Abstract
Background Reporting of daily hospital COVID-19 deaths in the UK are promoted by the government and scientific advisers alike as a key metric for assessing the progress in the control of the epidemic. These data, however, have certain limitations, among which one of the most significant concerns the fact that the daily totals span deaths that have occurred between 1 and 10 days or more in the past.
Data and methods We obtained daily data published published by NHS England up to and including April 21 in the form of Excel spreadsheets in which deaths counts are presented by date of death according to age and region. Simple descriptive analyses were conducted and presented in graphical and tabular form which were aimed at illustrating the biases inherent in focussing on daily counts regardless of when the deaths occurred. We then looked at how a less biased picture could be obtained by looking at trends in death counts stratifying by individual period of delay in days between occurrence of death and when the death was included in the daily announcement.
Findings The number of hospital COVID-19 deaths announced daily overestimates the maximum number of deaths actually occurring so far in the epidemic in the UK, and also obscures the pattern of decline in deaths. Taking account of reporting delays suggests that for England as a whole a peak in hospital COVID-19 deaths may have been reached on April 8 with a subsequent gradual decline suggested. The same peak is also seen among those aged 60-79 and 80+, although there is less evidence of a decline in the oldest age group after April 9. Among those aged 40-59 years a later peak on April 11 is evident. London shows a peak on April 8 and a clearer pattern of subsequent decline compared to England as a whole.
Interpretation Analyses of mortality trends must take account of delay, and in communication with the public more emphasis should be placed on looking at trends based on deaths that occurred 5 or more days prior to the announcement day. The weak decline seen at age 80+ may reflect increased hospitalisation of people from care homes, whereas the later peak under the age of 60 years may reflect higher proportions of people of these younger being admitted to critical care, extending life for some days.
Competing interests All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at www.icmje.org/coi_disclosure.pdf and declare: no support from any organization for the submitted work; no financial relationships with any organizations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous three years other than LS who reported grants from Wellcome, MRC, NIHR, GSK, BHF, Diabetes UK all outside the submitted work; no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work other than LS who is a Trustee of the British Heart Foundation and AJM who is a member of the Royal Society Delve Committee.
Competing Interest Statement
LS reported grants from Wellcome, MRC, NIHR, GSK, BHF, Diabetes UK all outside the submitted work; LS reported being a Trustee of the British Heart Foundation and AJM reported being a member of the Royal Society Delve Committee.
Funding Statement
This work was done without specific funding
Author Declarations
All relevant ethical guidelines have been followed; any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained and details of the IRB/oversight body are included in the manuscript.
Yes
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data analysed are in the public domain. URLs are provided for all data sources.