Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39058508›Full record

ArticleJAMA health forum2024

US State Restrictions and Excess COVID-19 Pandemic Deaths.

Christopher J Ruhm

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA health forum, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. California mortality and the Healthy Places Index.American journal of epidemiology · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Christopher J RuhmFrank Batten School of Leadership and Public Policy, University of Virginia, Charlottesville.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Despite considerable prior research, it remains unclear whether and by how much state COVID-19-related restrictions affected the number of pandemic deaths in the US. Objective: To determine how state restrictions were associated with excess COVID-19 deaths over a 2-year analysis period. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a cross-sectional study using state-level mortality and population data from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for 2020 to 2022 compared with baseline data for 2017 to 2019. Data included the total US population, with separate estimates for younger than 45 years, 45 to 64 years, 65 to 84 years, and 85 years or older used to construct age-standardized measures. Age-standardized excess mortality rates and ratios for July 2020 to June 2022 were calculated and compared with prepandemic baseline rates. Excess death rates and ratios were then regressed on single or multiple restrictions, while controlling for excess death rates or ratios, from March 2020 to June 2020. Estimated values of the dependent variables were calculated for packages of weak vs strong state restrictions. Behavioral changes were investigated as a potential mechanism for the overall effects. Data analyses were performed from October 1, 2023, to June 13, 2024. Exposures: Age and cause of death. Main Outcomes: Excess deaths, age-standardized excess death rates per 100 000, and excess death ratios. Results: Mask requirements and vaccine mandates were negatively associated with excess deaths, prohibitions on vaccine or mask mandates were positively associated with death rates, and activity limitations were mostly not associated with death rates. If all states had imposed restrictions similar to those used in the 10 most restrictive states, excess deaths would have been an estimated 10% to 21% lower than the 1.18 million that actually occurred during the 2-year analysis period; conversely, the estimates suggest counterfactual increases of 13% to 17% if all states had restrictions similar to those in the 10 least-restrictive states. The estimated strong vs weak state restriction difference was 271 000 to 447 000 deaths, with behavior changes associated with 49% to 79% of the overall disparity. Conclusions and Relevance: This cross-sectional study indicates that stringent COVID-19 restrictions, as a group, were associated with substantial decreases in pandemic mortality, with behavior changes plausibly serving as an important explanatory mechanism. These findings do not support the views that COVID-19 restrictions were ineffective. However, not all restrictions were equally effective; some, such as school closings, likely provided minimal benefit while imposing substantial cost.

Indexed as

COVID-19AdultAgedAged, 80 and overCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPandemicsSARS-CoV-2United States

Identifiers

PMID39058508
PMCPMC11282449

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.