Thomas Plümper1, Eric Neumayer2. 1. Department of Socioeconomics, Vienna University of Economics and Business, Vienna, Austria. 2. Department of Geography and Environment, London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE), London, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Reports from the UK and the USA suggest that coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) predominantly affects poorer neighbourhoods. This article paints a more complex picture by distinguishing between a first and second phase of the pandemic. The initial spread of infections and its correlation with socio-economic factors depends on how the virus first entered a country. The second phase of the pandemic begins when individuals start taking precautionary measures and governments implement lockdowns. In this phase, the spread of the virus depends on the ability of individuals to socially distance themselves, which is to some extent socially stratified. METHODS: We analyze the geographical distribution of known cumulative cases and fatalities per capita in an ecological analysis across local districts in Germany distinguishing between the first and the second phase of the pandemic. RESULTS: In Germany, the virus first entered via individuals returning from skiing in the Alps and other international travel. In this first phase, we find a positive association between the wealth of a district and infection rates and a negative association with indicators of social deprivation. During the second phase and controlling for path dependency, districts with a higher share of university-educated employees record fewer new infections and deaths and richer districts record fewer deaths, districts with a higher unemployment rate record more deaths. CONCLUSIONS: The social stratification of COVID-19 changes substantively across the two phases of the pandemic in Germany. Only in the second phase and controlling for temporal dependence does COVID-19 predominantly hit poorer districts.
BACKGROUND: Reports from the UK and the USA suggest that coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) predominantly affects poorer neighbourhoods. This article paints a more complex picture by distinguishing between a first and second phase of the pandemic. The initial spread of infections and its correlation with socio-economic factors depends on how the virus first entered a country. The second phase of the pandemic begins when individuals start taking precautionary measures and governments implement lockdowns. In this phase, the spread of the virus depends on the ability of individuals to socially distance themselves, which is to some extent socially stratified. METHODS: We analyze the geographical distribution of known cumulative cases and fatalities per capita in an ecological analysis across local districts in Germany distinguishing between the first and the second phase of the pandemic. RESULTS: In Germany, the virus first entered via individuals returning from skiing in the Alps and other international travel. In this first phase, we find a positive association between the wealth of a district and infection rates and a negative association with indicators of social deprivation. During the second phase and controlling for path dependency, districts with a higher share of university-educated employees record fewer new infections and deaths and richer districts record fewer deaths, districts with a higher unemployment rate record more deaths. CONCLUSIONS: The social stratification of COVID-19 changes substantively across the two phases of the pandemic in Germany. Only in the second phase and controlling for temporal dependence does COVID-19 predominantly hit poorer districts.
Authors: Trevor van Ingen; Kevin A Brown; Sarah A Buchan; Samantha Akingbola; Nick Daneman; Christine M Warren; Brendan T Smith Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-10-20 Impact factor: 3.752
Authors: Peter Willeit; Robert Krause; Bernd Lamprecht; Andrea Berghold; Buck Hanson; Evelyn Stelzl; Heribert Stoiber; Johannes Zuber; Robert Heinen; Alwin Köhler; David Bernhard; Wegene Borena; Christian Doppler; Dorothee von Laer; Hannes Schmidt; Johannes Pröll; Ivo Steinmetz; Michael Wagner Journal: Lancet Reg Health Eur Date: 2021-03-23
Authors: Vincenza Gianfredi; Nicole Sibilla Mauer; Leandro Gentile; Matteo Riccò; Anna Odone; Carlo Signorelli Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-04-20 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Daria Szücs; Andreas Köhler; Mika M Holthaus; Annette Güldenring; Lena Balk; Joz Motmans; Timo O Nieder Journal: Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz Date: 2021-10-07 Impact factor: 1.513
Authors: Sally Fowler-Davis; Rachel Young; Tom Maden-Wilkinson; Waqas Hameed; Elizabeth Dracas; Eleanor Hurrell; Romila Bahl; Elisabeth Kilcourse; Rebecca Robinson; Robert Copeland Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-12-14 Impact factor: 3.390