mortality relative to the other age groups. We found substantial, yet similar, increases in mortality for males and females. Our excess mortality estimate for these 90 municipalities, representing approximately 5% of the states population, exceeds the official COVID-19 death count for the entire state of Gujarat, even before the delta wave of the pandemic in India peaked in May 2021. Prior studies have concluded that true pandemic-related mortality in India greatly exceeds official counts. This study, using data directly from the first point of official death registration data recording, provides incontrovertible evidence of the high excess mortality in Gujarat from March 2020 to April 2021.
RESUMO
The initial phase of the COVID-19 pandemic in the US was marked by limited diagnostic testing, resulting in the need for seroprevalence studies to estimate cumulative incidence and define epidemic dynamics. In lieu of systematic representational surveillance, venue-based sampling was often used to rapidly estimate a communitys seroprevalence. However, biases and uncertainty due to site selection and use of convenience samples are poorly understood. Using data from a SARS-CoV-2 serosurveillance study we performed in Somerville, Massachusetts, we found that the uncertainty in seroprevalence estimates depends on how well sampling intensity matches the known or expected geographic distribution of seropositive individuals in the study area. We use GPS-estimated foot traffic to measure and account for these sources of bias. Our results demonstrated that study-site selection informed by mobility patterns can markedly improve seroprevalence estimates. Such data should be used in the design and interpretation of venue-based serosurveillance studies.
RESUMO
BackgroundThe spread of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) across the United States confirms that not all Americans are equally at risk of infection, severe disease, or mortality. A range of intersecting biological, demographic, and socioeconomic factors are likely to determine an individuals susceptibility to COVID-19. These factors vary significantly across counties in the United States, and often reflect the structural inequities in our society. Recognizing this vast inter-county variation in risks will be critical to mounting an adequate response strategy. Methods and FindingsUsing publicly available county-specific data we identified key biological, demographic, and socioeconomic factors influencing susceptibility to COVID-19, guided by international experiences and consideration of epidemiological parameters of importance. We created bivariate county-level maps to summarize examples of key relationships across these categories, grouping age and poverty; comorbidities and lack of health insurance; proximity, density and bed capacity; and race and ethnicity, and premature death. We have also made available an interactive online tool that allows public health officials to query risk factors most relevant to their local context. Our data demonstrate significant inter-county variation in key epidemiological risk factors, with a clustering of counties in certain states, which will result in an increased demand on their public health system. While the East and West coast cities are particularly vulnerable owing to their densities (and travel routes), a large number of counties in the Southeastern states have a high proportion of at-risk populations, with high levels of poverty, comorbidities, and premature death at baseline, and low levels of health insurance coverage. The list of variables we have examined is by no means comprehensive, and several of them are interrelated and magnify underlying vulnerabilities. The online tool allows readers to explore additional combinations of risk factors, set categorical thresholds for each covariate, and filter counties above different population thresholds. ConclusionCOVID-19 responses and decision making in the United States remain decentralized. Both the federal and state governments will benefit from recognizing high intra-state, inter-county variation in population risks and response capacity. Many of the factors that are likely to exacerbate the burden of COVID-19 and the demand on healthcare systems are the compounded result of long-standing structural inequalities in US society. Strategies to protect those in the most vulnerable counties will require urgent measures to better support communities attempts at social distancing and to accelerate cooperation across jurisdictions to supply personnel and equipment to counties that will experience high demand.