The Relationship Between Poverty and COVID-19 Infection and Case-Fatality Rates in Germany during the First Wave of the Pandemic

  1. Felix Ettensperger

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

The relationship between poverty and the infection and case-fatality rates of COVID-19 has emerged as a controversial but understudied topic. In previous studies and reports from the UK and US evidence emerged that poverty-related indicators had a significant statistical effect on case and mortality rates on district level. For Germany, it has largely been assumed that poverty is an equally relevant factor influencing the transmission rates of the outbreak. This was mostly due to anecdotal evidence from local outbreaks in meat processing plants and reported incidents of infection clusters in poorer city districts. This paper addresses the lack of statistical evidence and investigates thoroughly the link between poverty-related indicators and detected infection and mortality rates of the outbreak using multivariate, multilevel regression while also considering the urban-rural divide of the country. As proxies for poverty the unemployment rate, the per capita presence of general practitioners (physicians), per capita GDP, and the rate of employees with no professional job training is evaluated in relation to the accumulated case and mortality numbers on district level taken from RKI data of June and July 2020. Interestingly, the study finds no general evidence for a poverty-related effect on mortality for German districts during the first wave in the first half of 2020. Furthermore, only employment in low qualification jobs approximated by the job training variable consistently affected case numbers in urban districts in the expected direction.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1515/spp-2021-0002
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.08.09.20171207: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board Statementnot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot 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.

    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.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2020.08.09.20171207v1 on medRxiv