Skip to main content
NCBI home page
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2022 Apr 28;17(4):e0265053. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0265053

COVID-19 mortality in the United States: It’s been two Americas from the start

Michael A Stoto 1,*,#, Samantha Schlageter 1,#, John D Kraemer 1
Editor: Wenping Gong2
PMCID: PMC9049562  PMID: 35482643

Abstract

During the summer of 2021, a narrative of "two Americas" emerged: one with high demand for the COVID-19 vaccine and the second with widespread vaccine hesitancy and opposition to masks and vaccines. We analyzed “excess mortality” rates (the difference between total deaths and what would have been expected based on earlier time periods) prepared by the CDC for the United States from January 3, 2020 to September 26, 2021. Between Jan. 3, 2020 and Sept. 26, 2021, there were 895,693 excess deaths associated with COVID-19, 26% more than reported as such. The proportion of deaths estimated by the excess mortality method that was reported as COVID-19 was highest in the Northeast (92%) and lowest in the West (72%) and South (76%). Of the estimated deaths, 43% occurred between Oct. 4, 2020 and Feb. 27, 2021. Before May 31, 2020, approximately 56% of deaths were in the Northeast, where 17% of the population resides. Subsequently, 48% of deaths were in the South, which makes up 38% of the population. Since May 31, 2020, the South experienced COVID-19 mortality 26% higher than the national rate, whereas the Northeast’s rate was 42% lower. If each region had the same mortality rate as the Northeast, more than 316,234 COVID-19 deaths between May 31, 2020 and Sept. 26, 2021 were "avoidable." More than half (63%) of the avoidable deaths occurred between May 31, 2020 and February, 2021, and more than half (60%) were in the South. Regional differences in COVID-19 mortality have been strong throughout the pandemic. The South has had higher mortality rates than the rest of the U.S. since May 31, 2020, and experienced 62% of the avoidable deaths. A comprehensive COVID-19 policy, including population-based restrictions as well as vaccines, is needed to control the pandemic.

Introduction

During the summer of 2021, as vaccine uptake slowed, a narrative of "two Americas" emerged: one with a high demand for the COVID-19 vaccine and the second with high vaccine hesitancy, and later widespread opposition to mask and vaccine mandates. The second America was mostly concentrated in Southern states and rural areas, especially in counties that voted for Donald Trump. Through the summer, the number of cases, hospitalizations, and deaths increased dramatically in the second America [1, 2]. This narrative shapes not only our understanding of what happened, but also what should, or could, be done to control the ongoing pandemic and future outbreaks.

However, this narrative is not quite true. In fact, our analysis of how COVID-19 mortality evolved over time shows that stark regional differences existed from the start of the pandemic, both in cases and deaths as well as testing and vaccine uptake. To see this, we analyzed "excess mortality," the difference between total deaths and what would have been expected based on earlier time periods. Reported cases, hospitalizations, and deaths are known to substantially underestimate actual infections and deaths by a variable fraction depending on testing availability, patient and physician awareness and attitudes, hospital resources, and other factors [3, 4]. Since COVID-19 awareness and concern [2, 5, 6], as well as test availability and use [7–9], vary markedly throughout the U.S., excess mortality estimates can help avoid potential bias due to systematic differences in reporting between areas with high and low prevalence areas.

Methods

In order to identify when regional differences in the pandemic emerged, and their temporal association with vaccine uptake, we analyzed the evolution of COVID-19 mortality patterns. Our analysis is based on state-level weekly excess mortality calculations published by CDC [10]. Farrington surveillance algorithms, which use over-dispersed Poisson generalized linear models with spline terms to model trends in counts, accounting for seasonality, were implemented for each jurisdiction (states, plus the District of Columbia and New York City). These models generate a set of expected counts of deaths by week and jurisdiction, and excess mortality is simply the difference between observed and predicted deaths in each week and jurisdiction. Additional details, including weighting to adjust for potential underreporting in the most recent weeks, are provided by CDC [10].

Estimates from other sources might be slightly different, but the differences are not so great as to affect the overall conclusions. In order to avoid reporting lags that potentially vary by region (especially during the summer of 2021 when some states experienced far greater caseloads than others), we concluded the analysis on September 26, 2021. In addition, baseline forecasts, and hence estimated excess mortality, become less reliable further from the pre-pandemic period.

We grouped the states into the four standard Census regions. Other ad hoc groupings could exaggerate or minimize differences. The on-line appendix includes figures comparing the per-capita weekly rates of excess mortality to demonstrate the similarity of patterns within each region. This is especially true in the Northeast and South, but there is more internal variation in the West, where California is somewhat of an outlier. Based on a preliminary analysis of the data, we designated five periods with substantially different patterns of excess mortality. To account for differences in population sizes and length of the time periods, calculations were done by week and state, and aggregated into regional and period.

To calculate “avoidable mortality,” we subtracted from the observed excess deaths the excess deaths that would have been experienced in each region and period if every region had the lowest excess mortality rate experienced by any region in that period. We did not include the first period in these calculations for the reason described below, but performed a sensitivity analysis in which we estimated the numbers of deaths that could have been avoided in Period 1 as one-half of the difference between the actual rates and those in the region with the lowest excess mortality rate in that period.

Vaccine coverage rates were calculated by Eva Rest of Georgetown University based on a data set compiled by Tiu and colleagues [11].

Results

Between Jan. 3, 2020 and Sept. 26, 2021, the excess mortality associated with COVID-19 in the U.S. totaled 895,693, a per capita rate of 270 per 100,000 population. During the same period, 710,999 COVID-19 deaths were reported, amounting to 79% of the estimated excess mortality. In other words, during this period the U.S. experienced 26% more COVID-19 deaths than reported as such.

As can be seen in Fig 1, over time there are clear differences among the regions, especially between the Northeast and South. Fig 2 shows 43% of the excess deaths occurred between Oct. 4, 2020 and Feb. 27, 2021. Before May 31, 2020 (period 1), approximately 56% of deaths were in the Northeast; subsequently, 48% were in the South.

Fig 1. Excess mortality per 100,000 population by week and region, U.S., January 3, 2020 –September 26, 2021.

Fig 1

Open in a new tab

The periods are denoted by vertical lines corresponding to May 30, 2020, Oct. 3, 2020, Feb. 27, 2021, and June 25, 2021. Source: authors’ calculations based on CDC data.

Fig 2. Number of excess deaths by period and region, U.S., January 3, 2020—September 26, 2021.

Fig 2

Open in a new tab

The height of each bar represents the total U.S. excess deaths in each period and the colored sections represent the number of excess deaths in each region during the period. Periods are defined as follows: Period 1 (January 3 to May 30, 2020), Period 2 (May 31 –October 3, 2020), Period 3 (October 4, 2020 to February 27, 2021), Period 4 (February 28 to June 26, 2021), and Period 5 (June 27 to September 26, 2021). Source: authors’ calculations based on CDC data.

Controlling for the different sizes of the regions and lengths of the periods, Table 1 displays excess mortality by region per 100,000 population per day. Before May 31, 2020, the daily mortality rate in the Northeast (0.881 per 100,000) was 3.3 times the national rate while the rate for the South (0.132 per 100,000) was 48% of the national rate. Subsequently, the South experienced COVID-19 mortality 26% higher than the national rate, whereas the Northeast’s rate was 42% lower.

Table 1. Excess and avoidable mortality by region and time period, U.S., January 3, 2020 –September 26, 2021.

Period 1 (1/3–5/30/20) Period 2 (5/31–10/3/20) Period 3 (10/4/20–2/27/21) Period 4 (2/28–6/26/21) Period 5 (6/27–9/26/21) Entire period
Excess mortality by region and period
Midwest 22,325 23,169 84,049 12,142 23,345 165,030
Northeast 75,143 7,986 51,200 7,613 10,572 152,514
South 24,667 85,031 158,350 30,270 93,712 392,030
West 12,177 36,869 92,891 10,824 33,358 186,119
U.S. 134,312 153,055 386,490 60,849 160,987 895,693
Excess mortality per capita by region and period (per 100,000 population) per day
Midwest 0.219 0.227 0.823 0.119 0.229 0.381
Northeast 0.881 0.111 0.609 0.112 0.202 0.422
South 0.132 0.539 0.859 0.203 0.816 0.494
West 0.105 0.375 0.810 0.117 0.466 0.377
U.S. 0.274 0.368 0.799 0.156 0.534 0.430
Excess mortality as a proportion of reported COVID-19 deaths
Midwest 85.1% 61.0% 95.0% 84.7% 61.7% 83.4%
Northeast 82.7% 98.8% 108.7% 121.3% 55.6% 92.3%
South 78.8% 67.1% 84.6% 56.0% 76.2% 76.2%
West 74.9% 57.0% 84.7% 54.1% 56.7% 71.8%
U.S. 81.7% 65.4% 90.1% 69.5% 68.7% 79.4%
Avoidable excess mortality by region and period
Midwest 0 13,606 22,738 3,026 10,685 50,055
Northeast 0 0 0 0 0 0
South 0 67,528 46,131 13,584 70,541 197,783
West 0 25,975 23,046 439 18,936 68,395
U.S. 0 107,108 91,915 17,048 100,162 316,234
Proportion fully vaccinated by region at the end of the period (% of the entire population)
Midwest 7.3% 44.4% 52.9%
Northeast 6.8% 51.9% 60.3%
South 7.5% 42.9% 49.8%
West 7.3% 39.8% 48.9%
U.S. 7.5% 47.7% 56.5%
Open in a new tab

Table 1 also shows that the ratio of estimated to reported COVID-19 deaths varies over time and among the regions. The proportion is lowest in the West (71.8%) and South (76.2%). The proportions were similar in all regions (approximately 82%) in Period 1, but vary markedly afterward, dropping to less than 60% in the West in some periods. The overall proportion is highest in the Northeast (92%), and is greater than 100% in the third and fourth period (109% and 121% respectively. This is probably because some people who died of another primary cause had a positive COVID-19 test and were included in the reported counts [12], as called for by the National Center for Health Statistics [13]. A recent analysis attributed the more accurate coding of COVID-19 deaths in the New England states (which are in the Northeast region) to well-run and funded public health departments, excellent hospitals, and state medical examiners who ensure death certificate information is both accurate and timely [14]. The report also noted that some states in the region had large increases in deaths from overdoses rather than COVID-19, indicating a weakness of the excess mortality approach.

Because the rates of excess mortality vary so markedly, one can calculate how many deaths could have been avoided if each region had the same rates as the lowest region in each time period. We assume that no deaths were avoidable in the first period, before much was known about treating or preventing COVID-19. Subsequently, we counted as “avoidable” the difference between the rates seen and those in the Northeast, which were the lowest in each period. According to this calculation, 316,234 COVID-19 deaths between May 31, 2020 and Sept. 26, 2021 were "avoidable." Fig 3 shows that more than half of the avoidable deaths (62%) were in the South. More than half (63%) of the avoidable deaths occurred between May 31, 2020 and February, 2021, and an additional 36% between June 27 and Sept. 26, 2021.

Fig 3. Number of avoidable deaths by period and region, U.S., January 3, 2020—September 26, 2021.

Fig 3

Open in a new tab

The height of each bar represents the total U.S. avoidable deaths in each period and the colored sections represent the number of avoidable deaths in each region during the period. Periods defined as follows: Period 1 (January 3 to May 30, 2020), Period 2 (May 31 –October 3, 2020), Period 3 (October 4, 2020 to February 27, 2021), Period 4 (February 28 to June 26, 2021), and Period 5 (June 27 to September 26, 2021). Source: authors’ calculations based on CDC data.

Discussion

The theme of "two Americas" arose in the summer of 2021, regarding at first vaccine refusal, and later opposition to vaccine and mask mandates and more generally, Covid denialism [15]. Using the proportion voting for Donald Trump as a proxy for party affiliation, journalistic analyses found consistently lower vaccination rates and higher COVID-19 mortality in Southern states, which are predominantly Republican, and the opposite in the Northeastern states, which are predominantly Democratic [2, 5, 6]. But there are other geographic differences, including age distribution and education levels, that can be confounding factors [16].

Our analysis of excess mortality demonstrates that large disparities have existed since the beginning of the pandemic in the U.S. The starkest contrast is between the Northeast (which is heavily Democratic) and South (predominantly Republican). As first noted by Woolf and colleagues [17] for 2020, the first wave of the pandemic was highly concentrated in the Northeast, and particularly in the New York metropolitan area. Since May 31, 2020, however, approximately 48% all excess deaths were in the South, which makes up 38% of the population. The disparity was most apparent in the summer of 2020 (May 31 –Oct. 3), when the daily excess mortality rates were 0.539 per 100,000 in the South, 0.369 per 100,000 nationally, and 0.111 per 100,000 in the Northeast. Similarly, of the 316,234 avoidable COVID-19 deaths between May 31, 2020 and Sept. 26, 2021, the majority (62%) were in the South.

As a sensitivity analysis, we estimated the numbers of deaths that could have been avoided in Period 1 as one-half of the difference between the actual rates and those in the West (which had the lowest excess mortality rate in that period). This increases the number of avoidable deaths to 402,700 an increase of 86,466. With this assumption the proportion of avoidable deaths in the South was still high, 56%.

The regional level of analysis is simple enough for disparities to be clearly apparent, but masks more extreme disparities at the state and local levels. A Washington Post analysis, for instance, demonstrates a strong relationship between the proportion who voted for Donald Trump in 2020 and COVID-19 mortality at the county-level [18]. A second analysis shows a strong correlation at the state level between vaccine uptake and the Trump vote [18]. Thus, the disparities in this analysis are likely underestimates of actual differences at finer levels of geography.

Strong resistance to vaccine and mask mandates emerged during the summer of 2021, especially in the South and in states with Republican governors [19, 20]. Consistent with this, excess mortality in the summer of 2021 was correlated with vaccine uptake. As seen in Table 1, the Northeast had the lowest COVID-19 mortality rates and the highest vaccination coverage: 52% of the population was fully vaccinated on June 27, 2021 and 60% on September 26, 2021. The South, at the other extreme, had the highest COVID-19 mortality rates and lowest vaccine coverage (40% and 49% on the same dates).

Nationally, vaccines have already saved many lives [21] and boosters have the potential to save many more [22]. However, our analysis suggests that major differences in COVID-19 mortality emerged in the summer of 2020, well before vaccines became available. Indeed, 63% of the avoidable deaths occurred by the end of February, 2021, when the vaccine rollout was just beginning. These avoidable deaths occurred before the Delta variant became dominant in the United States, so Delta is not part of the explanation. Similarly, because the South has had dramatically higher COVID-19 mortality than the Northeast (since June, 2020) during all seasons of the year, weather is not a likely explanation. Northeasters may have carried some natural immunity into the summer of 2020 [23], but by July, 2020, Anand and colleagues estimate substantially higher seroprevalence rates in the South (37.9%) than in the Northeast (17.5%), so natural immunity cannot explain the large differences starting in the summer of 2020 [24]. Excess COVID-19 mortality in the South and other areas of the country, therefore, is likely to be due at least in part to higher transmission resulting from differences in mask use, school attendance, social distancing, and other behaviors.

Compared to estimates based on epidemiologic models, the excess mortality methods and assumptions are simple and straightforward. While they cannot explain why some regions had different mortality rates, excess mortality estimates can accurately document when and where COVID-19 occurred. Indeed, Woolf argues that state mortality differentials during the pandemic simply continue a decades-long trend in political differences between Republican and Democratic dominated states [25]. However, although causal patterns are complex and difficult to ascertain, differential implementation of and adherence to stay-at-home orders, mask use, and other non-pharmaceutical interventions seem to be at least a partial explanation for the regional differences in COVID-19 mortality. Thus, our analysis demonstrates the potential impact of population-based restrictions as well as vaccines, indicating that a comprehensive COVID-19 policy is needed to control future pandemics.

This analysis demonstrates the benefits of the excess mortality approach [26]. This method provides objective estimates of COVID-19’s impact on mortality that do not rely on test availability, clinical decisions, and reporting processes that can lead to under—and over–counting. The ratio of estimated to reported COVID-19 deaths ranged from 121% (Northeast in period 4) to 54% in the West and 56% in the South in the same period. An analysis of reported COVID-19 deaths, therefore would have shown both fewer avoidable deaths and regional disparities. The presence of reporting delays, which can be greater in some areas than others, means that excess mortality estimates and differentials are not reliable for a period of weeks, so excess mortality estimates are limited as real-time surveillance tools. And the reliability of these methods will decline as we go further beyond the base period. However, over the period studied, they can be quite informative.

Although the causes are not fully understood, COVID-19 clearly has played out differently across the country over the nearly two years since it emerged. The analysis therefore illustrates how the importance of going beyond cumulative case counts for the U.S. as a whole that dominates the news cycle. Beyond the regional differences that are the focus of this paper, there are substantial differences between rural and urban areas with states and among socio-demographic groups. Because they are less sensitive to differences in reporting patterns than case counts, excess mortality methods can be especially useful in understanding these patterns [27].

Data Availability

The data underlying the results presented in the study are available from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention at https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.htm.

Funding Statement

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

References

Decision Letter 0

Wenping Gong

8 Mar 2022

PONE-D-22-05243COVID-19 mortality in the United States: It's been two Americas from the startPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Stoto,

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.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 22 2022 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,

Wenping Gong, 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. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ

3. Please remove your figures from within your manuscript file, leaving only the individual TIFF/EPS image files, uploaded separately.  These will be automatically included in the reviewers’ PDF.

Additional Editor Comments:

1. Please present this manuscript as a brief report rather than full article

2. A detaied discription on the section of methods is needed.

3. Please carefully revise the manuscript following the reviewer's comments.

[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: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

**********

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

**********

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

**********

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: The authors are to be congratulated for an insightful analysis highlighting marked differences in excess mortality by state. The manuscript is well-written and, although, is short of novelty it does has value in that it re-iterates the need to consider disaggregated data on excess mortality. There are several aspects of the manuscript in its current format that might benefit from further revisions.

1. There are statements in the Introduction that require referencing, to add substance to inferences (e.g., last sentence).

2. While not a major issue, this Reviewer fails to see the relevance of political context (voting behaviour) for Covid-related excess mortality.

3. Might help unfamiliar readers to have more context as to the rationale for regional differences in excess mortality within the US.

4. In this Reviewer opinion, the Methods section should detail the analytical approach to enable replication of study findings. At a minimum, definition of excess mortality and how differences by region were compared. How did authors adjusted for different region sizes and variation in length of follow-up?

5. Figure are unclear and should include a legend - these should be self-explanatory.

6. The research value of the work could be enhanced by discussing potential reasons for variation in excess mortality across the different regions.

**********

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: 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.

PLoS One. 2022 Apr 28;17(4):e0265053. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0265053.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0

13 Mar 2022

Thank you for the comments we received, and the opportunity to revise and re-submit the paper. Please see our detailed responses below.

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

We have revised the manuscript to meet the journal’s style requirements

2. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ

Done

3. Please remove your figures from within your manuscript file, leaving only the individual TIFF/EPS image files, uploaded separately. These will be automatically included in the reviewers’ PDF.

Done

Additional Editor Comments:

1. Please present this manuscript as a brief report rather than full article

The editorial submission system does not give me this option.

2. A detailed description on the section of methods is needed.

The methods section has been expanded as suggested by the Reviewer.

3. Please carefully revise the manuscript following the reviewer's comments.

Please see our responses to the specific comments below.

Review Comments to the Author (Reviewer #1)

The authors are to be congratulated for an insightful analysis highlighting marked differences in excess mortality by state. The manuscript is well-written and, although, is short of novelty it does has value in that it re-iterates the need to consider disaggregated data on excess mortality. There are several aspects of the manuscript in its current format that might benefit from further revisions.

Thank you for these comments. The novelty in this research, we believe, is that it illustrates that regional differences in COVID-19 excess mortality started to mirror deep political differences in the United States long before they became apparent in the uptake of pandemic vaccines. Please see our detailed responses below.

Please note that we have also made a number of minor edits, mainly updating references, to reflect new publications and a different situation since we originally submitted this manuscript.

1. There are statements in the Introduction that require referencing, to add substance to inferences (e.g., last sentence).

We have added six references to the Introduction, especially the last sentence.

2. While not a major issue, this Reviewer fails to see the relevance of political context (voting behaviour) for Covid-related excess mortality.

As noted above, an important contribution of this research is to illustrate that regional differences in COVID-19 excess mortality started to mirror deep political differences in the United States long before they became apparent in the uptake of pandemic vaccines. In trying to maintain the objectivity that is expected in a scientific journal we may have underplayed these issues, so bearing in mind that non-American readers need more information to interpret this, we have added some text to clarify this point.

3. Might help unfamiliar readers to have more context as to the rationale for regional differences in excess mortality within the US.

Consistent with our response to comment #2, regional differences in the U.S. are driven in large part by political differences, so we have added text on this too.

4. In this Reviewer opinion, the Methods section should detail the analytical approach to enable replication of study findings. At a minimum, definition of excess mortality and how differences by region were compared. How did authors adjusted for different region sizes and variation in length of follow-up?

We have added text to the Methods section on the definition of excess mortality and how it is calculated, how we took into account different region sizes and time periods, and calculated “avoidable mortality.”

5. Figure are unclear and should include a legend - these should be self-explanatory.

We have expanded the legends of the figures to make them more self-explanatory.

6. The research value of the work could be enhanced by discussing potential reasons for variation in excess mortality across the different regions.

As noted above, we believe that the regional differences are driven by political differences, and have added text to make this point.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Two Americas response to review 3-13-22.docx

Click here for additional data file. (16.4KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Wenping Gong

8 Apr 2022

COVID-19 mortality in the United States: It's been two Americas from the start

PONE-D-22-05243R1

Dear Dr. Michael A Stoto,

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,

Wenping Gong, 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

Reviewer #2: 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

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: 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

Reviewer #2: 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

Reviewer #2: 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 further comments. The authors have satisfactorily addressed my initial comments. Congratulations on an interesting analysis.

Reviewer #2: The authors analyzed excess mortality of COVID-19 in the United States from January 3, 2020 to September 26, 2021. The study is performed well, and the results are straightforward.

**********

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: No

Reviewer #2: No

Acceptance letter

Wenping Gong

19 Apr 2022

PONE-D-22-05243R1

COVID-19 mortality in the United States: It's been two Americas from the start

Dear Dr. Stoto:

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. Wenping Gong

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Two Americas response to review 3-13-22.docx

    Click here for additional data file. (16.4KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    The data underlying the results presented in the study are available from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention at https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.htm.

    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES