Mortality: A comprehensive look at the COVID-19 pandemic death toll
COVID-19 ‘excess mortality’ has been estimated for more than 100 countries and shows a dramatic death toll in many countries.
- PandemiX Center, Institute of Science and Environment, Roskilde University, Denmark
- Fogarty International Center, National Institutes of Health, United States
More than 18 months into the pandemic, the exact death toll of COVID-19 remains elusive. There are several ways to assess how many people have died in a pandemic, each with their advantages and disadvantages. Official national reports of COVID-19 deaths are useful, but their accuracy depends on the level of testing in that country and may underestimate the true death toll. Combining mortality rates with estimates of the fraction of people in a country who have been infected provides a better estimate, but requires serological studies of antibody prevalence that are not widely available. A tried-and-trusted approach to calculate the death toll is to estimate 'excess mortality' by comparing the total number of deaths during the pandemic period with a baseline level of deaths before the pandemic. This indirect statistical approach does not depend on testing strategy.
A recent study, based on data from 29 high-income countries during 2020, reported substantial excess mortality in some Eastern European countries and no excess mortality in New Zealand, Norway or Denmark (Islam et al., 2021). Now, in eLife, Ariel Karlinsky (Hebrew University) and Dmitry Kobak (University of Tübingen) report the results of an excess mortality study that extends to the summer of 2021 and more than 100 countries, and provides a first look at the substantial pandemic death toll in several middle-income countries (Karlinsky and Kobak, 2021). Excess mortality depends on infection rates, population demographics, COVID-19 interventions and vaccine coverage, and reflects the unique pandemic experience of different countries.
Karlinsky and Kobak compiled a unique database of weekly, monthly or quarterly deaths in 103 countries, including five years of pre-pandemic baselines for most of these. In some of the worst-affected countries, mortality in 2020 and the first half of 2021 exceeded the baseline level by between 50% and 150% (e.g., Peru and Mexico), and in absolute terms, more than 0.4% of the population died of COVID-19 in some countries (e.g., Peru and Bulgaria). For Peru, the most severely affected country, the effects of a poor healthcare system may have been exacerbated by strict lockdowns that fostered severe economic restraints and mass migration (Taylor, 2021). Meanwhile, countries like Japan, Finland, the Philippines, and South Korea had negative excess mortality, reflecting excellent pandemic control, which resulted in a modest COVID-19 death toll and a near absence of influenza deaths during the pandemic. For such countries, the official COVID-19 death count is more accurate than excess mortality estimates. The impact of COVID-19 was intermediate in South Africa and Russia, with mortality about 30% higher than the baseline and a death rate of about 0.3%.
Excess mortality reflects the sum of positive and negative changes from baseline years, meaning that some of the changes observed may not be directly related to the COVID-19 pandemic itself, but due instead to interventions. For example, social distancing measures decrease circulation and mortality due to influenza and other non-SARS-CoV-2 pathogens, but other factors – such as overwhelmed healthcare systems, violence and drug overdoses – increase mortality. However, Karlinsky and Kobak convincingly argue that most excess deaths reflect the direct consequences of COVID-19 (see also the study on excess death in Russia: Kobak, 2021).
Karlinsky and Kobak refrain from calculating the global mortality burden of COVID-19. Such an estimate would be heavily biased due to the lack of data for populous countries like China and India, and because many low-income countries in Asia and Africa cannot participate due to a lack of timely national vital statistics. Such gaps in the data can impact a global mortality estimate greatly: for example, one recent study computed a likely toll of about 4 million COVID-19 deaths in India, which is about 10 times higher than official death counts (Anand et al., 2021). Karlinsky and Kobak estimate that for the 103 countries they collected data for, the true number of COVID-19 deaths is on average 1.4 fold greater (range between 1 to 100-fold) than reported.
Global mortality estimates for past influenza pandemics range from 0.4 million deaths for the 2009 pandemic to 75 million deaths for the 1918 pandemic (Murray et al., 2006; Simonsen et al., 2013; Viboud et al., 2016; all adjusted to 2020 population, see Table 1). Globally, 4.3 million deaths due to SARS-CoV-2 have been reported as of August 11, 2021: this corresponds to about 6 million deaths when applying the mean underreporting factor of 1.4 reported by Karlinsky and Kobak. This is clearly a low global estimate due to missing data from key countries and the continued circulation of new SARS-CoV-2 variants in 2021 and in the coming years. Even so, the COVID-19 pandemic is already deadlier than the 1957 pandemic, but has nowhere near the death toll of the pandemic of 1918.
Table 1
Estimates of global excess mortality for five pandemics.
Estimates of the global per capita excess mortality rate (row 2), the number of global excess deaths adjusted to 2020 population (row 3), and the mean age at death (row 4) for the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic (column 2) and the influenza pandemics of 2009, 1968, 1957 and 1918 (columns 3–6). Each study used different statistical models, assumptions and country data. The levels of mortality in non-participating countries were estimated using various extrapolation/imputation strategies.
| COVID-191 | 20092 | 19683 | 19574 | 19185 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Per capita excess mortality rate | >0.08%6 | 0.005% | 0.03% | 0.04% | 1.0% |
| Global excess deaths adjusted to 2020 population | >6 million6 | 0.4 million | 2.2 million | 3.1 million | 75 million |
| Mean age at death (years) | 707 | 37 | 62 | 65 | 27 |
-
1Karlinsky and Kobak, 2021. 103 wealthier countries; an under-reporting factor of 1.4 was applied.
2Simonsen et al., 2013. Based on 2009 data from 20 countries covering approximately 35% of the world population and using an allcause imputation method that uses 10 factors. Estimates based on 300,000–400,000 pandemic excess deaths from all causes.
-
3CDC, 2019. Based on 1 million excess deaths in the US, UK, Canada, Australia and France.
4Viboud et al., 2016. For the entire pandemic period (1957–1959), using data from 39 countries; extrapolated globally based on GDP, latitude and baseline death rate.
-
5Murray et al., 2006. 13 countries or regions for the entire pandemic period between 1918–1920; allcause mortality; extrapolated by GDP, latitude; (62 million deaths in 2004 population).
6 Based on the official COVID-19 global death toll as of 11/8/2021 multiplied by 1.4 to allow account for underreporting (Karlinsky and Kobak, 2021). This is an underestimate as the 103 participating countries in this study are wealthier, but harder-hit populous countries like India (which may account for approximately 4 million excess deaths) are not included. Also, the burden is incomplete because the COVID-19 pandemic is not yet over.
-
7The COVID-19 pandemic mainly kills the elderly, but the exact mean age of deaths is not currently known. Mean age at death is likely lower in middle-income countries: for example, it is reported to be 60 years in South Africa (Guimarães et al., 2021; Statistics South Africa, 2020).
Importantly, these historical comparisons do not consider long-term decreases in baseline mortality due to better healthcare, longer life expectancy and other factors, which make the COVID-19 pandemic stand out sharply against low background mortality levels. Another key consideration is age: the mean age of people who die of COVID-19 is around 70 years, similar to the 1957 pandemic, but dramatically higher than the 1918 and 2009 pandemics (Table 1). The mean age at death is likely lower for less wealthy countries with younger populations (e.g., 60 years in South Africa; Table 1). Mortality age patterns are critically needed for estimating years of life lost, which is an alternative metric used to understand and compare pandemic death tolls (Viboud et al., 2010; Pifarré I Arolas et al., 2021).
We applaud Karlinsky and Kobak’s efforts to compile, release and update timely mortality data in over 100 countries – a major achievement that would have been impossible even 10 years ago. This is a data revolution that parallels that seen in vaccine development and pathogen sequencing. Future work should focus on including incomplete or subnational mortality data from low- and middle-income countries in Asia, the Middle East and Africa (United Nations) to begin filling the data gap. The database should also be expanded to include age breakdowns whenever available, as in other international mortality databases (such as the Human Mortality Database, COVerAGE-DB, and EuroMOMO). Going forward, we call for resources to maintain these valuable databases in the post-SARS-CoV-2 era, as these can uniquely monitor the complete impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. These databases can also be used to track the death toll of increasingly frequent heat waves and other effects of climate change, and help us be ready for future pandemics.
Note
Disclaimer: This article does not necessarily represent the views of the NIH or the US government.
References
-
WebsiteThree new estimates of India’s all-cause excess mortality during the COVID-19 pandemicCenter for Global Development. Accessed August 4, 2021.
-
Younger Brazilians hit by COVID-19 – What are the implications?The Lancet Regional Health - Americas 373:100014.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lana.2021.100014
-
Years of life lost to COVID-19 in 81 countriesScientific Reports 11:3504.https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-83040-3
-
Global mortality impact of the 1957–1959 influenza pandemicJournal of Infectious Diseases 213:738–745.https://doi.org/10.1093/infdis/jiv534
Article and author information
Author details
Publication history
Copyright
This is an open-access article, free of all copyright, and may be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, modified, built upon, or otherwise used by anyone for any lawful purpose. The work is made available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication.
Metrics
-
- 8,901
- views
-
- 406
- downloads
-
- 42
- citations
Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.
Download links
A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.
Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)
Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)
Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)
Mortality: A comprehensive look at the COVID-19 pandemic death toll
eLife 10:e71974.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.71974
Further reading
-
- Epidemiology and Global Health
Background: The role of circulating metabolites on child development is understudied. We investigated associations between children's serum metabolome and early childhood development (ECD).
Methods: Untargeted metabolomics was performed on serum samples of 5,004 children aged 6-59 months, a subset of participants from the Brazilian National Survey on Child Nutrition (ENANI-2019). ECD was assessed using the Survey of Well-being of Young Children's milestones questionnaire. The graded response model was used to estimate developmental age. Developmental quotient (DQ) was calculated as the developmental age divided by chronological age. Partial least square regression selected metabolites with a variable importance projection ≥ 1. The interaction between significant metabolites and the child's age was tested.
Results: Twenty-eight top-ranked metabolites were included in linear regression models adjusted for the child's nutritional status, diet quality, and infant age. Cresol sulfate (β = -0.07; adjusted-p < 0.001), hippuric acid (β = -0.06; adjusted-p < 0.001), phenylacetylglutamine (β = -0.06; adjusted-p < 0.001), and trimethylamine-N-oxide (β = -0.05; adjusted-p = 0.002) showed inverse associations with DQ. We observed opposite directions in the association of DQ for creatinine (for children aged -1 SD: β = -0.05; p =0.01; +1 SD: β = 0.05; p =0.02) and methylhistidine (-1 SD: β = - 0.04; p =0.04; +1 SD: β = 0.04; p =0.03).
Conclusion: Serum biomarkers, including dietary and microbial-derived metabolites involved in the gut-brain axis, may potentially be used to track children at risk for developmental delays.
Funding: Supported by the Brazilian Ministry of Health and the Brazilian National Research Council.
-
- Epidemiology and Global Health
Given the rapid cross-country spread of SARS-CoV-2 and the resulting difficulty in tracking lineage spread, we investigated the potential of combining mobile service data and fine-granular metadata (such as postal codes and genomic data) to advance integrated genomic surveillance of the pandemic in the federal state of Thuringia, Germany. We sequenced over 6500 SARS-CoV-2 Alpha genomes (B.1.1.7) across 7 months within Thuringia while collecting patients’ isolation dates and postal codes. Our dataset is complemented by over 66,000 publicly available German Alpha genomes and mobile service data for Thuringia. We identified the existence and spread of nine persistent mutation variants within the Alpha lineage, seven of which formed separate phylogenetic clusters with different spreading patterns in Thuringia. The remaining two are subclusters. Mobile service data can indicate these clusters’ spread and highlight a potential sampling bias, especially of low-prevalence variants. Thereby, mobile service data can be used either retrospectively to assess surveillance coverage and efficiency from already collected data or to actively guide part of a surveillance sampling process to districts where these variants are expected to emerge. The latter concept was successfully implemented as a proof-of-concept for a mobility-guided sampling strategy in response to the surveillance of Omicron sublineage BQ.1.1. The combination of mobile service data and SARS-CoV-2 surveillance by genome sequencing is a valuable tool for more targeted and responsive surveillance.
