Abstract
Background We set out in this paper to compare Covid-19 results by country to better understand the factors leading to the differing results found internationally.
Methods We used publicly available large datasets to explore differences by country for Covid-19 mortality statistics. We continuously challenged our projections with reality and numbers from countries around the world, allowing us to refine our models and better understand the progression of the epidemic. All our predictions and findings were discussed and validated from a clinical viewpoint.
Results While no lockdown resulted in higher mortality, the difference between strict lockdown and lax lockdown was not terribly different and favored lax lockdown. Only one of the top 44 countries had long and strict restrictions. Strict restrictions were more common in the worst performing countries in terms of Covid mortality. The United States had both the largest economic growth coupled with the largest rate of mortality. Those who did well economically, had lower mortality and less pressure on their population. Yet they had less mortality than average and less than their neighbors.
Conclusions Countries with the least restrictions fared best economically. Some of them fared well in terms of mortality, even better than neighboring countries with similar social structures and more severe restrictions. The mortality rates in the USA, however, appeared to suffer from very high obesity rates. Norway and the northern European countries have less strict restrictions from the rest of Europe and had lower mortality rates. COVID-19 mortality was associated with vitamin D status.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
No external funding was received.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Exempt; large dataset analysis only
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.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
Footnotes
The authors have no conflict of interest to report.
Patient and Public Involvement. The research questions and outcome measures were those being discussed widely on all news channels. Given that we were all potential patients, we were all involved in the design of the study in that we asked the questions that potential patients were asking in the media.
Data Availability
All data is available as public datasets in our references 1 through 11.
Abbreviations used
- HVAC
- heating, ventilation, and air conditioning
- CI
- Confidence Interval
- INSEE
- Institut national de la statistique et des études économiques
- EUROMOMO
- European Mortality Monitoring Project
- Statbel
- Statistics Belgium
- UK
- United Kingdom
- USA
- United States of America
- UV
- ultraviolet light
- GDP
- gross domestic product
- AC
- air conditioning
- JRAIA
- Japan Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Association
- P
- probability