CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 159COVID-19 epidemiological studiesInsurance, Mortality, Demography, Risk ManagementCOVID-19 and healthcare impacts

Estimating the burden of the COVID-19 pandemic on mortality, life expectancy and lifespan inequality in England and Wales: a population-level analysis

Open access
Aburto, Jose Manuel, Kashyap, Ridhi, Schöley, Jonas, Angus, Colin, Ermisch, John, Mills, Melinda C, Dowd, Jennifer Beam·2021·Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health
DOI 10.1136/jech-2020-215505PMC PMC7818788

Published version of a preprint

Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Background: Deaths directly linked to COVID-19 infection may be misclassified, and the pandemic may have indirectly affected other causes of death. To overcome these measurement challenges, we estimate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on mortality, life expectancy and lifespan inequality from week 10 of 2020, when the first COVID-19 death was registered, to week 47 ending 20 November 2020 in England and Wales through an analysis of excess mortality. Methods: We estimated age and sex-specific excess mortality risk and deaths above a baseline adjusted for seasonality with a systematic comparison of four different models using data from the Office for National Statistics. We additionally provide estimates of life expectancy at birth and lifespan inequality defined as the SD in age at death. Results: There have been 57 419 (95% prediction interval: 54 197, 60 752) excess deaths in the first 47 weeks of 2020, 55% of which occurred in men. Excess deaths increased sharply with age and men experienced elevated risks of death in all age groups. Life expectancy at birth dropped 0.9 and 1.2 years for women and men relative to the 2019 levels, respectively. Lifespan inequality also fell over the same period by 5 months for both sexes. Conclusion: Quantifying excess deaths and their impact on life expectancy at birth provide a more comprehensive picture of the burden of COVID-19 on mortality. Whether mortality will return to—or even fall below—the baseline level remains to be seen as the pandemic continues to unfold and diverse interventions are put in place.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

Using ONS weekly death registrations for England and Wales, the study estimates 57,419 excess deaths from week 10 to week 47 of 2020 and finds life expectancy at birth fell 0.9 years for women and 1.2 years for men versus 2019. Lifespan inequality also declined by about 5 months for both sexes, a pattern the authors attribute to mortality being concentrated at older ages.

Key findings

  • There were 57,419 (95% prediction interval 54,197–60,752) excess deaths in weeks 10–47 of 2020, a 15.1% (14.2–16.2) increase above baseline; 55.4% (31,791) were male and 44.6% (25,629) female. Male deaths exceeded expectation by 16.8% (15.4–18.0) and female deaths by 13.6% (12.2–14.9).
  • Excess deaths rose sharply with age: none among those younger than 15; 652 (395–903) at ages 15–44; 7,859 (7,065–8,645) at 45–64; 9,835 (8,814–10,833) at 65–74; 18,591 (16,845–20,435) at 75–84; and 20,641 (18,271–22,916) at 85+.
  • Life expectancy at birth over the first 47 weeks of 2020 was 82.6 (82.5–82.6) years for women and 78.7 (78.6–78.7) for men, reductions of 0.9 and 1.2 years relative to 2019. Lifespan inequality fell to 13.1 (13.0–13.1) years for women and 14.2 (14.2–14.3) for men, a reduction of nearly 5 months for both sexes.
  • Cumulative excess deaths at the end of the first wave (week 26) were 53,937 (53,092–54,746), followed by no excess mortality over summer months and an uptick from October 2020 as a second wave emerged.

Methods

  • Data: Office for National Statistics all-cause weekly death counts by week and sex from 2010 to week 47 of 2020 for England and Wales, plus population estimates/projections; six age groups (0–14, 15–44, 45–64, 65–74, 75–84, 85+) were used for weekly modelling, and 5-year age intervals for life expectancy and lifespan inequality.
  • Excess mortality: baseline deaths were estimated with four models—negative binomial generalised additive model, Poisson generalised additive model, extended Serfling generalised Poisson model, and an average of 2015–2019 weekly death rates; main estimates use the negative binomial model based on out-of-sample predictive performance. Excess deaths are observed weekly deaths minus baseline, summed from week 10 to week 47, with 95% prediction intervals.
  • Demographic analysis: life expectancy and lifespan inequality (SD in age at death) by sex were estimated using standard demographic techniques; 2020 estimates use the first 47 weeks with a proportionally adjusted mid-year population.

Limitations

  • The paper states that estimates are based on deaths registered so far, so registration delays may mean excess deaths and life expectancy losses are underestimated; no correction factors were applied because the extent of registration-delay bias is not properly understood. It also states that estimates do not account for weeks 48–52 of 2020 and that it is too early to clarify mortality displacement.
  • The paper states that cause-of-death attribution is not disentangled: preliminary ONS cause analysis suggests some unexplained excess may be undiagnosed COVID-19, while indirect effects on other causes remain uncertain.
  • Evident from the text: baseline model choice affects magnitude, with four models producing central excess-death estimates between 49,056 and 57,419, though the pattern of results did not substantively change; the analysis uses aggregated data and covers only through week 47, limiting inference beyond that period.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/jech-2020-215505

Cites

40 of 40 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

0 of 24 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • Findingown data

    From week 10 to week 47 of 2020, there were 436,102 registered deaths in England and Wales.

    “From that week until the end of week 47 on 20 November 2020, there were 436 102 registered deaths, from which an estimated 57 419 (54 197, 60 752) are excess mortality above the expected baseline (see figure 1).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Female deaths in England and Wales exceeded the expected baseline by 13.6% (95% PI 12.2 to 14.9) from week 10 to week 47 of 2020.

    “Between 2 March and 20 November, male deaths exceeded the expectation by 16.8% (15.4, 18.0) and female death counts by 13.6% (12.2, 14.9).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: In the absence of the COVID-19 pandemic, weekly deaths in England and Wales from week 10 to week 47 of 2020 would have followed the mortality baseline estimated from pre-pandemic data by the fitted models.
  • Findingown data

    Refitting the seasonal baseline without including the first 9 weeks of 2020 did not have major effects on the excess death estimates.

    “First, we refitted the seasonal baseline without including the first 9 weeks of 2020. This adjustment did not have major effects on our estimates, and by taking the first 9 weeks into account, we aligned our predictions with the observed trend at the beginning of the year.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: In the absence of the COVID-19 pandemic, weekly deaths in England and Wales from week 10 to week 47 of 2020 would have followed the mortality baseline estimated from pre-pandemic data by the fitted models.
  • Findingown data

    Male life expectancy at birth in England and Wales increased from 77.1 years (95% PI 77.1 to 77.2) in 2005 to 79.9 years (95% PI 79.8 to 79.9) in 2019.

    “Similarly, male life expectancy increased from 77.1 (77.1, 77.2) to 79.9 (79.8, 79.9) years in the same period.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Estimated male life expectancy at birth in England and Wales over the first 47 weeks of 2020 was 78.7 years (95% PI 78.6 to 78.7).

    “Using data from the first 47 weeks of 2020 yields an estimated life expectancy at birth of 82.6 (82.5, 82.6) and 78.7 (78.6, 78.7) for women and men, respectively, a reduction of 0.9 years for women and 1.2 years for men.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims. 11
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 9
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 12

  • May combine two claims. The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingown data

    The 65-74-year-old age group accounted for 9,835 excess deaths (95% PI 8,814 to 10,833), 16.0% (95% PI 14.1 to 17.9) above the baseline, in England and Wales from week 10 to week 47 of 2020.

    “The toll of the pandemic resulted in 7859 (7065, 8645) and 9835 (8814, 10 833) excess deaths among people between 45–64 and 64–74 years of age, respectively. These numbers are 17.6% (15.6, 19.7) and 16.0% (14.1, 17.9) above the baseline.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: In the absence of the COVID-19 pandemic, weekly deaths in England and Wales from week 10 to week 47 of 2020 would have followed the mortality baseline estimated from pre-pandemic data by the fitted models.

  • The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingown data

    The four models produced central estimates of excess deaths in England and Wales from week 10 to week 47 of 2020 between 49,056 and 57,419, depending on the model and its assumptions.

    “Our four models produce central estimates of the number of excess deaths between 49 056 and 57 419 depending on the choice of the model and its assumptions, but do not substantively affect the pattern of our results.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: In the absence of the COVID-19 pandemic, weekly deaths in England and Wales from week 10 to week 47 of 2020 would have followed the mortality baseline estimated from pre-pandemic data by the fitted models.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The 85+ age group accounted for 20,641 excess deaths (95% PI 18,271 to 22,916), 13.7% (95% PI 11.9 to 15.4) above the baseline, in England and Wales from week 10 to week 47 of 2020.

    “The largest numbers of lives lost were estimated among the groups 75–85 and 85 and older, with 17.2% (15.3, 19.2) and 13.7% (11.9, 15.4) more deaths than expected. Among the former, 18 591 (16 845, 20 435), excess deaths were estimated, while among the oldest age group, there were 20 641 (18 271, 22 916) deaths above the baseline.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: In the absence of the COVID-19 pandemic, weekly deaths in England and Wales from week 10 to week 47 of 2020 would have followed the mortality baseline estimated from pre-pandemic data by the fitted models.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    Excess deaths derived from baselines estimated from generalised additive models and generalised linear models indicated a higher magnitude of excess deaths than those using average mortality rates from the preceding 5 years as the baseline.

    “We note that excess deaths derived from the baselines estimated from both the generalised additive models and generalised linear models indicated a higher magnitude of excess deaths than those using average mortality rates from the preceding 5 years as the baseline.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: In the absence of the COVID-19 pandemic, weekly deaths in England and Wales from week 10 to week 47 of 2020 would have followed the mortality baseline estimated from pre-pandemic data by the fitted models.

  • The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingown data

    Excess deaths increased sharply with age in England and Wales from week 10 to week 47 of 2020.

    “Excess deaths increased sharply with age and men experienced elevated risks of death in all age groups.”
    • Also stated in: § Estimates of excess deaths · plain
      “For older age groups, excess deaths rose sharply (see figure 2).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: In the absence of the COVID-19 pandemic, weekly deaths in England and Wales from week 10 to week 47 of 2020 would have followed the mortality baseline estimated from pre-pandemic data by the fitted models.

  • The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingown data

    The 45-64-year-old age group accounted for 7,859 excess deaths (95% PI 7,065 to 8,645), 17.6% (95% PI 15.6 to 19.7) above the baseline, in England and Wales from week 10 to week 47 of 2020.

    “The toll of the pandemic resulted in 7859 (7065, 8645) and 9835 (8814, 10 833) excess deaths among people between 45–64 and 64–74 years of age, respectively. These numbers are 17.6% (15.6, 19.7) and 16.0% (14.1, 17.9) above the baseline.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: In the absence of the COVID-19 pandemic, weekly deaths in England and Wales from week 10 to week 47 of 2020 would have followed the mortality baseline estimated from pre-pandemic data by the fitted models.

  • The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingown data

    There were no excess deaths among people younger than 15 years in England and Wales from week 10 to week 47 of 2020.

    “Disaggregating by age, we estimate no excess deaths among those younger than 15 years.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: In the absence of the COVID-19 pandemic, weekly deaths in England and Wales from week 10 to week 47 of 2020 would have followed the mortality baseline estimated from pre-pandemic data by the fitted models.

  • The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingown data

    The 15-44-year-old age group accounted for 652 excess deaths (95% PI 395 to 903), 6.2% (95% PI 3.6 to 8.7) above the expected level, in England and Wales from week 10 to week 47 of 2020.

    “The 15–44-year-old age group accounted for 652 (395, 903) excess deaths (6.2% (3.6, 8.7) above the expected level).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: In the absence of the COVID-19 pandemic, weekly deaths in England and Wales from week 10 to week 47 of 2020 would have followed the mortality baseline estimated from pre-pandemic data by the fitted models.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    The study's estimates for life expectancy in 2020 fall 0.7 years below the official projected life expectancy for women and 1.1 years below for men in England and Wales.

    “Moreover, our estimates for life expectancy fall 0.7 and 1.1 years below the official projected life expectancy in 2020 for women and men,36 respectively.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [36] ONS . Life tables, principal projection, England and Wales - Office for National Statistics. Available: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/lifeexpectancies/datasets/lifetablesprincipalprojectionenglandandwales [Accessed 14 Jul 2020].

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims. The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingown data

    The 75-84-year-old age group accounted for 18,591 excess deaths (95% PI 16,845 to 20,435), 17.2% (95% PI 15.3 to 19.2) above the baseline, in England and Wales from week 10 to week 47 of 2020.

    “The largest numbers of lives lost were estimated among the groups 75–85 and 85 and older, with 17.2% (15.3, 19.2) and 13.7% (11.9, 15.4) more deaths than expected. Among the former, 18 591 (16 845, 20 435), excess deaths were estimated, while among the oldest age group, there were 20 641 (18 271, 22 916) deaths above the baseline.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: In the absence of the COVID-19 pandemic, weekly deaths in England and Wales from week 10 to week 47 of 2020 would have followed the mortality baseline estimated from pre-pandemic data by the fitted models.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    Estimating life expectancy using a piecewise constant hazard model did not change the results.

    “In addition, we also estimated life expectancy using a piecewise constant hazard model and the results did not change.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingown data

    Death rates during the pandemic were consistently higher among men in all age groups compared with women in England and Wales from week 10 to week 47 of 2020.

    “Death rates during the pandemic were consistently higher among men in all groups compared with women (see online supplemental figure 3).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: In the absence of the COVID-19 pandemic, weekly deaths in England and Wales from week 10 to week 47 of 2020 would have followed the mortality baseline estimated from pre-pandemic data by the fitted models.

  • The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingreasoning

    Male deaths were estimated to exceed female deaths in all age groups except those above age 85 in England and Wales from week 10 to week 47 of 2020.

    “Excess deaths increased sharply over age and male deaths were estimated to exceed women in all age groups, with the exception of those above age 85.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: In the absence of the COVID-19 pandemic, weekly deaths in England and Wales from week 10 to week 47 of 2020 would have followed the mortality baseline estimated from pre-pandemic data by the fitted models.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationreasoning

    The larger number of female excess deaths in the 85+ age group is due to there being 1.6 times more women in this age group compared with men.

    “Note the larger number of female excess deaths in the 85+ age group is due to there being 1.6 times more women in this age group compared with men.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data

    The study performed several sensitivity analyses.

    “We performed several sensitivity analyses.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The study's estimates do not account for excess mortality that occurred during weeks 48-52 of 2020, which are likely to further reduce life expectancy estimates for the full year.

    “Our estimates also do not account for excess mortality that occurred during weeks 48-52 of 2020, which are likely to further reduce life expectancy estimates for the full year.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Life expectancy in England and Wales had been steadily improving for 50 years before stagnating in the past decade.

    “Life expectancy in England and Wales had been steadily improving for 50 years before stagnating in the past decade.34 35”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [34] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [35] JY H , Hendi AS . Recent trends in life expectancy across high income countries: retrospective observational study. BMJ 2018;362.

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Trends over the 20th century from high-income countries, including England and Wales, show that as life expectancy and the modal age at death have increased, lifespan inequality has tended to decrease.

    “Trends over the 20th century from high-income countries, including England and Wales, show that as life expectancy and the modal age at death have increased, lifespan inequality has tended to decrease.16”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [16] source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Based on preliminary cause of death analysis by ONS, deaths from Alzheimer disease and dementia, ischaemic heart disease, cerebrovascular diseases, influenza and pneumonia and 'symptoms signs and ill-defined conditions' were all higher between March and May 2020 in England and Wales.

    “Based on preliminary cause of death analysis of other (non-COVID) causes by the ONS, deaths occurring from Alzheimer disease and dementia, ischaemic heart disease, cerebrovascular diseases, influenza and pneumonia and ‘symptoms signs and ill-defined conditions’ category were all higher between March and May 2020.22”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [22] ONS . Analysis of death registrations not involving coronavirus (COVID-19), England and Wales - Office for National Statistics. Available: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/articles/analysisofdeathregistrationsnotinvolvingcoronaviruscovid19englandandwales28december2019to1may2020/technicalannex [Accessed 14 Jul 2020].

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Insufficient testing capacity for SARS-CoV-2, misclassification of causes of death, and definitional inconsistencies in counting COVID-19 deaths make the true toll of COVID-19 infections hard to estimate.

    “Insufficient testing capacity for SARS-CoV-2, the causative pathogen of coronavirus disease, especially during the early phases of the pandemic, misclassification of causes of death and definitional inconsistencies in counting COVID-19 deaths across different sources make the true toll of COVID-19 infections hard to estimate.2 3”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [2] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [3] ONS . The different uses of figures on deaths related to COVID-19 published by DHSC and the ONS - Office for National Statistics. Available: https://www.ons.gov.uk/news/statementsandletters/thedifferentusesoffiguresondeathsfromcovid19publishedbydhscandtheons [Accessed 3 Dec 2020].

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    The toll of the pandemic had unequal impacts by age and sex in Europe and other regions.

    “The toll of the pandemic had unequal impacts by age and sex in Europe and other regions.31–33”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [31] Dowd, Demographic science AIDS in understanding the spread and fatality rates of COVID-19, Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [32] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [33] Kashnitsky, 2020, COVID-19 in unequally ageing European regions, World Dev source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Between March and May 2020, 81.1% of all deaths and 86.5% of deaths involving COVID-19 were registered within 1 week of occurrence in England and Wales.

    “Between March and May 2020, 81.1% of all deaths and 86.5% of deaths involving COVID-19 were registered within 1 week of occurrence.21”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [21] ONS . Deaths involving COVID-19, England and Wales - Office for National Statistics. Available: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/bulletins/deathsinvolvingcovid19englandandwales/deathsoccurringinmay2020#time-taken-for-the-deaths-in-march-april-and-may-to-be-registered [Accessed 14 Jul 2020].

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    According to ONS, between 1 March and 30 June 2020, there were 50,335 deaths involving COVID-19 in England and Wales, 46,736 (93%) of which assigned COVID-19 as the underlying cause of death.

    “According to the ONS, between 1 March and 30 June 2020, there were 50 335 deaths involving COVID-19, 46 736 (93%) of which assigned COVID-19 as the underlying cause of death based on information noted on the death certificate.21”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [21] ONS . Deaths involving COVID-19, England and Wales - Office for National Statistics. Available: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/bulletins/deathsinvolvingcovid19englandandwales/deathsoccurringinmay2020#time-taken-for-the-deaths-in-march-april-and-may-to-be-registered [Accessed 14 Jul 2020].

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Excess all-cause mortality has been widely used to quantify the mortality toll of previous epidemics such as influenza and HIV.

    “This approach for estimating excess all-cause mortality has been widely used to quantify the mortality toll of previous epidemics such as influenza6 or HIV7 and has also begun to be applied for COVID-19.1 8”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [6] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [7] source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Simply counting total excess deaths does not provide an understanding of the substantial variation by age and sex over time in elevated mortality risks, nor does it allow for a comparison of current mortality conditions with past conditions due to changes in population age structure.

    “While this metric provides an important measure of the burden of the pandemic on a society, simply counting total excess deaths does not provide an understanding of the substantial variation by age and sex over time in elevated mortality risks.10 11 nor does it allow for a comparison of current mortality conditions with past conditions due to changes in population age structure over the period.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [10] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [11] source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Historically, life expectancy increases have been accompanied by reductions in lifespan inequality due to mortality improvements at younger ages.

    “Historically, life expectancy increases have been accompanied by reductions in lifespan inequality due to mortality improvements at younger ages, although more recent studies have found that life expectancy improvements can occur even without accompanying reductions in lifespan inequality.13”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [13] source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Recent evidence suggests that reversals and stagnation in life expectancy among developed countries are usually a result of mid-life mortality crises.

    “Recent evidence suggests that reversals and stagnation in life expectancy among developed countries are usually a result of mid-life mortality crises.35”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [35] JY H , Hendi AS . Recent trends in life expectancy across high income countries: retrospective observational study. BMJ 2018;362.

      Not checked in the free run.

27 of 27

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Vital registration in England and Wales has complete population coverage.

    “The population coverage of vital registration in England and Wales is complete.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    In the absence of the COVID-19 pandemic, weekly deaths in England and Wales from week 10 to week 47 of 2020 would have followed the mortality baseline estimated from pre-pandemic data by the fitted models.

    “We estimated the baseline number of deaths in the absence of COVID-19 by fitting four different models.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Based on trends from past years, 92% of deaths in England and Wales are registered within 1 month of occurrence.

    “Based on trends from past years, 92% of deaths are registered within 1 month of occurrence.”
3 of 3

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Week 47 ending date conflicts with the stated week convention

    Minor

    Using the stated March 2-8 dates for week 10, week 47 runs from November 16-22, not to November 20. The paper appears to use different week-ending conventions.

  • Age-group labels conflict with the defined groups

    Minor

    The methods define the older age groups as 65-74 and 75-84, but the results call them 64-74 and 75-85. The results' labels also overlap their adjacent age groups.

  • Week 26 is given an inconsistent ending date

    Minor

    If week 10 runs from March 2-8, week 26 runs from June 22-28. June 29 is the start of week 27, not the end of week 26.

3 of 3

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

6 of the 46 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Aburto, J. M., Kashyap, R., Schöley, J., Angus, C., Ermisch, J., Mills, M. C., & Dowd, J. B.
Affiliations
  • Leverhulme Centre for Demographic Science, Department of Sociology and Nuffield College, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
  • University of Oxford (GB)
  • University of Southern Denmark (DK)
  • University of Sheffield (GB)
Corresponding author
Kashyap, Ridhi
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2021-01-19
Volume
75
Issue
8
Pages
735-740
ISSN
  • 0141-7681 (ISSN-L)
  • 0143-005X
  • 1470-2738
DOI
10.1136/jech-2020-215505
PMC
PMC7818788
OpenAlex
W3125353637
Semantic Scholar
d98ee91f8f166d87e8bdf8e20b864f13b4b11d74
Cited by
159
References
46
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 30 · 2022: 44 · 2021: 42 · 2020: 3
FWCI
13.12
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • medRxiv (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • University of Southern Denmark Research Portal (University of Southern Denmark) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • White Rose Research Online (University of Leeds, The University of Sheffield, University of York) (acceptedVersion)
  • LSHTM Research Online (London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine) (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • British Academy (NIFBA19190679)
  • H2020 European Research Council (835079)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Modeling and Simulation › COVID-19 epidemiological studies
  • Social Sciences › Demography › Insurance, Mortality, Demography, Risk Management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › COVID-19 and healthcare impacts
Keywords
COVID-19 pandemic, excess mortality, life expectancy, lifespan inequality, age-specific mortality risk, sex differences in mortality, England and Wales
MeSH terms
COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, Adolescent, Cause of Death, Child, Child, Preschool, England, Female, Humans, Infant, Infant, Newborn, Life Expectancy, Longevity, Male, Mortality, Wales, Cost of Illness, Pandemics

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-09.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-09.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review