Skip to main content
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2023 Mar 29;18(3):e0283153. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0283153

The Covid-19 pandemic and the expansion of the mortality gap between the United States and its European peers

Patrick Heuveline 1,*
Editor: Bernardo Lanza Queiroz2
PMCID: PMC10057752  PMID: 36989259

Abstract

The mortality gap between the United States and other high-income nations substantially expanded during the first two decades of the 21st century. International comparisons of Covid-19 mortality suggest this gap might have grown during the Covid-19 pandemic. Applying population-weighted average mortality rates of the five largest West European countries to the US population reveals that this mortality gap increased the number of US deaths by 34.8% in 2021, causing 892,491 “excess deaths” that year. Controlling for population size, the annual number of excess deaths has nearly doubled between 2019 and 2021 (+84.9%). Diverging trends in Covid-19 mortality contributed to this increase in excess deaths, especially towards the end of 2021 as US vaccination rates plateaued at lower levels than in European countries. In 2021, the number of excess deaths involving Covid-19 in the United States reached 223,266 deaths, representing 25.0% of all excess deaths that year. However, 45.5% of the population-standardized increase in excess deaths between 2019 and 2021 is due to other causes of deaths. While the contribution of Covid-19 to excess mortality might be transient, divergent trends in mortality from other causes persistently separates the United States from West European countries. Excess mortality is particularly high between ages 15 and 64. In 2021, nearly half of all US deaths in this age range are excess deaths (48.0%).

Introduction

The pre-pandemic expansion of the gap in mortality between the United States and other high-income nations is well documented [17]. Arguably the most salient measure of that mortality gap is the number of “excess deaths.”. This number is estimated by subtracting from the actual number of deaths a counterfactual number of deaths obtained after replacing the prevailing sex- and age-specific mortality rates with more favorable rates. In recent months, the concept has been primarily used to assess the impact of the pandemic by substituting (lower) pre-pandemic rates for the actual rates. But the concept has long been used to assess the consequences of mortality differentials whether between population sub-groups, e.g., racial/ethnic differentials [8], or between populations [9].

A previous study tracked the annual number of excess deaths in the United States from 2000 to 2017 by estimating how many fewer deaths would have occurred had the country faced the same mortality rates as a composite of the five largest Western European countries (England and Wales, France, Germany, Italy, and Spain). With a combined population size very similar to that of the United States, these five countries provide a realistic benchmark for a large, diverse, and wealthy nation. The results were striking: the annual number of excess deaths estimated nearly doubled from 226,165 in 2000 to 400,732 in 2017, amounting to one in seven deaths that year (14.2%) [7]. This increase is partially driven by the growth of the US population. With the 2017 population, the 2000 number of excess deaths would have been substantially higher (297,922 deaths), but the population-standardized number of deaths did increase markedly (by +34.8% between 2000 and 2017). Moreover, this gap can be expected to have continued to expand during the pandemic, as provisional data suggested the United States experienced larger mortality declines than peer countries [10]. Another study estimated that the difference in Covid-19 mortality between the United States and the same five countries added 132,173 excess deaths in 2020, growing to 190,867 excess deaths for the 12-month period from April 1, 2020, to April 1, 2021 [11].

This study expands on these previous studies by extending the estimation of the annual number of US excess deaths relative to the same five European countries from 2017 to 2021, and of the specific contribution of differences in Covid-19 mortality from April 1, 2021, to the end of 2021.

Material and methods

Excess deaths from all causes, 2017 to 2021

This study first estimates excess deaths from all causes in the United States from the Human Mortality Database’s Short-Term Mortality Fluctuation (STMF) [12]. These data include death counts and death rates for every week up to the end of 2021 in England & Wales, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the United States, by sex and five large age groups (0–14, 15–64, 65–74, 75–84 and 85+). Population-weighted average sex- and age-specific death rates for the five European countries (average European rates thereafter) were obtained by separately summing deaths and population exposure for each year, sex, and age group from each of the five countries, and by dividing the sum of deaths by the combined population exposure for each year, sex, and age group:

MiEu(Y)=jDij(Y)jPij(Y)

Where MiEu(Y) is the average European rate for sex and age group i in year Y, Dij(Y) is the number of deaths in sex and age group i in country j during year Y, and Pij(Y) is the population exposure in sex and age group i in country j during year Y. As STMF data consist of weekly death counts and death rates, Dij(Y) is first obtained by summing deaths across all weeks:

Dij(Y)=wDij(w,Y)

where Dij(w,Y) is the number of deaths in sex and age group i in country j during week w of year Y, whereas Pij(Y) is obtained by summing population exposure for each week of year Y, itself obtained by dividing the week’s deaths by the week’s death rate for that sex and age group:

Pij(Y)=wDij(w,Y)Mij(w,Y)

where Mij(w,Y) is the death rate in sex and age group i in country j during week w of year Y.

Counterfactual numbers are derived by applying these average European rates to the US population exposure in the corresponding sex and age groups each year:

DiC(Y)=MiEu(Y).PiUS(Y)

where DiC(Y) is the counterfactual number of US deaths in sex and age group i during year Y and PiUS(Y) is the US population exposure in sex and age group i during year Y.

The number of excess deaths is then the difference between the actual and the counterfactual number of deaths in each year, sex- and age group:

DiX(Y)=DiUS(Y)DiC(Y)

where DiX(Y) is the number of excess deaths in sex and age group i in the United States during year Y and DiUS(Y) is the actual number of US deaths in sex and age group i during year Y. Annual numbers of excess deaths are then obtained by summing across all sex and age groups for the same year. Comparison with a prior estimate for 2017 suggest that having data only for five large age groups rather than for single year of age does not substantially modify the results (less than a 3-percent difference, see S1 File for details of the comparison).

To control for the contribution of population changes, another set of counterfactual numbers (standardized numbers thereafter) is derived by holding the US sex and age groups to their 2021 size:

DiSC(Y)=MiEu(Y).PiUS(2021)

where DiSC(Y) is the standardized number of deaths in sex and age group i in the United States during year Y holding population exposure in sex and age group i constant at its 2021 value.

Standardized numbers of excess deaths are then the difference between the actual and the standardized number of excess deaths for each year, sex, and age group:

DiSX(Y)=DiUS(Y)DiSC(Y)

where DiSX(Y) is the standardized number of excess deaths in sex and age group i in the United States during year Y.

Excess deaths involving Covid-19, 2020 to 2021

To assess the specific contribution of Covid-19 mortality and its dynamics, counterfactual numbers of US deaths involving Covid-19 are estimated for each calendar year, 2020 and 2021, and for three twelve-month periods in-between (ending in the first, second and third quarter of 2021 respectively). Because countries report deaths involving Covid-19 using different age groupings [13], the above approach to estimate all-cause excess deaths was modified to rest instead on estimating a population-weighted Comparative Covid-19 Mortality Ratio [14] (CCMR) for the five European countries (average European CCMR thereafter). To compute this CCMR, the US sex- and age-specific rates of deaths involving Covid-19 for each period were first derived from Covid-19 death counts from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) [15] and mid-year US population estimates by age and sex from the United Nations (UN) Population Division [16]:

C19MiUS(Y)=C19DiUS(Y)NiUS(y)

where C19MiUS(Y) is the death rate for US deaths involving Covid-19 for sex and age group I in year Y, C19DiUS(Y) is the NCHS number of US deaths involving Covid-19 in sex and age group i during year Y, and NiUS(y) is the UN estimate of the size of sex and age group i in the United States at time y, the mid-point of year Y.

These rates were then combined with the UN mid-year population estimates by age and sex to derive a counterfactual number of deaths involving Covid-19 in each of the five European countries and the United States and each year:

C19DC,j(Y)=iC19MiUS(Y)Nij(y)

where C19DC,j(Y) is the counterfactual number of deaths involving Covid-19 in country j during year Y and Nij(y) is the UN estimate of the size of sex and age group i in country j at time y.

Ratios of deaths involving Covid-19, as reported on the Johns Hopkins University (JHU) dashboard [17], to the corresponding counterfactual numbers above were calculated for each of the five European countries and the United States and each year:

CCMRj(Y)=C19DC,j(Y)C19Dj(Y)

where CCMRj(Y) is the CCMR for country j in year Y and C19Dj(Y) is the JHU number of deaths involving Covid-19 in country j during year Y.

Due to slight differences between the number of US deaths involving COVID-19 reported by NCHS and JHU, the US CCMRs are not exactly equal to unity. To control for these reporting differences, the European CCMRs were divided by the US CCMR for the same year. The average European CCMR is then obtained as:

CCMREu(Y)=jCCMRj(Y).Nj(y)CCMRUS(Y).jNj(y)

where CCMREu(Y) is the average European CCMR for year Y and Nj(y) is the UN estimate of the total population size of European country j at time y.

This ratio was taken to represent the fraction of US deaths involving Covid-19 that would have occurred in the absence of international differences in Covid-19 mortality and completeness of reporting deaths involving Covid-19. The number of US deaths involving Covid-19 that contribute to excess deaths is then:

C19DX(Y)=C19DUS(Y)(1CCMREu(Y))

where C19DS(Y) is the counterfactual and C19DUS(Y) is the NCHS number of US deaths involving Covid-19 during year Y.

Finally, to estimate the contribution of Covid-19 mortality to the standardized number of excess deaths during the calendar year 2020, the NCHS number of US deaths involving Covid-19 in 2020 in the above equation was replaced by the standardized number of US deaths involving Covid-19 in 2020 estimated as:

C19DS,US(2020)=iC19MiUS(2020)NiUS(2021)

Results

With the average European rates, the estimated number of US deaths for 2021 is 2,563,113 (Table 1). As there were 3,455,604 US deaths registered that year, the difference reveals 892,491 excess deaths in 2021. Holding US sex and age groups at their 2021 sizes shows that population changes only accounted for a small fraction of the 2017–2021 increase in excess deaths. The standardized number of excess deaths is 91.7% higher in 2021 than in 2017. In 2017, excess mortality increased the total number of deaths by 18.7%; in 2021, the increase in US deaths due to this excess mortality reached 34.8%.

Table 1. Annual estimates of excess mortality in the United States (deaths from all causes, deaths involving Covid-19 and all other deaths), 2017 to 2021.

2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
US deaths, all causes
Annual number 2,810,580 2,838,772 2,852,462 3,353,347 3,455,604
Standardized number with 2021 population 2,951,062 2,919,215 2,890,767 3,376,837 3,455,604
Counterfactual standardized number with yearly European average rates 2,485,445 2,468,694 2,408,098 2,624,849 2,563,113
Standardized number of excess deaths 465,617 450,521 482,668 751,988 892,491
Percentage of counterfactual standardized number of excess deaths 18.7% 18.2% 20.0% 28.6% 34.8%
US deaths involving Covid-19
Annual number 385,666 463,199
Standardized number with 2021 population 394,852 463,199
Counterfactual standardized number with yearly European average CCMR 258,258 239,933
Standardized number of excess deaths involving Covid-19 136,594 223,266
Percentage of standardized number of excess deaths from all causes 18.2% 25.0%
US deaths not involving Covid-19
Standardized number of excess deaths not involving Covid-19 465,617 450,521 482,668 615,394 669,225

Notes: Author’s calculations from the Human Mortality Database, Short-Term Fluctuation Series (STFS), with population-weighted average of European countries as counterfactual. Standardized numbers hold the size of the US population in each sex and age group constant at its 2021 value. European average rates (and CCMR) refer to the population-weighted average of the age- and sex-specific death rates (and CCMR) for each of the five European countries. The CCMR refers to the Comparative Covid-19 Mortality Ratio.

Most of the increase in standardized number of excess deaths occurred between 2019 and 2021 (+84.9%, compared to +3.7% between 2017 and 2019). Differences in rates of deaths involving Covid-19 can thus be expected to explain the marked acceleration of the growing mortality gap between the United States and its European peers. Results shown in Table 1 suggest that more than half of the 2019–2021 increase in excess deaths (54.5%) can be attributed to international differences in Covid-19 mortality. The standardized number of US deaths involving Covid-19 that can be considered as excess deaths (relative to its European peer countries) increased from 136,594 in 2020 to 223,266 in 2021 (Table 1). This dynamic is further described in Fig 1 which shows the number of US deaths involving Covid-19, and the number excess deaths among those, and the ratio of the two for 2020, 2021, and three intermediate 12-month periods in-between. The number of US deaths involving Covid-19 that are excess deaths (sharded part of the bars) increased from 2020 to 2021 despite a modest decline in the total number of US deaths involving Covid-19 in a 12-month period (69,582 fewer deaths in 2021 than in the first 12 months of pandemic mortality, from April 1st, 2020, to April 1st, 2021). This modest decline was more than compensated by an increase in the fraction of excess deaths among those attributed to Covid-19. Relatively stable until mid-2021 (from 34.6% for 2020 to 37.2% for the mid-2020 to mid-2021 period), that fraction decreased to 29.2% in the 12-month period ending on October 1st, 2021, before bouncing back to 48.2% for the calendar year 2021.

Fig 1. Number of US deaths attributed to Covid-19 by 12-month period and proportion of Covid-19 deaths that are excess deaths (in percent).

Fig 1

Deaths attributed to Covid-19 are shown as the sum of Covid-19 deaths estimated by applying the population-weighted average of the European death rates from Covid-19 to the US population (light grey) and the excess deaths from Covid-19 (dark grey),.The first (left) and last (right) periods are calendar years. The three intermediate 12-month period are shifted by one quarter each: i.e., 20Q2-21Q1 refers to the period from April 1st, 2020, to April 1st, 2021.

Table 2 shows the distribution of 2021 excess deaths by sex and large age groups as well as the proportional increase in the number of deaths in each sex and age group that is contributed by excess deaths. In 2021, 31.0% of all excess deaths (both sexes combined) occurred to men between the ages of 15 and 64 and another 19.1% to women in the same age range. Altogether, more than half of the excess deaths were in that age range in 2021 (50.1%). Conversely, nearly half of all deaths between the ages of 15 and 64 are excess deaths, a higher proportion than in other age groups, so excess deaths increased the total number of deaths in this age group by 98.4% for women and 86.4% for men.

Table 2. Excess US deaths, and ratios to all US deaths, 2021, by sex and age group.

0–14 15–64 65–74 75–84 85+ All ages
Women 5,685 170,268 112,059 94,141 53,944 436,097
Men 7,253 276,648 97,449 53,588 21,457 456,394
Total 12,938 446,916 209,508 147,729 75,401 892,491
Distribution of all-age, both-sex excess deaths
Women 0.6% 19.1% 12.6% 10.5% 6.0% 48.9%
Men 0.8% 31.0% 10.9% 6.0% 2.4% 51.1%
Total 1.4% 50.1% 23.5% 16.6% 8.4% 100.0%
Percentage increase of number of deaths in sex and age-group
Women 75.8% 98.4% 58.2% 31.2% 10.6% 36.8%
Men 78.6% 86.4% 30.4% 14.2% 6.1% 33.1%
Total 77.4% 90.6% 40.8% 21.8% 8.8% 34.8%

Discussion

These results show that the marked increase in the standardized number of excess deaths in the United States relative to its peer West European countries between 2000 and 2017 (+34.8%) [7] was followed by an even larger increase, a near doubling in only four years (2017–2021). While death data by single year of age are not yet available to fully replicate the analysis from 2017 up to the present, data by large age groups provide a close approximation and demonstrate an unambiguous trend. From 2017 to 2019, the standardized number of excess deaths increased by another 3.7%, or 1.81% annually, a continuation of the 2000 to 2017 trend (+1.77%%). From 2019 to 2021, the standardized number of excess deaths increased 84.9% (+35.98% annually) to approach 900,000 in 2021 (892,491 deaths). The increase in standardized numbers of deaths due to this excess mortality also surged from 18.7% in 2017 (to 34.8% in 2021).

International differences in rates of death involving Covid-19 explain slightly more than half of the 2017–2021 increase in standardized numbers of excess deaths (+50.7%, 54.5% of the 2019–21 increase). These differences might be linked in part to differences in the prevalence of comorbidities associated with Covid-19 case-fatality rate. Through mid-2021, differences in Covid-19 death rates remained relatively stable [11]. For the second half of the year, the gap in Covid-19 death rates first narrowed as vaccines became available to the general population earlier in the United States than in Europe except for England and Wales. By the end of 2021, vaccination rates in the United States were plateauing at lower levels than those achieved in the West European countries [18], however, and the contribution of Covid-19 mortality to overall excess mortality grew larger in 2021 than it had been in previous 12-month periods since the beginning of the pandemic.

Perhaps more surprisingly, differences in mortality from other causes also continue to grow, contributing an additional 203,608 deaths to the standardized number of excess deaths between 2017 and 2021 (45.5% of the 2017–2021 standardized increase). Mortality from some causes might be expected to improve (e.g., from reduction in motor-vehicle traffic) [19] as well as to worsen for other causes (e.g., because of the impact of the pandemic on the quality of hospital care) [20] during the pandemic. While the net effect has been a substantial reduction in deaths from other causes in the five European countries, partially compensating the additional deaths directly attributable to Covid-19 [21], the United States has experienced an overall increase in deaths from other causes [22]. These might reflect in part a relatively higher degree of Covid-19 deaths being attributed to other causes [23], but rates of death from unintentional injuries have also been increasing in the United States [24], in particular those involving synthetic opioids [25] or alcohol [26]. While the contribution of Covid-19 should tilt excess mortality towards older ages, adult deaths between the ages of 15 and 64 thus continue provide the majority excess deaths (50.1%) and the share of deaths that are excess deaths is largest between these ages (49.6% for women, 46.4% for men).

The dramatic surge in excess mortality in the United States during the pandemic is, in Eileen Crimmins’ words, “an acute demonstration of our chronic problem” [27]. So acute that the number of US adult deaths was 90.6% higher that it would have been in the absence of “excess deaths” in 2021. Put differently 47.5% of US deaths of both sexes between ages 15 and 64 were due to this excess mortality, far exceeding the fraction of US deaths at ages 50 and over that were attributable to smoking in 2003 (24%) [28], or the fraction of adult deaths (ages 20–64) attributable to alcohol in Russia in 2002 (29%) [29]. Both these international differences and the pandemic’s disproportionate impact on minority populations in the United States [8, 30] highlight social conditions as fundamental causes of diseases and deaths [31].

Supporting information

S1 File. Comparability with earlier excess-death estimates.

(DOCX)

Data Availability

The minimal data set underlying the results described in the paper are already publicly available from The Human Mortality Database’s Short-Term Mortality Fluctuation (STMF), https://www.mortality.org/Data/STMF, the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), https://data.cdc.gov/NCHS/Provisional-COVID-19-Death-Counts-by-Sex-Age-and-S/9bhg-hcku, the United Nations Population Division, https://population.un.org/wpp/Download/Standard/Interpolated/, and the Johns Hopkins University Coronavirus Resource Center, https://coronavirus.jhu.edu.

Funding Statement

The author benefited from facilities and resources provided by the California Center for Population Research at UCLA (CCPR), which receives core support (P2C-HD041022) from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

Decision Letter 0

Bernardo Lanza Queiroz

25 Nov 2022

PONE-D-22-25276Another doubling of excess mortality in the United States relative to its European peers between 2017 and 2021PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Heuveline,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Based on the reviewers comments and my own reading, I believe the paper needs minor adjustments. One important issue: the paper needs to make clear the contribution in relation to yours PNAS (2022) paper. There are novel findings here, but it would be helpful to make it clear. The comments agree that the methodology could be revised to become more detailed and clear, some parts of it are not very clear and might be confusing. This leads to some difficult in reading the results.  Please, see also the detailed and careful comments by the reviewers. 

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 09 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Bernardo Lanza Queiroz, Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please change "female” or "male" to "woman” or "man" as appropriate, when used as a noun (see for instance https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/bias-free-language/gender).

3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

 “No. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

At this time, please address the following queries:

a)        Please clarify the sources of funding (financial or material support) for your study. List the grants or organizations that supported your study, including funding received from your institution.

b)        State what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role in your study, please state: “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

c)        If any authors received a salary from any of your funders, please state which authors and which funders.

d)        If you did not receive any funding for this study, please state: “The authors received no specific funding for this work.”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

5. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

6. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Review of Another doubling of excess mortality in the United States relative to its European peers between 2017 and 2021

This is a short and interesting paper demonstrates the very concerning large increase in excess mortality in the US compared with the average of the 5 largest European countries in recent years. The analysis is mostly sound however I have a few queries about the choice of some of the measurements used,

The title of the paper and a major finding is that the annual number of excess deaths in the US versus the 5 European countries doubled between 2017 and 2021. This finding is based on the total number of excess deaths in the first row of Table 1 – which increased from 442,267 in 2017 to 892,491 in 2021. However, that measure includes the contribution of population change to the excess deaths of 42,317 (shown lower down in Table 1). Population change should be standardised for in analysis of trends in the number of excess deaths because it does not measure changes in population health but rather demographic trends (i.e. relative increase of the population). It would be more appropriate to compare the 442,267 figure in 2017 to 850,174 in 2021 that was standardised with the 2017 population – that is, the number of excess deaths did not double, but still increased substantially. The title and main findings of the paper should be adjusted to use the population-standardised excess mortality figures. Also, the “share of change in excess deaths” and other calculations in the manuscript should also be calculated based on population-standardised excess mortality.

The calculation of the excess deaths % is confusing. Conventionally, the excess mortality % is = (number deaths pop A – number deaths pop B) / number deaths pop B. However this paper divides excess deaths by the number of deaths in population A. It would be more insightful – and would also better demonstrate the large differences in mortality – if the former more conventional calculation were used. For example, the excess deaths in 2021 of 25.8% would instead be 25.8%/(100%-25.8%) = 34.8%, which is a more intuitive figure that shows that death rates in the US in 2021 were 35% higher than for 5 European countries. For ages 15-64 in Table 2, it would show that death rates in the US are almost double that in the 5 European countries.

Figure 1 would be more intuitive for the reader if simply the results were shown as a % as the quarterly results shown, rather than rolling annual figures presented.

The discussion of findings is quite limited and could point in the direction of future research to better understand why there has been a dramatic increase mortality in the US versus Western Europe – for example, measurement of the contribution of specific causes of death to the increase in excess mortality (in addition to Covid). It would also be good to describe some of the comorbidities of Covid mentioned in the 2nd paragraph of the Discussion, as well as mention differences in testing of Covid that might affect Covid death rates.

Some other comments:

- In the Abstract, it states “Applying average mortality rates…” – should this be “population-weighted average mortality rates…”?

- There should be a section title for the Introduction

- The first sentence “… is well documented” should have reference(s).

- Delete “so” from “the annual number of excess deaths estimated so nearly doubled from…”

- I had trouble finding the data for “Relatively stable until mid-2021 (from 34.6% for 2020 to 37.2% for the mid-2020 to mid-2021 period), that fraction decreased to 29.2% in the 12-month period ending on October 1st, 2021, before bouncing back to 48.2% for the calendar year 2021.”

- Suggest choosing another word other that “impressive” to describe the increase in excess deaths – e.g. “substantial”

Reviewer #2: This concise report provides estimates of excess deaths, defined as excess mortality of the U.S. relative to average of five W European countries, for the 2017-2021 period. The methodological approach is straightforward drawing from standard demographic analyses. A nice contribution is the decomposition of the excess deaths into those attributable to population composition change, COVID-19, and other-cause mortality. One main concern is that the report should be more explicit in the unique contribution of this analysis over the Heuveline (2022) PNAS paper. A few sentences in the Introduction would suffice. The methodology should also be made more explicit. Specific comments:

1. The gap in mortality between the U.S. and Europe has been long-standing, albeit growing. I don’t think “emergence” is the appropriate term as it implies that the gap emerged in the years leading up to the pandemic.

2. It might be useful to add a row for “Total Deaths” to Table 1 since percentage excess deaths are based on total recorded deaths.

3. The terms “ratio” and “share” are used in Table 1 – but percentages are shown in the Table. It may be helpful to use “Percent Excess Deaths” or “Percent Contribution…” as appropriate.

4. COVID-19 deaths: Were these measured by counting deaths with COVID-19 on the death certificate or calculations of excess deaths attributable to COVID-19? The method should be made clearer in this regard.

5. What is the explicand for the cause of death contributions? Is it the increase in excess deaths between each year and 2017? Is it the excess deaths for a given year? It is also not clear if the contributions are calculated with respect to the age-sex standardized excess deaths (or change in excess deaths).

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Tim Adair

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Decision Letter 1

Bernardo Lanza Queiroz

3 Mar 2023

The Covid-19 pandemic and the expansion of the mortality gap between the United States and its European peers

PONE-D-22-25276R1

Dear Dr. Heuveline,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Bernardo Lanza Queiroz, Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Tim Adair

**********

Acceptance letter

Bernardo Lanza Queiroz

8 Mar 2023

PONE-D-22-25276R1

The Covid-19 pandemic and the expansion of the mortality gap between the United States and its European peers

Dear Dr. Heuveline:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Bernardo Lanza Queiroz

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 File. Comparability with earlier excess-death estimates.

    (DOCX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    The minimal data set underlying the results described in the paper are already publicly available from The Human Mortality Database’s Short-Term Mortality Fluctuation (STMF), https://www.mortality.org/Data/STMF, the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), https://data.cdc.gov/NCHS/Provisional-COVID-19-Death-Counts-by-Sex-Age-and-S/9bhg-hcku, the United Nations Population Division, https://population.un.org/wpp/Download/Standard/Interpolated/, and the Johns Hopkins University Coronavirus Resource Center, https://coronavirus.jhu.edu.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES