JavaScript is disabled in your web browser or browser is too old to support JavaScript. Today almost all web pages contain JavaScript, a scripting programming language that runs on visitor's web browser. It makes web pages functional for specific purposes and if disabled for some reason, the content or the functionality of the web page can be limited or unavailable.

Friday, May 16, 2025

COVID: Do we know the real death toll?

by

1179 days ago
20220222
An illustration of a sunset over a cemetery with a large COVID virus in the sun's position instead of the sun. [Jawahir al-Naimi/Al Jazeera]

An illustration of a sunset over a cemetery with a large COVID virus in the sun's position instead of the sun. [Jawahir al-Naimi/Al Jazeera]

DOC­TOR'S NOTE By Dr Amir Khan| Al Jazeera

 

● Cal­cu­lat­ing the num­ber of coro­n­avirus deaths world­wide is fraught with chal­lenges. Could we have been get­ting it wrong? ●

 

(AL JAZEERA) — There has long been a de­bate over how COVID-19-re­lat­ed deaths are record­ed. The Johns Hop­kins Uni­ver­si­ty in the Unit­ed States, which is wide­ly ac­cept­ed as a rep­utable source, puts the glob­al death toll at more than 5.8 mil­lion peo­ple. Some COVID-de­niers in­sist that this num­ber is ex­ag­ger­at­ed but they of­fer no sci­en­tif­ic ev­i­dence to sub­stan­ti­ate their claims.

The Unit­ed King­dom-based sci­ence writer, David Adam, ar­gues in an ar­ti­cle he wrote for the British week­ly sci­en­tif­ic jour­nal Na­ture that the ac­tu­al death toll from COVID-19 is much high­er than the of­fi­cial fig­ure. The ar­ti­cle has re­opened the de­bate on how deaths are record­ed dif­fer­ent­ly across the world, and what the best way might be to ac­cu­rate­ly cal­cu­late deaths at­trib­uted to COVID-19. Adam ar­gues that records of ex­cess mor­tal­i­ty — a stan­dard that re­quires a com­par­i­son of all deaths record­ed with those ex­pect­ed to oc­cur — show that many more peo­ple than the num­bers re­port­ed and record­ed have died in the pan­dem­ic.

Coun­tries have record­ed COVID-19 deaths in dif­fer­ent ways. For ex­am­ple, at the start of the pan­dem­ic, the Nether­lands count­ed on­ly those in­di­vid­u­als who died in hos­pi­tal af­ter test­ing pos­i­tive for the COVID-19 virus. Mean­while, Bel­gium in­clud­ed deaths in the com­mu­ni­ty and every­one who died af­ter show­ing symp­toms of the dis­ease, even if they were not di­ag­nosed to have had the virus.

Cal­cu­lat­ing the num­ber of deaths from COVID-19 across the world is fraught with chal­lenges. Not on­ly be­cause coun­tries have em­ployed dif­fer­ent re­port­ing and record­ing meth­ods, but al­so be­cause the de­f­i­n­i­tion of a death caused by the pan­dem­ic may al­so dif­fer. Some peo­ple will have died from COVID-19 who were not test­ed for it; oth­ers who have had their deaths put down to COVID-19 may have had un­der­ly­ing con­di­tions that may have killed them in the same time­frame, and then there are those who died from oth­er ill­ness­es that could have been man­aged had their treat­ment not been de­layed by the pan­dem­ic.

There is no in­ter­na­tion­al­ly agreed stan­dard for how you mea­sure deaths, or their caus­es, so it is a mine­field of in­ac­cu­ra­cies and ques­tions. Al­so, in the ear­ly stages of the pan­dem­ic, not all coun­tries had ac­cess to test­ing that was re­quired to record and re­port cas­es, so not every­one who may have died from COVID-19 was able to have a con­firmed di­ag­no­sis.

In ad­di­tion to this, test­ing it­self is not with­out its dif­fi­cul­ties and in­con­sis­ten­cies. Some coun­tries record­ed the num­ber of peo­ple test­ed, while oth­ers record­ed the to­tal num­ber of tests car­ried out (many peo­ple need to be test­ed more than once to get an ac­cu­rate re­sult).

Po­lit­i­cal fac­tors al­so play a part in all of this. Some coun­tries will not al­low in­de­pen­dent scruti­ny of their da­ta, be­cause if they are found to have un­der-re­port­ed deaths, they may be ac­cused of not hav­ing done enough to pro­tect their own peo­ple, or hav­ing im­posed mea­sures that did not yield any re­al ben­e­fit.

Chi­na, for ex­am­ple, has an ex­tra­or­di­nar­i­ly low death toll from COVID-19 and we have to ac­cept it as their of­fi­cial record. Ac­cord­ing to an ar­ti­cle in Forbes, the US death toll from COVID-19 is 800 times high­er than the num­ber of deaths be­ing re­port­ed by Chi­na. The au­thor, George Cal­houn, ar­gues that Chi­na has much to gain both po­lit­i­cal­ly and eco­nom­i­cal­ly from show­ing the world their tough COVID-19 stance was ef­fec­tive. As they see it, the suc­cess of their “ze­ro COVID” ap­proach — marked by se­vere lock­downs for en­tire cities, trav­el bans, in­ten­sive con­tact trac­ing, mil­i­tary en­force­ment — sim­ply demon­strates the su­pe­ri­or­i­ty of their sys­tem. In fact, look­ing at the ex­cess deaths that oc­curred in Chi­na over the course of the pan­dem­ic, The Econ­o­mist es­ti­mates that the ac­tu­al num­ber of COVID-19 deaths in Chi­na is not 4,636 – but close to 1.7 mil­lion.

An­oth­er cru­cial fac­tor is ac­cess to health ser­vices. Many de­vel­oped na­tions will have health ser­vices that are bet­ter fund­ed than those in parts of South Asia and Africa and even the US, where peo­ple have to pay at the point of treat­ment for their care. This will in­flu­ence who can af­ford to at­tend hos­pi­tals and ac­cess care, leav­ing a pro­por­tion of the poor­est and most vul­ner­a­ble to self-treat at home and po­ten­tial­ly die with­out any record of the cause of death. In coun­tries where ac­cess to hos­pi­tal treat­ment is not a fea­si­ble op­tion for some peo­ple, the deaths may go un­re­port­ed with pri­vate buri­als tak­ing place in re­mote or rur­al lo­ca­tions.

But to put Africa’s low COVID-19 death toll, 246,867 across the con­ti­nent as of Feb­ru­ary 21, 2022, due to poor re­port­ing would do the con­ti­nent a dis­ser­vice. More than a bil­lion peo­ple live in Africa, and it has had a low­er COVID-19 death rate than the Amer­i­c­as, Eu­rope and Asia. This, de­spite many ex­perts stat­ing that the con­ti­nent would fair bad­ly. Many African na­tions act­ed swift­ly to avoid the spread of the virus and im­posed strict lock­downs that were large­ly sup­port­ed by the pub­lic.

Some coun­tries, like Lesotho, act­ed even be­fore a sin­gle case was re­port­ed. Al­so, de­vel­op­ing na­tions in parts of Africa and Asia have on av­er­age a younger pop­u­la­tion than that of Eu­ro­pean coun­tries. Glob­al­ly, most of those who have died were aged above 80, while Africa is home to the world’s youngest pop­u­la­tion with a me­di­an age of 19 years, ac­cord­ing to the Unit­ed Na­tions da­ta. And be­ing young is a pro­tec­tive fac­tor against dy­ing from COVID-19. Parts of Africa al­so had re­cent ex­pe­ri­ence of the Ebo­la out­break, so they ap­plied their knowl­edge of iso­lat­ing cas­es, trac­ing con­tacts and quar­an­ti­ning when COVID-19 hit.

Mean­while, ex­cess deaths world­wide have been much high­er dur­ing the pan­dem­ic, Adam ar­gues. But cal­cu­lat­ing ex­cess deaths is too crude a mea­sure, as these records may be un­re­li­able, in­com­plete or sig­nif­i­cant­ly de­layed. Da­ta sci­en­tists are con­stant­ly look­ing at ways to cal­cu­late the num­ber of ex­cess deaths more ac­cu­rate­ly, us­ing meth­ods rang­ing from satel­lite im­ages of ceme­ter­ies to door-to-door sur­veys and ma­chine-learn­ing com­put­er mod­els that try to ex­trap­o­late glob­al es­ti­mates from avail­able da­ta, Adam notes. Al­though each of these method­olo­gies has lim­i­ta­tions of its own, the one un­am­bigu­ous con­clu­sion most stud­ies ar­rive at is that the of­fi­cial deaths are most like­ly to be a sig­nif­i­cant un­der­es­ti­mate.

In an at­tempt to ad­dress this un­der­es­ti­mate, re­searchers around the world are de­vel­op­ing mod­el­ling tech­niques de­signed to take in­to ac­count the sub­tleties that af­fect ex­cess deaths, such as war, drought and heat­waves, in or­der to be able to record a more ac­cu­rate num­ber of glob­al COVID-19 deaths.

In coun­tries that ei­ther have lim­it­ed or un­re­li­able na­tion­al mor­tal­i­ty da­ta, the World Health Or­ga­ni­za­tion (WHO) is work­ing on a sys­tem where­by num­bers can be ex­trap­o­lat­ed from small­er re­gions in that coun­try. The WHO sci­en­tists have al­so con­clud­ed that to es­ti­mate the ac­tu­al num­ber of COVID-19 deaths, the an­nu­al num­ber of deaths for each of the five years be­fore the pan­dem­ic will have to be com­pared with the an­nu­al fig­ures dur­ing the pan­dem­ic.

An­oth­er ap­proach is the one that has been adopt­ed by the World Mor­tal­i­ty Dataset (WMD), a data­base that has been record­ing da­ta from over 100 coun­tries since Jan­u­ary 2021. It us­es so­phis­ti­cat­ed tech­niques to cal­cu­late ex­cess deaths and to es­tab­lish the caus­es for these deaths. The two sci­en­tists who run the data­base say that their cal­cu­la­tions con­sis­tent­ly show that the num­ber of deaths at­trib­uted to COVID-19 in many of the coun­tries they are study­ing – in­clud­ing Rus­sia, Brazil, Mex­i­co and the US – are un­der­es­ti­mates when com­pared with their fig­ures. Ac­cord­ing to their es­ti­mates, deaths from COVID-19 are like­ly to be 1.6 times high­er than what has been record­ed in the coun­tries be­ing stud­ied.

The Econ­o­mist has been us­ing a dif­fer­ent tool to track COVID-19 num­bers. It em­ploys ma­chine learn­ing to iden­ti­fy more than 100 na­tion­al in­di­ca­tors that cor­re­late with ex­cess deaths in more than 80 coun­tries where da­ta is avail­able. This mod­el takes in­to ac­count of­fi­cial death num­bers, how well a coun­try is test­ing for COVID-19 and how much a gov­ern­ment is cen­sor­ing the in­ter­net in a coun­try, among oth­er things. It al­so puts glob­al deaths at­trib­uted to COVID-19 at much high­er than of­fi­cial fig­ures, though they ad­mit there is a wide mar­gin of er­ror.

While most of the mod­el­ling tech­niques de­scribed in Adam’s ar­ti­cle say the COVID-19 death toll is much high­er than of­fi­cial fig­ures sug­gest, some sci­en­tists ar­gue that the mar­gin of er­ror is too wide and that ap­ply­ing the mod­el­ling used on rich­er na­tions to poor­er coun­tries is al­so a flawed ap­proach. Even when you com­pare the fig­ures pro­duced by each mod­el­ling method, the num­bers vary wide­ly.

How­ev­er, COVID-19 is not the first pan­dem­ic where re­port­ing of deaths may be in­ac­cu­rate. The num­ber of deaths at­trib­uted to the Span­ish flu of 1918-20 was al­so not cor­rect. An in­fluen­za virus called in­fluen­za type A sub­type H1N1 is now known to have been the cause of the ex­treme mor­tal­i­ty of that pan­dem­ic. It is es­ti­mat­ed to have in­fect­ed a third of the world’s pop­u­la­tion, and at least 10 per­cent of those in­fect­ed died.

The Span­ish flu pan­dem­ic is thought to have be­gun in cramped and crowd­ed army train­ing camps on the West­ern Front dur­ing World War I, fought by 70 mil­lion mil­i­tary per­son­nel. The un­san­i­tary con­di­tions – es­pe­cial­ly in the trench­es along the French bor­der – helped it in­cu­bate and then spread. Sol­diers had to en­dure dirty and damp con­di­tions, and many of them suf­fered from mal­nour­ish­ment, which led to a weak­ened im­mune sys­tem. It pro­vid­ed the per­fect breed­ing ground for a virus to take hold and spread. As sol­diers re­turned home in­fect­ed with it, the ill­ness spread across vil­lages, towns and cities.

Al­though this pan­dem­ic did not orig­i­nate in Spain, it was known as the Span­ish Flu as the coun­try was one of the first to iden­ti­fy the in­fec­tion. This is most like­ly be­cause Spain had been a neu­tral coun­try dur­ing World War I and as such did not have any wartime cen­sor­ship im­posed on pop­u­la­tion da­ta, so it was free to pub­lish ear­ly ac­counts of the ill­ness.

The num­ber of deaths caused by Span­ish flu is es­ti­mat­ed to be at least 50 mil­lion, a fig­ure thought to be sig­nif­i­cant­ly low­er than the ac­tu­al toll. Span­ish flu af­fect­ed al­most every part of the world over its var­i­ous peaks, with on­ly the most re­mote com­mu­ni­ties es­cap­ing un­scathed. How­ev­er, epi­demi­ol­o­gists sug­gest these num­bers are like­ly to be un­der­es­ti­mates due to a num­ber of fac­tors, in­clud­ing non-reg­is­tra­tion of deaths, miss­ing records, mis­di­ag­no­sis, and non-med­ical cer­ti­fi­ca­tion.

So, why is it im­por­tant to know whether the COVID-19 death toll re­port­ed by coun­tries is ac­cu­rate? Well, it is not just for our his­tor­i­cal records, but know­ing how many peo­ple are dy­ing from a dis­ease in any giv­en coun­try will al­low us to ac­cu­rate­ly es­ti­mate how much aid is need­ed for that coun­try, be it vac­cines, med­i­cines or med­ical equip­ment. Poor­er coun­tries that re­port low­er death num­bers be­cause they do not have ac­cess to test­ing fa­cil­i­ties, may miss out on vi­tal vac­cines for their pop­u­la­tions.

Coun­tries around the world took dif­fer­ent ap­proach­es to try to con­trol the virus, some chose a “ze­ro COVID” strat­e­gy and im­ple­ment­ed strict lock­downs, while oth­ers opt­ed for a more re­laxed ap­proach. For us to be bet­ter pre­pared for fu­ture pan­demics, we need to know which ap­proach worked best and saved the most lives. We can on­ly know this by get­ting ac­cu­rate da­ta from each coun­try and com­par­ing it to the mea­sures they took. So go­ing for­ward, we need to en­cour­age all coun­tries to record births and deaths ac­cu­rate­ly, but un­til then we must re­ly on the da­ta and da­ta sci­en­tists.

COVID-19COVID-19 deathsHealthWHO


Related articles

Sponsored

Weather

PORT OF SPAIN WEATHER

Sponsored