Racial Disparities in Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Mortality Are Driven by Unequal Infection Risks.

BACKGROUND: As of 1 November 2020, there have been >230 000 deaths and 9 million confirmed and probable cases attributable to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in the United States. However, this overwhelming toll has not been distributed equally, with geographic, race/ethnic, age, and socioeconomic disparities in exposure and mortality defining features of the US coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) epidemic. METHODS: We used individual-level COVID-19 incidence and mortality data from the state of Michigan to estimate age-specific incidence and mortality rates by race/ethnic group. Data were analyzed using hierarchical Bayesian regression models, and model results were validated using posterior predictive checks. RESULTS: In crude and age-standardized analyses we found rates of incidence and mortality more than twice as high than for Whites for all groups except Native Americans. Blacks experienced the greatest burden of confirmed and probable COVID-19 (age-standardized incidence, 1626/100 000 population) and mortality (age-standardized mortality rate, 244/100 000). These rates reflect large disparities, as Blacks experienced age-standardized incidence and mortality rates 5.5 (95% posterior credible interval [CrI], 5.4-5.6) and 6.7 (95% CrI, 6.4-7.1) times higher than Whites, respectively. We found that the bulk of the disparity in mortality between Blacks and Whites is driven by dramatically higher rates of COVID-19 infection across all age groups, particularly among older adults, rather than age-specific variation in case-fatality rates. CONCLUSIONS: This work suggests that well-documented racial disparities in COVID-19 mortality in hard-hit settings, such as Michigan, are driven primarily by variation in household, community, and workplace exposure rather than case-fatality rates.

Measuring the impact of spatial perturbations on the relationship between data privacy and validity of descriptive statistics.

BACKGROUND: Like many scientific fields, epidemiology is addressing issues of research reproducibility. Spatial epidemiology, which often uses the inherently identifiable variable of participant address, must balance reproducibility with participant privacy. In this study, we assess the impact of several different data perturbation methods on key spatial statistics and patient privacy. METHODS: We analyzed the impact of perturbation on spatial patterns in the full set of address-level mortality data from Lawrence, MA during the period from 1911 to 1913. The original death locations were perturbed using seven different published approaches to stochastic and deterministic spatial data anonymization. Key spatial descriptive statistics were calculated for each perturbation, including changes in spatial pattern center, Global Moran's I, Local Moran's I, distance to the k-th nearest neighbors, and the L-function (a normalized form of Ripley's K). A spatially adapted form of k-anonymity was used to measure the privacy protection conferred by each method, and its compliance with HIPAA and GDPR privacy standards. RESULTS: Random perturbation at 50 m, donut masking between 5 and 50 m, and Voronoi masking maintain the validity of descriptive spatial statistics better than other perturbations. Grid center masking with both 100 × 100 and 250 × 250 m cells led to large changes in descriptive spatial statistics. None of the perturbation methods adhered to the HIPAA standard that all points have a k-anonymity > 10. All other perturbation methods employed had at least 265 points, or over 6%, not adhering to the HIPAA standard. CONCLUSIONS: Using the set of published perturbation methods applied in this analysis, HIPAA and GDPR compliant de-identification was not compatible with maintaining key spatial patterns as measured by our chosen summary statistics. Further research should investigate alternate methods to balancing tradeoffs between spatial data privacy and preservation of key patterns in public health data that are of scientific and medical importance.