Introduction
Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is an infectious disease caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-COV-2) [
1]. On January 30, 2020 the World Health Organization (WHO) officially declared the SARS-COV-2 outbreak a Public Health Emergency of International Concern. About a month and a half later, on March 11 2020, this outbreak was formally declared a global pandemic [
2,
3]. The WHO urged countries to adopt strict social distancing and other (quarantine) measures to protect public health by preventing virus spread [
4,
5]. As of June 2022, SARS-COV-2 has over 500 million confirmed infections, including over 6 million deaths reported to WHO [
6].
Handling the global COVID-19 crisis has been a multifactorial operation requiring the coordinated action of all levels of healthcare, government, pharmaceutical industries, and non-government organizations, preferably with international consultation and coordination [
7]. Although the mechanisms of viral transmission, infection, and treatment were largely unknown during the early phases of the pandemic, action from physicians, scientists, and governments was urgently needed to prevent further spread. Every country had its unique approach to limit further infections, a common thread in the initial response were interventions such as school and workplace closures, cancellation of public events and gatherings, stay-at-home restrictions, face coverings, and (international and domestic) travel restrictions [
7,
8]. With time, the understanding of the virus grew, and with that also the development of (public) testing facilities and treatment. Within a year after the outbreak of the pandemic and the identification of the genomic structure of SARS-CoV-2, several highly effective vaccines were approved and used globally, as nearly 12 billion vaccine doses have been administered (dated June 2022; World Health Organization) [
6,
9,
10,
11].
The availability of an effective vaccine and fluctuation in number of infections made governments allow for changes in societal restrictions, increasing or decreasing the intensity of these restrictions depending on what was needed to control the virus. Many countries have introduced a ‘corona pass’, or COVID pass [
12]. The precise conditions under which this pass could be obtained varied among countries, but mostly included being fully vaccinated against COVID-19, having recovered from a documented COVID-19 episode, or a recent (24-72 hours) negative SARS-CoV-2 antigen or PCR test [
13]. Such a pass has allowed individuals to travel internationally, but often was also used on a national level, i.e., for access to indoor spaces such as bars and restaurants, theaters and museums, or other (large-scale) events [
12,
13,
14].
As mentioned before, the world has displayed a diverse and fragmented approach to the preservation of public health and prevention of spread of COVID-19. In March 2021, Hale and colleagues introduced the Oxford COVID-19 Government Response Tracker (OxCGRT), a continuously updated, readily usable database on global policy measures [
15]. Starting 1 January 2020, the data capture government policies related to closure and containment, health, and economic policies for 180+ countries or territories. Policy responses are recorded ordinal or continuous for 19 policy areas, capturing variation in the degree of response [
15]. Ultimately, the sum of the policy areas is calculated, resulting in an overall Government Stringency Index (GSI). Important is to note that economic measures, such as governmental support, are not used in the index calculations [
15]. The OxGRT enabled us to explore the empirical effect of policy responses on the spread of COVID-19 cases and vaccination status from a global viewpoint, with emphasis on the comparison between high, medium, and low-income countries or territories across the world.
Prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection by vaccination
For each continent, a positive correlation was found between the adult vaccination rate and the number of reported infections during the period when the delta variant of SARS-CoV-2 was dominant. The exception are African countries, which have low vaccination rates but also report relatively few infections.
Our data on the effect of vaccination were analyzed by comparing overall vaccination rates per country and continent with the overall number of reported SARS-CoV-2 infections. It should be stressed that the impact of vaccination within a given country or territory would more clearly show the protective effect of vaccination (in terms of hospitalization, intensive care admission, and deaths), but this would preclude comparison between countries and continents.
Figure 3.
Correlation between vaccination rate and number of SARS-CoV-2 infections. Individual countries or territories are color-coded by continent: Asia blue, Europe yellow, the Americas green and Africa red. Linear regression lines are indicated as dotted lines in the color of the respective continent. The correlation coefficients R2 for linear regression were 0.137 (Asia), 0.138 (Europe), and 0.195 (America); p<0.01 in all cases. With the exception of Tunisia, all other African countries had vaccination rates below 40%. .
Figure 3.
Correlation between vaccination rate and number of SARS-CoV-2 infections. Individual countries or territories are color-coded by continent: Asia blue, Europe yellow, the Americas green and Africa red. Linear regression lines are indicated as dotted lines in the color of the respective continent. The correlation coefficients R2 for linear regression were 0.137 (Asia), 0.138 (Europe), and 0.195 (America); p<0.01 in all cases. With the exception of Tunisia, all other African countries had vaccination rates below 40%. .
Discussion
The aim of this paper was to analyze the role of SARS-Cov-2 serological status in societal restrictions across the world. As a proxy for serological status, we used the vaccination rate in a given country. To do so, the effect of GDP, HDI and GSI differences on the impact of the different SARS-Cov-2 variants was approximated for several countries representative of their continent. The continent of Oceania was excluded from this research, mainly because in population size as well as income status it is dominated by Australia and New Zealand. Because of this heterogeneity it was impossible to select representative countries and territories. Australia and New Zealand, as well as Hong Kong and Singapore, started with a zero-COVID policy, resulting in relatively few infections and deaths as compared to the rest of the world [
18,
19]. During or after the omicron outbreak these countries shifted to a living-with-COVID policy, which resulted in a (temporary) increase in percent excess mortality [
20].
At first glance it is counterintuitive to find a positive correlation between the GDP of a given country or territory and the number of SARS-CoV-2 infections [
21]. It would be expected that the higher the GDP, the more advanced the health care system, higher vaccination rates, and the possibility to impose strict societal restrictions. On the other hand, the number of recorded infections (also) depends on the intensity and degree of testing [
22,
23]. Low-income countries will not have the medical infrastructure and/or the financial means to be able to afford elaborate testing for the virus. It was reported by medical experts that in Africa, the number of reported cases is an acute underestimation, which can be attributed to the poor African health systems, a lack of sufficient test kits, and inadequate laboratory capacity [
24]. Several studies were performed on the number of COVID-19 cases that remain undetected. In October 2021, the WHO calculated that the number of actual cases in Africa was seven times higher than the detected numbers [
25]. A similar study found that the actual number of cases in the European countries Italy, Portugal, and Switzerland was four times higher in April 2020 [
26]. Furthermore, the WHO estimated that there were 2.74 times more SARS-CoV-2 deaths globally in 2020 and 2021 than reported [
27]. It is expected that the number of undetected cases in European countries is lower in October 2021 than in April 2020, because countries had more time to anticipate in this time period. However, to draw valid conclusions about the number of undetected cases, data from the same period needs to be obtained. Furthermore, it is also still dependent on the willingness of people with symptoms to get tested or not [
28].
The effect of the difference in Government Stringency Index (GSI) (maximal GSI-GSI April 2022) on the three virus variants shows that the higher this difference, the larger the number of omicron infections. For most countries, the maximal GSI was imposed during the first wave and during the delta wave, after which governments decided to loosen the restrictions in the summer of 2021, when infection rates decreased in most countries. This led to an explosion of omicron infections in late 2021 and early 2022 [
29,
30]. As mentioned above, the highest GSI rates were reached during either the first wave or the delta wave. A rebound effect as seen with omicron was not observed when the delta variant emerged.
Implementation and feasibility of strict societal restrictions differ for high-income and low-income countries. For instance, in a country like India, strict government policies may not lead to better compliance but can overwhelm the healthcare systems [
31].
Relief of societal restrictions was associated with a surge in omicron infections, and the number of infections was highest in countries with the least restrictions. The high replication number of omicron could explain this effect [
32,
33]. For some countries, the strictness of the GSI was dependent on the vaccination status, meaning that vaccinated people were allowed more social contacts, including traveling [
34,
35]. Using a cut-off of a 20-percentage points difference in GSI, the countries with (temporary) relief of societal restrictions for vaccinees included Pakistan, South Africa, France, Denmark, Italy, and the United States. The available data do not allow us to conclude whether such a policy influenced the control of spread of SARS-CoV-2 in the population.
Regarding vaccination rate, regardless of the type of vaccine used, the vaccines offered better protection against the delta variant than against the omicron variant. This finding is reported in previous studies as well [
36,
37]. For each continent, a negative correlation was found between vaccination rate and rate of delta infections. For omicron infections this was not always the case. Furthermore, if a negative correlation was found between vaccination rate and omicron infections, this correlation was always found to be weaker than for the delta infections. However, as mentioned above, this effect could also be attributed to the intensity of the GSI during that wave. For most countries, the GSI was higher at the time of the delta wave than at the time of the omicron wave.
It is known that the omicron variant has a higher R
0 than delta, and therefore the number of infections can be expected to be higher, irrespective of vaccination status or GSI [
32,
38,
39]. On the other hand, omicron has a lower morbidity and mortality rate than delta, a finding confirmed on all continents [
40,
41,
42,
43,
44]. Our analysis is restricted to the number of infections, and not hospitalization or COVID-19 related deaths. Analyzing hospitalization and COVID-19 related deaths would give a subjective view on the matter, because this is dependent on the quality of the healthcare system in a country.
The analyses show that the strongest trends, and thus the highest R2 values, were found in analyses related to the omicron variant. The most plausible explanation for this is the omicron wave being the last wave, with the most reliable data. Countries had more time to set up testing facilities and other infrastructure during the omicron variant than in an earlier phase of the pandemic. This implies that infection data is most reliable for the omicron variant.
In high-income countries, the potential effects of a COVID pass on spread of SARS-CoV-2 could not be determined because all countries included in the analysis implemented such a pass. Analysis and comparison of low- and middle-income countries did not show any effect of the COVID pass on infections. The COVID pass had different prerequisites and privileges across countries, and there is no clear overview for which activities a COVID pass was required, and over what time period it was required in each country.
There are several limitations to the present study. First of all, all the data was collected from the same source. This means that potential structural bias or mistakes in data collection would be present in all the data used in the study. Furthermore, for some countries it can be argued how reliable the published data is. All analyses were performed country-wise and not patient-wise. This means that the study did not use data from individual patients, and underlying conditions were not accounted for. For assessment of the vaccination rate, all types of vaccines were included, and no sub-analysis was performed on the differential efficacy of certain vaccine types. Furthermore, the present study considered what was at first established as fully vaccinated, which is at 2 doses, whereas now, fully vaccinated could also be considered 2 doses and an additional booster dose. The number of undetected cases is also a limitation to this study, especially in countries with high immigration rates where documented vaccination rates and infection rates might be deviant from the actual rates. For the COVID pass, it was very hard to find reliable sources, and within the different passes, there are different guidelines. Whereas some countries only used the COVID pass at the border to accept or deny people from entering the country, some countries also used it to accept or deny people from entering buildings or events. Furthermore, requirements for a valid COVID also differed per country.
A limitation of the analysis of the burden of COVID-19 at the country level is that minority groups (either because of socio-economic position, age, access to health care, or otherwise) could be disproportionally affected [
45,
46].
At a press conference in March 2023, the Director-General of the WHO, Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, indicated that he was confident that in 2023 COVID-19 will be over as a public health emergency of international concern [
47] and on May 23, 2023, the official end of the pandemic was declared [
48]. SARS-CoV-2 will remain endemic, infecting susceptible individuals in the populations worldwide. It can be expected that the current variant(s) of SARS-CoV-2 have or will obtain the characteristics of other beta coronaviruses such as HKU1 and OC43, causing mild upper respiratory tract infections during the winter season.