Life expectancy changes since COVID-19

  1. Jonas Schöley
  2. José Manuel Aburto
  3. Ilya Kashnitsky
  4. Maxi S. Kniffka
  5. Luyin Zhang
  6. Hannaliis Jaadla
  7. Jennifer B. Dowd
  8. Ridhi Kashyap

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic triggered an unprecedented rise in mortality that translated into life expectancy losses around the world, with only a few exceptions. We estimate life expectancy changes in 29 countries since 2020 (including most of Europe, the United States and Chile), attribute them to mortality changes by age group and compare them with historic life expectancy shocks. Our results show divergence in mortality impacts of the pandemic in 2021. While countries in western Europe experienced bounce backs from life expectancy losses of 2020, eastern Europe and the United States witnessed sustained and substantial life expectancy deficits. Life expectancy deficits during fall/winter 2021 among people ages 60+ and <60 were negatively correlated with measures of vaccination uptake across countries ( r 60+  = −0.86; two-tailed P  < 0.001; 95% confidence interval, −0.94 to −0.69; r <60  = −0.74; two-tailed P  < 0.001; 95% confidence interval, −0.88 to −0.46). In contrast to 2020, the age profile of excess mortality in 2021 was younger, with those in under-80 age groups contributing more to life expectancy losses. However, even in 2021, registered COVID-19 deaths continued to account for most life expectancy losses.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1038/s41562-022-01450-3
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2022.02.23.22271380: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    NIH rigor criteria are not applicable to paper type.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    The analyses are fully reproducible with source code and data archived with Zenodo (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.6224984).
    Zenodo
    suggested: (ZENODO, RRID:SCR_004129)

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2022.02.23.22271380 on medRxiv