
Public Health England has published a review of data on disparities in the risk and outcomes from COVID-19.
The review confirms that the impact of COVID-19 has replicated existing health inequalities and, in some cases, has increased them.
This review presents findings based on surveillance data available to PHE at the time of its publication, including through linkage to broader health data sets. It confirms that the impact of COVID-19 has replicated existing health inequalities and, in some cases, has increased them. These results improve our understanding of the pandemic and will help in formulating the future public health response to it.
The largest disparity found was by age. Among people already diagnosed with COVID19, people who were 80 or older were seventy times more likely to die than those under 40. Risk of dying among those diagnosed with COVID-19 was also higher in males than females; higher in those living in the more deprived areas than those living in the least deprived; and higher in those in Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) groups than in White ethnic groups. These inequalities largely replicate existing inequalities in mortality rates in previous years, except for BAME groups, as mortality was previously higher in White ethnic groups. These analyses take into account age, sex, deprivation, region and ethnicity, but they do not take into account the existence of comorbidities, which are strongly associated with the risk of death from COVID-19 and are likely to explain some of the differences.
When compared to previous years, they also found a particularly high increase in all-cause deaths among those born outside the UK and Ireland; those in a range of caring occupations including social care and nursing auxiliaries and assistants; those who drive passengers in road vehicles for a living including taxi and minicab drivers and chauffeurs; those working as security guards and related occupations; and those in care homes. These analyses do not take into account the existence of comorbidities, which are strongly associated with the risk of death from COVID-19 and could explain some of these differences.
When this data was analysed, the majority of testing had been offered to those in hospital with a medical need. Confirmed cases therefore represent the population of people with severe disease, rather than all of those who get infected. This is important because disparities between diagnoses rates may reflect differences in the risk of getting the infection, in presenting to hospital with a medical need and in the likelihood of being tested.
Some analyses outlined in this review are provisional and will continue to be improved. Further work is planned to obtain, link and analyse data that will complement these analyses. The results of this review need to be widely discussed and considered by all those involved in and concerned with the national and local response to COVID-19. However, it is already clear that relevant guidance, certain aspects of recording and reporting of data, and key policies should be adapted to recognise and wherever possible mitigate or reduce the impact of COVID-19 on the population groups that are shown in this review to be more affected by the infection and its adverse outcomes.
As the numbers of new COVID-19 cases decrease, monitoring the infection among those most at risk will become increasingly important. It seems likely that it will be difficult to control the spread of COVID-19 unless these inequalities can be addressed.
The review has faced criticism from medical leaders and VCSE sector organisations being described as “a missed opportunity” because of its lack of recommendations for reducing ethnic minority disparities. This is despite the review being commissioned amid concerns about the disproportionate impact of COVID-19 on ethnic minorities, and its terms of reference stated that it would make recommendations for further action.