Exploring inter-country coronavirus mortality

One of the most interesting features of the COVID-19 outbreak is the stark difference between mortality experience in different countries. This working document explores some simple and plausible explanations.

One of the most interesting features of the COVID-19 outbreak is the stark difference between mortality experience in different countries. No simple and plausible explanations that we are aware of have been advanced. Though various hypotheses have been put forward, some more hopeful than others, many display an element of confirmation bias in attempting to locate all differences in nonpharmaceutical intervention approaches.

For each country put forward as an example, usually in some pairwise comparison and with an attendant single cause explanation, there are a host of countries that fail the expectation. We set out to model the disease with every expectation of failure. In choosing variables it was obvious from the outset that there would be contradictory outcomes in the real world. But there were certain variables that appeared to be reliable markers as they had surfaced in much of the media and pre-print papers. These included age, co-morbidity prevalence and the seemingly light population mortality rates in poorer countries than that in richer countries. Even the worst among developing nations—a clutch of countries in equatorial Latin America—have seen lighter overall population mortality than the developed world. Our aim therefore was not to develop the final answer, rather to seek common cause variables that would go some way to providing an explanation and stimulating discussion. There are some very obvious outliers in this theory, not the least of these being Japan.

We test and find wanting the popular notions that lockdowns with their attendant social distancing and various other NPIs confer protection. Health care quality also fails to display any statistical benefit despite the intuitive appeal it has. Similarly, neither dread respiratory disease (ie TB), nor HIV prevalence, have proven the red flags posited by the medical fraternity. Of course, we would have been remiss had we not tested for other plausible concerns such as smoking, cholesterol, child mortality rates, altitude and so on.

While our results explain roughly half of the inter-country variability, they appear to be far more robust than the current explanations in circulation. We are hopeful that other researchers will identify factors that can improve our model.

Author

Publisher’s note: The opinions and findings expressed in articles, reports and interviews on this website are not necessarily the opinions of PANDA, its directors or associates.

Share this article

Subscribe

By submitting your email address you agree to receive updates from PANDA about our work. To see how we use and protect your personal data, please view our privacy policy.
Scroll to Top

INDEPENDENT INSIGHT REQUIRES INDEPENDENT FUNDING

As a non-profit organisation, PANDA’s work remains free of bias and conflicts of interest. Support our work with a monthly donation which aids our planning and resources, and enables societies that are healthy, functioning and resilient.. We rely on your financial support to keep the conversation open.

We value your privacy

We use cookies and similar technologies to improve your experience of our website, to collect anonymous statistics, and to keep our site reliable and secure.By clicking “Accept,” you consent to the use of cookies on this site. For more information, see our privacy policy.

We Rely On Your Financial Support

Every donation helps us to continue discovering, exploring, planning, reaching and impacting.