Comparison of COVID-19 outcomes among shielded and non-shielded populations

Abstract Many western countries used shielding (extended self-isolation) of people presumed to be at high-risk from COVID-19 protect them and reduce healthcare demand. To investigate the effectiveness this strategy, we linked family practitioner, prescribing, laboratory, hospital death records compared outcomes among shielded non-shielded individuals in West Scotland. Of 1.3 million population, 27,747 (2.03%) were advised shield, 353,085 (26.85%) classified a priori as moderate risk. testing was more common (7.01%) risk groups, than low (0.73%). Referent low-risk, group had higher confirmed infections (RR 8.45, 95% 7.44–9.59), case-fatality 5.62, CI 4.47–7.07) population mortality 57.56, 44.06–75.19). The moderate-risk intermediate 4.11, 3.82–4.42) 25.41, 20.36–31.71) but, due their prevalence, made largest contribution deaths (PAF 75.30%). Age ≥ 70 years accounted for 49.55% deaths. In conclusion, spite high increased death. Furthermore, effective criteria would have needed widely expanded include other criteria, such elderly.