The relative impact of vaccination momentum on COVID-19 rates of death in the USA in 2020/2021. The forgotten role of population wellness

  1. Victor Keddis

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

It is widely accepted that individual underlying health conditions contribute to morbidity and mortality associated with COVID-19; and by inference population wellness will also contribute to COVID-19 outcomes. In addition, over the last two years the predominant pharmaceutical public health response to COVID-19 has been vaccination momentum (i.e. mass and rapid inoculation campaigns).

This paper aims to compare vaccination momentum throughout 2021 and measures of population wellness to estimate the relative impact of each on deaths attributed to COVID-19 across the 50 States of America, plus Washington DC, during 2020 (i.e. the pre-vaccination period) and 2021 (i.e. the vaccination period).

Our analysis shows that: (a) COVID-19 rates of death in 2020 are more important, and statistically more significant, at predicting rates of death in 2021 than vaccination momentum during 2021; (b) vaccination momentum does not predict the magnitude of change in COVID-19 rates of death between 2020 and 2021; and (c) for several underlying heath and risk factors vaccination momentum is significantly less important than population wellness at predicting COVID-19 rates of death.

Of particular interest are our observations that exercise and fruit consumption are 10.1 times more significant at predicting COVID-19 deaths than vaccination momentum, obesity (BMI 30+) is 9.6 times more significant at predicting COVID-19 deaths than vaccination momentum, heart attacks are 4.37 times more significant at predicting COVID-19 deaths than vaccination momentum and smoking is 3.2 times more significant at predicting COVID-19 deaths than vaccination momentum.

If medical and health regulators are to deliver a quantum decrease in COVID-19 deaths they must move beyond the overwhelming focus on COVID-19 vaccination. They must have the courage to urge governments and private organisations to mandate greater exercise, weight loss, less junk food, and better nutrition. And a concerted effort at reducing chronic adverse health conditions.

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2022.03.01.22271721: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    Ethicsnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.

    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.

  2. Version published to 10.1101/2022.03.01.22271721 on medRxiv