COVID-19 FATALITY RISK: WHY IS AUSTRALIA’S LOWER THAN SOUTH KOREA?

  1. Peter Collignon
  2. John J. Beggs

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Background

As the Covid-19 virus epidemic spreads, it is important to establish reliable estimates of fatality hazard rates. Australia and South Korea are ideal candidates for detailed consideration. Both have completed the first wave of the epidemic, they have extensive Covid-19 testing and tracking programs so that confirmed case load data are reliable, and neither country has had any significant case load stress in their hospital systems.

Methods

For each country, mortality hazard models were estimated using a parameterized distributed lag model where the number of daily deaths was dependent on the number of confirmed cases in each of the preceding six weeks. Age cohort CFRs were also examined.

Findings

We observed major difference in the mortality rates when comparing South Korea to Australia in both the simple age adjusted fatality rates and in the disease hazard curve. On a like-for-like basis, the CFR for South Korea appears to be close to double the Australian rate (aggregate; 2.4% vs 1.4%).

Interpretation

Neither differences in the time pattern of the peaking of the case load of confirmed cases, nor differences in the size of age cohorts of confirmed cases explain the difference in mortality observed. We discuss possible explanations that point the way for further investigation.

Funding

nil.

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.05.14.20101378: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    NIH rigor criteria are not applicable to paper type.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  2. Version published to 10.1101/2020.05.14.20101378v1 on medRxiv