50 policies, 1 pandemic, 500,000 deaths: Associations between state-level COVID-19 testing recommendations, tests per capita , undercounted deaths, vaccination policies, and doses per capita in the United States

This article has been Reviewed by the following groups

Read the full article See related articles

Abstract

Background

State health departments have been responsible for prioritizing and allocating SARS-CoV-2 tests and vaccines. Testing and vaccination recommendations in the United States varied by state and over time, as did vaccine rollouts, COVID-19 cases, and estimates of excess mortality.

Methods

We compiled data about COVID-19 testing, cases, and deaths, and excess pneumonia + influenza + COVID-19 deaths to assess relationships between testing recommendations, per capita tests performed, epidemic intensity, and excess mortality during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States. We compiled further data about state-level SARS-CoV-2 vaccination policies and doses administered during the early months of the vaccine rollout.

Results

As of July 2020, 16 states recommended testing asymptomatic members of the general public. The rate of COVID-19 tests reported in each state correlated with more inclusive testing recommendations and with higher epidemic intensity. Higher per capita testing was associated with more complete reporting of COVID-19 deaths, which is a fundamental requirement for analyzing the pandemic. Testing per capita during the first three months was associated with vaccination per capita in the first three months of rollout. Per capita vaccine doses in each state were not associated with adherence to national guidelines.

Conclusions

Reported deaths due to COVID-19 likely represent an undercount of the true burden of the pandemic. States that struggled with testing rollout have also frequently struggled with vaccine rollout. Coordinated, consistent guidelines for COVID-19 testing and vaccine administration should be a high priority for state and national health systems.

Article activity feed

  1. SciScore for 10.1101/2020.09.04.20188326: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board Statementnot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.


    Results from OddPub: Thank you for sharing your code and data.


    Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:
    This study has certain limitations. Changes in completeness of death reporting could be influenced by other factors that might also vary over time, such as state-level guidelines for coding deaths as due to COVID-19. The viral testing criteria established by state health departments are sometimes superseded by local governments or private clinics.9 The testing data counts tests, not individuals, so people tested multiple times will be included multiple times.

    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.

    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.