US State Restrictions and Excess COVID-19 Pandemic Deaths.

IF 9.5 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Christopher J Ruhm
{"title":"US State Restrictions and Excess COVID-19 Pandemic Deaths.","authors":"Christopher J Ruhm","doi":"10.1001/jamahealthforum.2024.2006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Importance: </strong>Despite considerable prior research, it remains unclear whether and by how much state COVID-19-related restrictions affected the number of pandemic deaths in the US.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To determine how state restrictions were associated with excess COVID-19 deaths over a 2-year analysis period.</p><p><strong>Design, setting, and participants: </strong>This was a cross-sectional study using state-level mortality and population data from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for 2020 to 2022 compared with baseline data for 2017 to 2019. Data included the total US population, with separate estimates for younger than 45 years, 45 to 64 years, 65 to 84 years, and 85 years or older used to construct age-standardized measures. Age-standardized excess mortality rates and ratios for July 2020 to June 2022 were calculated and compared with prepandemic baseline rates. Excess death rates and ratios were then regressed on single or multiple restrictions, while controlling for excess death rates or ratios, from March 2020 to June 2020. Estimated values of the dependent variables were calculated for packages of weak vs strong state restrictions. Behavioral changes were investigated as a potential mechanism for the overall effects. Data analyses were performed from October 1, 2023, to June 13, 2024.</p><p><strong>Exposures: </strong>Age and cause of death.</p><p><strong>Main outcomes: </strong>Excess deaths, age-standardized excess death rates per 100 000, and excess death ratios.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Mask requirements and vaccine mandates were negatively associated with excess deaths, prohibitions on vaccine or mask mandates were positively associated with death rates, and activity limitations were mostly not associated with death rates. If all states had imposed restrictions similar to those used in the 10 most restrictive states, excess deaths would have been an estimated 10% to 21% lower than the 1.18 million that actually occurred during the 2-year analysis period; conversely, the estimates suggest counterfactual increases of 13% to 17% if all states had restrictions similar to those in the 10 least-restrictive states. The estimated strong vs weak state restriction difference was 271 000 to 447 000 deaths, with behavior changes associated with 49% to 79% of the overall disparity.</p><p><strong>Conclusions and relevance: </strong>This cross-sectional study indicates that stringent COVID-19 restrictions, as a group, were associated with substantial decreases in pandemic mortality, with behavior changes plausibly serving as an important explanatory mechanism. These findings do not support the views that COVID-19 restrictions were ineffective. However, not all restrictions were equally effective; some, such as school closings, likely provided minimal benefit while imposing substantial cost.</p>","PeriodicalId":53180,"journal":{"name":"JAMA Health Forum","volume":"5 7","pages":"e242006"},"PeriodicalIF":9.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11282449/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JAMA Health Forum","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1001/jamahealthforum.2024.2006","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Importance: Despite considerable prior research, it remains unclear whether and by how much state COVID-19-related restrictions affected the number of pandemic deaths in the US.

Objective: To determine how state restrictions were associated with excess COVID-19 deaths over a 2-year analysis period.

Design, setting, and participants: This was a cross-sectional study using state-level mortality and population data from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for 2020 to 2022 compared with baseline data for 2017 to 2019. Data included the total US population, with separate estimates for younger than 45 years, 45 to 64 years, 65 to 84 years, and 85 years or older used to construct age-standardized measures. Age-standardized excess mortality rates and ratios for July 2020 to June 2022 were calculated and compared with prepandemic baseline rates. Excess death rates and ratios were then regressed on single or multiple restrictions, while controlling for excess death rates or ratios, from March 2020 to June 2020. Estimated values of the dependent variables were calculated for packages of weak vs strong state restrictions. Behavioral changes were investigated as a potential mechanism for the overall effects. Data analyses were performed from October 1, 2023, to June 13, 2024.

Exposures: Age and cause of death.

Main outcomes: Excess deaths, age-standardized excess death rates per 100 000, and excess death ratios.

Results: Mask requirements and vaccine mandates were negatively associated with excess deaths, prohibitions on vaccine or mask mandates were positively associated with death rates, and activity limitations were mostly not associated with death rates. If all states had imposed restrictions similar to those used in the 10 most restrictive states, excess deaths would have been an estimated 10% to 21% lower than the 1.18 million that actually occurred during the 2-year analysis period; conversely, the estimates suggest counterfactual increases of 13% to 17% if all states had restrictions similar to those in the 10 least-restrictive states. The estimated strong vs weak state restriction difference was 271 000 to 447 000 deaths, with behavior changes associated with 49% to 79% of the overall disparity.

Conclusions and relevance: This cross-sectional study indicates that stringent COVID-19 restrictions, as a group, were associated with substantial decreases in pandemic mortality, with behavior changes plausibly serving as an important explanatory mechanism. These findings do not support the views that COVID-19 restrictions were ineffective. However, not all restrictions were equally effective; some, such as school closings, likely provided minimal benefit while imposing substantial cost.

美国各州的限制和 COVID-19 大流行病死亡人数过多。
重要性:尽管此前已有大量研究,但仍不清楚各州与 COVID-19 相关的限制措施是否以及在多大程度上影响了美国大流行病的死亡人数:确定在两年的分析期内,各州的限制措施与 COVID-19 死亡人数过多之间的关系:这是一项横断面研究,使用美国疾病控制和预防中心提供的 2020 年至 2022 年各州死亡率和人口数据,并与 2017 年至 2019 年的基线数据进行比较。数据包括美国总人口,并分别对 45 岁以下、45 至 64 岁、65 至 84 岁以及 85 岁或以上的人口进行估计,以构建年龄标准化指标。计算了 2020 年 7 月至 2022 年 6 月的年龄标准化超额死亡率和比率,并与流行前的基线死亡率进行了比较。然后对 2020 年 3 月至 2020 年 6 月的超常死亡率和比率与单一或多重限制条件进行回归,同时控制超常死亡率或比率。计算了弱国家限制与强国家限制组合的因变量估计值。将行为变化作为总体效应的潜在机制进行了研究。数据分析时间为 2023 年 10 月 1 日至 2024 年 6 月 13 日:主要结果主要结果:超额死亡人数、每十万人的年龄标准化超额死亡率和超额死亡比率:结果:口罩要求和疫苗规定与超额死亡呈负相关,禁止疫苗或口罩规定与死亡率呈正相关,而活动限制与死亡率大多无关。如果所有州都实施了与 10 个限制最严格的州类似的限制措施,那么在两年的分析期间,超额死亡人数估计会比实际发生的 118 万人低 10%-21%;相反,如果所有州都实施了与 10 个限制最少的州类似的限制措施,那么估计值表明反事实死亡人数会增加 13%-17%。据估计,强州与弱州的限制差异为 27.1 万到 44.7 万例死亡,总体差异的 49% 到 79% 与行为改变有关:这项横断面研究表明,作为一个群体,严格的 COVID-19 限制措施与大流行病死亡率的大幅下降有关,而行为变化可能是一个重要的解释机制。这些研究结果并不支持 COVID-19 限制措施无效的观点。然而,并不是所有的限制措施都同样有效;有些限制措施,如学校停课,在带来巨大成本的同时,可能带来的益处却微乎其微。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.00
自引率
7.80%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: JAMA Health Forum is an international, peer-reviewed, online, open access journal that addresses health policy and strategies affecting medicine, health, and health care. The journal publishes original research, evidence-based reports, and opinion about national and global health policy. It covers innovative approaches to health care delivery and health care economics, access, quality, safety, equity, and reform. In addition to publishing articles, JAMA Health Forum also features commentary from health policy leaders on the JAMA Forum. It covers news briefs on major reports released by government agencies, foundations, health policy think tanks, and other policy-focused organizations. JAMA Health Forum is a member of the JAMA Network, which is a consortium of peer-reviewed, general medical and specialty publications. The journal presents curated health policy content from across the JAMA Network, including journals such as JAMA and JAMA Internal Medicine.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信