Spatial patterns of excess mortality in the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany

  1. Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Institute of Geography and Geoecology, Germany
  2. Thomas Wieland

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

In order to quantify the societal impact of the Corona pandemic, several studies have estimated excess mortality rather than infections or COVID-19-related deaths. The question of whether there was excess mortality associated with COVID-19 in Germany in the first year of the pandemic is controversial, as there are different ways of calculating this. From the perspective of health geography, however, this question must be answered with a spatial approach since epidemics are spatial diffusion processes and mortality varies regionally. This study aims to test whether there is excess mortality at a regional level in Germany in 2020, whether it is spatially dependent and whether all-cause mortality is associated with COVID-19-related deaths. Excess mortality is investigated at a small-scale spatial level (NUTS 3; 400 counties) and under consideration of demographic changes by calculating Standardized Mortality Ratios (SMRs). SMRs and COVID-19-related deaths per 100,000 people are tested for spatial dependence by the Moran’s I index. It is, furthermore, tested whether all-cause mortality is associated with COVID-19-related deaths by correlation coefficients. Excess mortality can be detected in only a minority of counties, regardless of age group, confirming previous results of no excess mortality overall. However, there are large regional disparities of all-cause mortality and COVID-19-related deaths. In older age groups, both indicators show spatial dependence. These results make it possible to identify COVID-19 hotspots. (Excess) mortality in older age groups is impacted by COVID-19, but this association is not found for young and middle age groups.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.48088/ejg.t.wie.13.4.018.033
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2022.03.10.22272221: (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.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2022.03.10.22272221v1 on medRxiv