Back

Estimated Deaths, Intensive Care Admissions and Hospitalizations Averted in Canada during the COVID-19 Pandemic

Fisman, D.; Tuite, A.

2021-03-26 infectious diseases
10.1101/2021.03.23.21253873 medRxiv
Show abstract

IntroductionNational responses to the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic have been highly variable, which may explain some of the heterogeneity in the pandemics health and economic impacts across the world. We sought to explore the effectiveness of the Canadian pandemic response relative to responses in four peer countries with similar political, economic and health systems, and with close historical and cultural ties to Canada (the United States, United Kingdom, France, and Australia) from March 2020 to May 2022. MethodsWe used reported age-specific mortality data to generate estimates of pandemic mortality standardized to the Canadian population. Age-specific case fatality, hospitalization, and intensive care admission probabilities for the Canadian province of Ontario were applied to estimated deaths in order to calculate hospitalizations and intensive care admissions averted by the Canadian response. The monetary value of averted hospitalizations was estimated using cost estimates from the Canadian Institute for Health Information. Age-specific quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) lost due to fatality were estimated using published estimates. QALY were monetized using a net expected benefit approach. ResultsRelative to the United States, United Kingdom, and France, the Canadian pandemic response was estimated to have averted 94,492, 64,306 and 13,641 deaths respectively, with more than 480,000 hospitalizations averted, and 1 million QALY saved, relative to the United States. A United States pandemic response applied to Canada would have resulted in more than $40 billion in economic losses due to healthcare expenditures and lost QALY; losses relative to the United Kingdom and France would have been $21 billion and $5 billion respectively. By contrast, an Australian pandemic response would have averted over 28,000 additional deaths and averted nearly $9 billion in costs in Canada. ConclusionsCanada outperformed peer countries that aimed for mitigation, rather than elimination, of SARS-CoV-2 in the first two years of the pandemic, likely because of a more stringent public health response to disease transmission. This resulted in substantial numbers of lives saved and economic costs averted. However, comparison with Australia demonstrates that an elimination focus would have allowed Canada to save tens of thousands of lives, and would have saved substantial economic costs.

Matching journals

The top 10 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Canadian Medical Association Journal
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
14.8%
2
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 21%
8.4%
3
Annals of Internal Medicine
27 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.9%
4
Clinical Infectious Diseases
231 papers in training set
Top 1%
4.4%
5
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 36%
3.6%
6
BMC Public Health
147 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.3%
7
JAMA Network Open
127 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.1%
8
JMIR Public Health and Surveillance
45 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
3.1%
9
Frontiers in Public Health
140 papers in training set
Top 3%
2.9%
10
CMAJ Open
12 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.6%
50% of probability mass above
11
Vaccine
189 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
2.1%
12
Open Forum Infectious Diseases
134 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
2.1%
13
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 50%
1.8%
14
The Lancet Infectious Diseases
71 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.8%
15
International Journal of Infectious Diseases
126 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.7%
16
International Journal of Epidemiology
74 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.7%
17
The Lancet Regional Health - Americas
22 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.7%
18
BMC Medicine
163 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.5%
19
PLOS Medicine
98 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.5%
20
Journal of the American Medical Directors Association
13 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.5%
21
BMC Infectious Diseases
118 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.3%
22
Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness
16 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
1.2%
23
Eurosurveillance
80 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
1.2%
24
The Lancet
16 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.2%
25
EClinicalMedicine
21 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.2%
26
Infectious Disease Modelling
50 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%
27
FACETS
11 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.8%
28
Systematic Reviews
11 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.8%
29
American Journal of Epidemiology
57 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.7%
30
The Lancet Public Health
20 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.7%