Time varying association between deprivation, ethnicity and SARS-CoV-2 infections in England: a space-time study

• Background: Ethnically diverse and socio-economically deprived communities have been differentially affected by the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK. • Method: Using a multilevel regression model we assess the time-varying association between SARS-CoV-2 infections and areal level deprivation and ethnicity. We separately consider weekly test positivity rate (number of positive tests over the total number of tests) and estimated unbiased prevalence (proportion of individuals in the population who would test positive) at the Lower Tier Local Authority (LTLA) level. The model also adjusts for age, urbanicity, vaccine uptake and spatio-temporal correlation structure. • Findings: Comparing the least deprived and predominantly White areas with most deprived and predominantly non-White areas over the whole study period, the weekly positivity rate increases by 13% from 2·97% to 3·35%. Similarly, prevalence increases by 10% from 0·37% to 0·41%. Deprivation has a stronger effect until October 2020, while the effect of ethnicity becomes slightly more pronounced at the peak of the second wave and then again in May-June 2021. Not all BAME groups were equally affected: in the second wave of the pandemic, LTLAs with large South Asian populations were the most affected, whereas areas with large Black populations did not show increased values for either outcome during the entire period under analysis. • Interpretation: At the area level, IMD and BAME% are both associated with an increased COVID-19 burden in terms of prevalence (disease spread) and test positivity (disease monitoring), and the strength of association varies over the course of the pandemic. The consistency of results across the two outcome measures suggests that community level characteristics such as deprivation and ethnicity have a differential impact on disease exposure or susceptibility rather than testing access and habits. • Fundings: EPSRC, MRC, The Alan Turing Institute, NIH, UKHSA, DHSC, NIHR


Test Positivity
Let B itj be the number of Pillar 2 positive tests in LTLA i during week t for age-group j and n itj the total number of processed Pillar 2 tests. We assume B itj follows a Binomial distribution B itj |p itj ∼ Bin(p itj , n itj ) ∀i, j, t.
We use the following logistic regression to assess the effect of the variables of interest on the test positivity p itj : When considering the distinct BAME subgroups, the model can be reformulated as: The model specification includes a global intercept (β 0 ), an age specific intercept (α j ), the overall effects of the covariates of interest (captured at the LTLA level), as well as month-specific covariate effects δ k,m(t) , where m(t) represents which month week t belongs to. We impose a Random Walk 1 structure with sum to zero constraints on δ k,m(t) , i.e.
The sum-to-zero constraints ensure that each δ k,m(t) measures the difference of the effect of month m(t) with respect to the global average β k .
Following [5,4] we model λ = (λ 1 , . . . , λ n ), the random effect accounting for the spatial autocorrelation across LTLAs, as . . , u n ) is a spatially structured random effect with prior distribution where Q − , is the inverse of the precision matrix of a Besag model, scaled in the sense of [6]. v = (v 1 , . . . , v n ) is an i.i.d. Gaussian random effect [1], that is v ∼ Norm(0, I) where I is the identity matrix. To account for the time dependence, ω t can be modelled through a random walk of order 2, that, given ∆ 2 ω t = ω t − 2ω t+1 + ω t+2 , can be formalized as Both λ and ω imply some smoothing, hence they help highlight the persistent patterns in the data, but they cannot account for transient anomalies. We thus include a spatio-temporal interaction term ξ it to account for the residual local variability from the general, structured spatio-temporal trend. We assume that so that ξ it is unstructured in both space and time (or Type I interaction in the sense of [2]). This is critical for highlighting anomalies as the lack of temporal and spatial structure prevents the interaction term to smooth away unexpected but transient behavior.

Debiased Prevalence
We build on the framework of [3], which allows us to estimate a distribution for the number of cases. Let I itj be the posterior median of such distribution for LTLA i, week t and age-group j. We assume I itj follows a Binomial distribution where n ij the population of LTLA i for age-group j as retrieved by the ONS mid-year population estimates for 2020. Similar to the model for test positivity, we model the debiased prevalence p itj as with all model components the same as specified in the previous section.  Random effect specification remains the same as specified in Section 1. Figure 1: Spatial distribution of the two main exposures, IMD score and proportion of resident BAME population, by LTLA. Figure 2: Spatial distribution of the proportion of resident BAME population in the total resident population for the three subgroups considered in the analyses: Black, South Asian and Other BAME.  Sensitivity analysis 1 includes IMD, BAME%, age, urbanicity and vaccination as covariates; sensitivity analysis 2 includes lockdown in addition to these covariates; sensitivity analysis 3 removes vaccination from the covariates. When including LFT in the analysis the summer peak is lower than the two winter ones (top panel). This might potentially reflect the change in testing policy: LFT became more widespread as businesses were encouraged to sign up for a testing scheme for their staff, increasing the denominator of the positivity rate. The summer peak is also somewhat less pronounced when removing vaccine uptake from the confounders; in this case the temporal random effect implicitly accounts for the fact that higher vaccination rates lead to a reduction in infections (bottom panel). Finally, the time pattern does not change when we include a lockdown indicator, suggesting that the temporal component already captures much of this effect (central panel).  : Test positivity for profiles of ethnicity (disaggregated by sub-group) and deprivation. Each tile represents the average weekly test positivity over the entire period of analysis, obtained as output of the model including ethnicity, IMD, confounders and the spatio-temporal correlation structure. In parenthesis we report the relative change in the outcome between each profile and the reference, defined as low deprivation and low Black, South Asian and Other BAME population. Figure 7: Debiased prevalence for profiles of ethnicity (disaggregated by sub-group) and deprivation. Each tile represents the average weekly debiased prevalence over the entire period of analysis, obtained as output of the model including ethnicity, IMD, confounders and the spatio-temporal correlation structure. In parenthesis we report the relative change in the outcome between each profile and the reference, defined as low deprivation and low Black, South Asian and Other BAME population. Figure 8: Time-varying test positivity (top) and debiased prevalence (bottom) for profiles of ethnicity disaggregated by BAME subgroups (Black, South Asian, Other). Each line represents the monthly median odds ratio for each profile relative to a population with a low percentage of all BAME subgroups. The mean odds ratio is the output from the model including ethnicity, IMD, confounders and the spatio-temporal correlation structure. Figure 9: Posterior median (in black) of the fixed effects (β, γ) for the sensitivity analyses and corresponding 95% credible intervals (CI). Results are reported on the Odds Ratio (OR) scale. Sensitivity analysis 1 (yellow) uses combined PCR and LF test positivity as outcome measure while sensitivity analyses 2 (green) and 3 (light blue) use only PCR test positivity. Sensitivity analysis 1 includes IMD, BAME%, age, urbanicity and vaccination as covariates; sensitivity analysis 2 includes lockdown in addition to these covariates; sensitivity analysis 3 removes vaccination from the covariates. The effect of the disaggregated BAME subgroups is robust with respect to the testing strategy and does not change when we include Lateral Flow (LF) tests in the outcome while the effect of IMD is stronger when considering combined PCR and LF test positivity (sensitivity analysis 1).