The effects of the first national lockdown in England on geographical inequalities in the evolution of COVID-19 case rates: An ecological study

This article has been Reviewed by the following groups

Read the full article See related articles

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.

Research in Context

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.

Summary Box

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.

Article activity feed

  1. SciScore for 10.1101/2021.11.09.21266122: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    Ethicsnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.

    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.

    Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.


    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.