There has been a morbid fascination with the number of deaths associated with covid-19 and the extent to which countries are mishandling the crisis. But we are also facing a data crisis which distorts proper analysis of either. 

Scientists are tinkering with models on the expected number of deaths based on incomplete data as not all countries apply the same covid-19 testing rules and not all deaths are accurately recorded. At the same time countries are still deliberating about who they should test, be it asymptomatic cases, only those with symptoms, those presenting to healthcare systems or healthcare workers. 

Officials in the US have cast doubt on the numbers being reported by China, and not all countries have the resources to follow the WHO’s “test, test, test” advice. This is particularly true for economies with under-developed healthcare systems such as India, Africa and Latin America. 

So with that cautionary note, we have tried to work with the data at hand—incomplete as it is—to map the number of confirmed cases of covid-19 against deaths per 100,000 population over time. While the absolute numbers of deaths are important to note because each loss of life is painful to loved ones, we should also look at death rates across populations to better understand the virus and to keep abreast of potentially effective containment measures. In developing countries cause of death information is often hard to obtain, mostly because systems for recording these details are inadequate or non-existent.

The bubbles represent absolute deaths in an individual country. You can eliminate regions from the timeline to see, for example, how Europe is faring against North America, or zoom in on the trajectory for an individual country. As of April 20th, death rates appear to be highest in Europe with Belgium reaching around 50 deaths per 100,000 population.

While people are still focused on covid-19 deaths, be prepared for a new type of death associated with covid-19 over time. These are deaths and morbidity that will arise as healthcare systems direct more and more resources to covid-19 and less and less to common diseases such as stroke and cancer. For developing countries, the common diseases affected will be tuberculosis, malaria and AIDS. 

These “excess” deaths may also arise as people become more fearful of overloading healthcare systems or worried about catching the virus if they attend healthcare facilities including hospitals. There are also the deaths of older people living in residential care facilities or dying at home that are not being properly accounted for. If you have cancer and your treatment is delayed, that is a life and death situation for your overall prognosis. The same applies if treatment is delayed following the first signs of stroke. Patients living with chronic health conditions will see a significant change in the level of service and care received during this crisis, and the damage caused may take years to repair. 

So while scientists study the data around covid-19, expect new data to emerge on how other diseases have been affected by this pandemic. 

The need to get better value from healthcare investment has never been more important as ageing populations and increasing numbers of people with multiple chronic conditions force governments to make limited financial resources go further.

These pressures, along with a greater focus on patient-centred care, have raised the profile of VBHC, especially in European healthcare systems. Sweden, with its highly comprehensive and egalitarian healthcare system, has been a leader in implementing VBHC from the beginning, a fact that was underscored in a 2016 global assessment of VBHC published by The Economist Intelligence Unit. 

This paper looks at the ways in which Sweden has implemented VBHC, the areas in which it has faced obstacles and the lessons that it can teach other countries and health systems looking to improve the value of their own healthcare investments.