Abstract
Background Socio-economic inequalities in COVID-19 case rates have been noted worldwide. Previous studieshave compared case rates over set phases. There has been no analysis of how inequalities in cases changed overtime and were shaped by national mitigation strategies (e.g. lock downs). This paper provides the first analysis of the evolution of area-level inequalities in COVID-19 cases by deprivation levels in the first wave of the pandemic (January to July 2020) in England – with a focus on the effects of the first national lockdown (March – July 2020).
Methods Weekly case rates per Middle Super Output Area (MSOA, n=4412) in England from 2020-03-15 to 2020-07-04 were obtained, and characteristics of local epidemics were calculated, e.g. the highest case rate per area. Simple linear and logistic regression analyses were employed to assess the association of these metrics with index of multiple deprivation (IMD). Local authority-level (n=309) cases were used similarly in a sensitivity analysis, as these data were available daily and extended further back in time. The impact of lockdown was assessed by comparing the cumulative case rate in the most deprived 20% of MSOAs to the least deprived 20%, for the periods before the lockdown, and by the end of lockdown.
Findings Less deprived areas began recording COVID-19 cases earlier than more deprived areas and were more likely to have peaked by March 2020. More deprived areas’ case rates grew faster and peaked higher than less deprived areas. During the first national lockdown in the UK, the relative excess in case rates in the most deprived areas increased to 130% of that of the least deprived ones.
Interpretation The pattern of disease spread in England confirm the hypothesis that initial cases of a novel infectious disease are likely to occur in more affluent communities, but more deprived areas will overtake them once national mitigation strategies begin, and bear the brunt of the total case load. The strict first national lockdown served to increase case rate inequalities in England.
Funding This work was supported by a grant from The Health Foundation (Ref: 2211473), who took no part in the design, analysis or writing of this study.
Evidence before this study The magnitude and distribution of deprivation-related inequalities in COVID-19 cases have been reported for England and many other countries, however, none have yet investigated the initial evolution of these inequalities, nor the effects of the first national lockdown.
Added value of this study We leverage the benefits of two separate datasets of COVID-19 case counts to investigate the initiation and evolution in inequalities in disease burden by deprivation. We found that cases were first recorded in less deprived areas before rising faster in more deprived areas. The first national lockdown led to an increase in these geographical inequalities.
Implications of all the available evidence National lockdowns are an important tool in the armoury of pandemic control, but their timing and duration must be carefully decided and be locally specific. Because case rate inequalities were already present before lockdown in England, movement restrictions served to further increase them.
Section 1: What is already known on this subject Geographical inequalities in COVID-19 case rates have been noted worldwide, and in England. However, how these inequalities were affected by policy responses – such as national lockdowns - has yet to be investigated.
Section 2: What this study adds We examined geographical inequalities in COVID-19 case rates by deprivation during the first English lock down (March – July, 2020). We find that cases were first reported in the less deprived areas of England, but this pattern quickly reversed and large excesses of cases occurred in the most deprived areas during the first national lockdown. Case rates in more deprived areas also rose more sharply, peaked higher, and then dropped faster than in less deprived areas. Inequality in cumulative case rates grew over the lockdown, increasing inequalities in disease burden.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This work was supported by a grant from The Health Foundation (Ref: 2211473), who took no part in the design, analysis or writing of this study.
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:
All data used are publicly freely available through the GOV.UK and the ONS. Code used in the analyses is available upon request.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
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
Conflicts of Interest Statement All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at www.icmje.org/coi_disclosure.pdf and declare: no financial relationships with any organisations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous three years; no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.
Data Sharing Statement All data used are publicly freely available through the GOV.UK and the ONS. Code used in the analyses is available upon request.
Ethical Approval This study was approved by the Newcastle University Ethics Committee (Ref: 7543/2020).
Transparency declaration The lead author* affirms that this manuscript is an honest, accurate, and transparent account of the study being reported; that no important aspects of the study have been omitted; and that any discrepancies from the study as planned (and, if relevant, registered) have been explained.
* The manuscript’s guarantor.
Funding This work was supported by a grant from The Health Foundation (Ref: 2211473), who took no part in the design, analysis or writing of this study.
Data Availability
All data used are publicly freely available through the GOV.UK and the ONS. Code used in the analyses is available upon request.
