United States had 1.5 million excess deaths following COVID-19 pandemic
Excess deaths in the United States have continued to mount following the COVID-19 pandemic. Photo by Adobe Stock/HealthDay News
Excess deaths in the United States have continued to mount following the COVID-19 pandemic, leading to an early demise for hundreds of thousands, a new study says.
More than 1.5 million "missing Americans" died in 2022 and 2023, deaths that would have been averted if U.S. death rates matched those of other wealthy nations, researchers reported Friday in JAMA Health Forum.
In fact, nearly 1 of every 2 deaths among people younger than 65 (46%) in 2023 would not have occurred if U.S. death rates mirrored those of peer nations, researchers found.
"The U.S. has been in a protracted health crisis for decades, with health outcomes far worse than other high-income countries," lead researcher Jacob Bor, an associate professor of global health and epidemiology at the Boston University School of Public Health, said in a news release.
"Imagine the lives saved, the grief and trauma averted, if the U.S. simply performed at the average of our peers," Bor added. "One out of every 2 U.S. deaths under 65 years is likely avoidable. Our failure to address this is a national scandal."
For the study, researchers tracked death record data from the United States and 21 other high-income nations from 1980 to 2023, including more than 107 million U.S. deaths and 230 million deaths among the peer nations.
The other wealthy nations included Australia, Canada, France, Japan and Britain, researchers said.
Overall, the United States had nearly 15 million excess deaths during the four decades in question, when stacking its death rate against that of other wealthy countries, results show.
In 1980, the United States actually outperformed other nations, with 42,000 fewer deaths than might be expected compared to the death rates of peer nations.
But in 1990, the United States had more than 89,000 excess deaths, leaping to nearly 355,000 in 2000 and 409,000 in 2010, results show.
Excess deaths peaked in the United States during the COVID-19 pandemic, with more than 1 million dead in 2020 and nearly 1.1 million in 2021, researchers said.
But excess deaths remained high even after scientists conquered COVID, with more than 820,000 in 2022 and 705,000 in 2023, the study says.
"The 700,000 excess American deaths in 2023 is exactly what you'd predict based on prior rising trends, even if there had never been a pandemic," said researcher Elizabeth Wrigley-Field, an associate professor of sociology at the University of Minnesota.
"These deaths are driven by long-running crises in drug overdose, gun violence, car collisions, and preventable cardiometabolic deaths," she added in a news release.
In 2023, needless excess deaths accounted for nearly 23% of all deaths in America, researchers report.
These excess deaths show how the policies of other peer nations better protect the health of their citizens, senior researcher Andrew Stokes said in a news release.
"Other countries show that investing in universal healthcare, strong safety nets, and evidence-based public health policies leads to longer, healthier lives," said Stokes, an associate professor of global health and epidemiology at the Boston University School of Public Health.
"Unfortunately, the U.S. faces unique challenges; public distrust of government and growing political polarization have made it harder to implement policies that have proven successful elsewhere," he added.
The executive actions and policies enacted under the second Trump administration threaten to drive excess deaths even higher, Bor said.
For example, the U.S. House of Representatives' approved version of legislation containing President Donald Trump's second-term agenda includes potential cuts to Medicare and Medicaid that would make excess deaths even more likely.
"Deep cuts to public health, scientific research, safety net programs, environmental regulations, and federal health data could lead to a further widening of health disparities between the US and other wealthy nations, and growing numbers of excess -- and utterly preventable -- deaths to Americans," Bor said.
More information
KFF has more on U.S. life expectancy compared to other nations.
Copyright © 2025 HealthDay. All rights reserved.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
28 minutes ago
- Forbes
Immigration Research Shows Stephen Miller Wrong About American Science
White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller attends a press briefing at the White House on ... More February 20, 2025. Miller, the chief architect of the Trump administration's immigration policy, argues that American scientific achievement owes little to immigrants. A significant body of research disputes that contention. (Photo by) Stephen Miller, the chief architect of the Trump administration's immigration policy, said recently that American scientific achievement owes little to immigrants. A significant body of research disputes that contention. Miller's argument and a statement by Vice President JD Vance about the Apollo Program seem designed to justify the administration's restrictions on international students and high-skilled immigrants. On May 31, 2025, in a statement on White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller wrote, 'During the middle of the 20th century—when the U.S. achieved unquestioned global scientific dominance—there was net zero migration. From the 20's to the 70's the foreign-born population was cut almost by half while the overall population doubled. (Until Hart-Celler kicked in).' Contrary to the implication of Miller's statement, American science owes a great deal to immigrants in the post-war period. Between 1945 and 1974, 16 of the 30 U.S. winners of the Nobel Prize in physics were immigrants, according to a National Foundation for American Policy analysis. In 1954, the Atomic Energy Act established an award recognizing scientific achievements in atomic energy. Italian-born Enrico Fermi won the first award. Five of the first eight winners of what became the Enrico Fermi Award (named after his death) were immigrants. Four of the nuclear scientists who came to the United States from Europe in the 1930s later received a Nobel Prize for physics: Felix Bloch, born in Switzerland, won it in 1952, Emilio Segre (Italy) in 1959, and Maria Mayer (Poland) and Eugene Wigner (Hungary) won the award in 1963. Despite the immigration restrictions imposed by Congress in 1921 and 1924, U.S. universities and others found ways around some of the quotas as fascist governments drove many brilliant individuals out of Europe. Immigrants Albert Einstein and Leo Szilard signed a letter used by Russian-born economist Alexander Sachs to convince President Franklin Delano Roosevelt to start the Manhattan Project. Breakthroughs by Niels Bohr, born in Denmark, and Enrico Fermi were crucial in developing the atomic bomb. In the end, immigrant and U.S.-born scientists working together turned theory into reality in the race to build the bomb before Nazi Germany. Between 1945 and 1974, 15 of the 36 U.S. Nobel Prizes in medicine, or 42%, were awarded to immigrants. That tells only part of the story. Albert Sabin, an immigrant from Poland, and Jonas Salk, the son of an immigrant, developed the vaccines that ended polio as a threat to Americans. Both men were in America due to family immigration. 'Without Sabin and Salk, American children would continue to be paralyzed for life by polio,' Michel Zaffran, director of polio eradication at the World Health Organization, said in an interview. 'Their contribution is quite simply immeasurable.' Immigrants have been awarded 40% of the Nobel Prizes won by Americans in chemistry, medicine and physics since 2000, according to an NFAP analysis (updated through the 2024 awards). Enrico Fermi in His Laboratory (Photo by © CORBIS/Corbis via Getty Images) The 1924 Immigration Act, which reduced the flow of immigrants by approximately 90% and blocked Jews, Eastern Europeans and Asians, proved disastrous economically for America. According to research by New York University economists Petra Moser and Shmuel San, the restrictive immigration quotas of the 1920s significantly reduced invention in the United States. 'After the quotas, U.S. scientists produced 68% fewer additional patents in the pre-quota fields of ESE-born [Eastern and Southern European immigrant] scientists compared with the pre-quota fields of other U.S. scientists,' write Moser and San. 'Time-varying effects show a large decline in invention by U.S. scientists in the 1930s, which persisted into the 1960s.' Moser and San said the results show that U.S. scientists benefited from the presence of immigrant scientists but suffered after U.S. immigration restrictions blocked their entry. 'A firm-level analysis of changes in patenting reveals that firms which employed ESE-born [Eastern and Southern European immigrant] scientists in 1921 created 53% fewer inventions after the quotas,' according to Moster and San. 'A text analysis of U.S. patents indicates that invention also declined more broadly. After the quotas, 23% fewer U.S. patents describe inventions in ESE [Eastern and Southern European immigrant] fields compared with other fields.' UPENN Wharton economics professor Zeke Hernandez said one would expect similar consequences today should U.S. immigration policy block the entry of international students and foreign-born scientists and engineers. 'America's innovation machine would be decimated,' said Hernandez. 'Sixteen percent of inventors in the U.S. are foreign-born, but they account for 36% of all patents.' He points out immigrants are 80% more likely than the U.S.-born to start new businesses, and they are founders of over half of startups that achieve a $1 billion valuation. Over 70% of the full-time graduate students in key technical fields at U.S. universities are foreign-born. According to economist Zeke Hernandez, 'You don't have to have compassion for foreigners to know that getting rid of immigrants is bad for us.'
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
The most popular breakfast food for kids has gotten even unhealthier. Here's what to serve instead
Sign up for CNN's Eat, But Better: Mediterranean Style. Our eight-part guide shows you a delicious expert-backed eating lifestyle that will boost your health for life. We all know that breakfast is an important meal, and even more so for children. Abundant research has demonstrated the benefit of nutritious breakfasts on children's health, well-being and academic performance. Ready-to-eat cereals are the predominant breakfast choice among American children, according to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. But that may not be the best option for growing children and adolescents. In newly launched cereals between 2010 and 2023, there were significant increases in fat, sodium and sugar and decreases in protein and fiber content, according to a new research study in JAMA Network Open. I wanted to better understand the implications for parents who want to learn about healthier options for their children. To help guide us, I spoke with CNN wellness expert Dr. Leana Wen. Wen is an emergency physician and adjunct associate professor at George Washington University. She previously served as Baltimore's health commissioner and is the mother of two school-aged kids. CNN: How did these researchers study ready-to-eat cereals? Dr. Leana Wen: This study utilized a comprehensive database that tracks new product launches for food and beverages. Researchers examined cereal products that launched in the US market between 2010 and 2023 that were explicitly marketed to children ages 5 to 12 years old. During this period, about 1,200 children's ready-to-eat cereals were launched. Compared to 2010, total fat per serving increased 33.6%; sodium content increased by 32.1%; and sugar by 10.9%. On the other hand, both protein content and dietary fiber content decreased when comparing 2010 to 2023. Notably, the average amount of added sugar is so high that a single serving of children's cereal is more than 45% of the American Heart Association's total daily recommended limit for children, according to the authors. CNN: Were you surprised by these findings? Wen: Frankly, yes. In recent years, many studies have shown the importance of a healthy breakfast to children's well-being. Moreover, studies have demonstrated the problems associated with high levels of added sugar, sodium and fat content in food. Ultraprocessed foods laden with these additives have been associated with a myriad of negative health consequences, including obesity, diabetes, heart disease and premature death. What's upsetting to me is that many products that are ultraprocessed and contain high levels of unhealthy ingredients are being marketed as being 'healthy.' A 2024 study published in the journal Nutrients found that 60% of foods marketed to children ages 6 months to 36 months on 10 supermarkets' shelves failed to meet recommended nutritional guidelines from the World Health Organization for infant and toddler foods. Virtually none of these meet WHO's standards for advertising— instead they contained inaccurate health claims or failed to have clear labeling. All of this makes it hard for parents and families who want to choose healthier options for their children. CNN: What advice do you have for parents who want to feed their children healthier breakfasts? Wen: Parents should consider options outside of ready-made cereal. Some options for healthy breakfasts include steel-cut oats with honey and fresh fruit and whole-grain bread with peanut butter. Kids may also like eggs; no-sugar-added yogurt, which still has sugar in it; smoothies made with milk and fresh fruit; and homemade muffins. For parents looking for grab-and-go breakfasts, consider fresh fruit, nuts, hard-boiled eggs, muffins, smoothies and whole-grain bagels with low-fat cream cheese. CNN: What if parents want to serve cereal? What should they look for on the label? Wen: As a parent who has tried to find healthy cereals for my kids, I know myself that it is very hard to go through the cereal aisle and make sense of the packaging that claim the cereal is healthy. The best thing to do is to look at the label for each cereal you are considering. First, look for whole grains. Ideally, the label says that the cereal has 100% whole grain. Then, look at the sugar content. It's best to have added sugar of less than 9 grams per serving . According to the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 10 grams per serving would already be 20% of the entire amount of added sugar someone is recommended to consume a day, if they have a 2,000 calorie diet. Try to find cereals with no food dyes or low-calorie sweeteners. The Center for Science in the Public Interest has a list of relatively healthier cereals. From a policy perspective, last year, the US Food and Drug Administration proposed a front-of-package label that would make it easier for consumers to know how products compare with regard to their added sugar, salt and saturated fat content. I think these improved labels can help if they are implemented. US Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has made reducing ultraprocessed food a centerpiece of his 'Make America Healthy Again' agenda. Perhaps there will be policy solutions Kennedy will announce that can make it easier for families to opt for healthier choices. CNN: In the meantime, should parents avoid cereals and switch to other breakfast products? What do you do with your kids? Wen: I think the takeaway should be simply knowing that many cereals marketed to children are not the most nutritious choices. This doesn't mean children should never be served these cereals but try to serve them in moderation or as a treat. Since I became aware of just how laden with additives our favorite cereals were, I began to serve my kids these cereals only as a treat, opting usually for milk served with steel-cut oats or whole-grain toast and peanut butter. On days when they have cereal, I make sure to tell them it's a treat — just as I tell them it's a treat when they have cookies and cupcakes. And then I try to make sure that their other meals are healthy. CNN: Do you have other advice for families trying to make more nutritional choices? Wen: It's best to aim for meals with whole foods that are minimally processed, such as whole grains, fresh fruits, leafy green vegetables, legumes, fish and lean meat. Also keep in mind that what kids drink is just as important as what they eat. Stay away from sodas, juice drinks, energy drinks and other drinks with caffeine and high amounts of added sugar.
Newsweek
6 hours ago
- Newsweek
Moms Are Trying To Delay Daughters' First Period—Experts Say They're Right
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Puberty in American girls is starting earlier than ever—and some moms aren't waiting around to see what that means for their daughters. Rebecca Kinderman is just one who's doing everything in her power to try and delay her daughters'—aged 10 and 12—first periods. Her Instagram reel (@bec_kinderman) on the subject had received 1.6 million views and and over 57,000 likes across the platform at the time of writing. For the Gold Coast mom, this has meant overhauling everything from her family's diet to screen time. "I believe that if we can delay this part of 'growing up,' especially when their brains are not developed enough to be able to handle everything that they could be exposed to online, we are allowing our girls to stay young for longer," the 36-year-old told Newsweek. Indeed, data shows the average age for a girl's first period is now just 11.9 years, with 16 percent starting before age 11 in the United States. What is even more alarming about starting your period early is the increased risk of hormone-related cancers later in life. For instance, girls who start their period before age 12 have a 23 percent higher risk of developing breast cancer compared to those who start at 15. Additionally, early menarche has been linked to increased risks of endometrial and ovarian cancers. But it wasn't always like this. Elena Bridgers (@ a science writer who specializes in maternal wellness and mental health, explained in a recent reel on Instagram that girls in hunter-gatherer societies often started their periods as late as 17 and began proper ovulation around 19. "For millions of years, women's brains and bodies went through the emotional turmoil of adolescence before we actually hit reproductive puberty, but modern teens have to deal with painful periods, the risk of getting pregnant, and sometimes actually getting pregnant well before their brains and bodies are actually mature enough," Bridgers said in her now viral clip. This trend suggests an "evolutionary mismatch" adds Bridgers, with modern teens facing reproductive challenges before they are emotionally and physically mature. "Early onset of menarche is associated with higher risk of miscarriage, more menstrual cramping, more painful and irregular periods, higher risk of preterm delivery, reproductive cancers, anxiety and depression," Bridgers told Newsweek. "We are not sure whether early onset of menarche causes these things, or whether there is a third explanatory variable, like obesity, that causes both early onset of menarche and puts girls at higher risk for depression. But, on the whole, I think we can safely say that starting your period too early is not a good thing." Evidence suggests that some of the leading contributing factors to early menarche—the age at which a girl starts her period—are in fact environmental, including stress, psychological factors and diet-related. With this in mind, Kinderman is raising her daughters as holistically as possible. "We are very focused on raising our kids with as much of a holistic approach as we can," she said. "This includes no personal devices for any of them, and certainly no access to social media and the internet." The family eats mostly organic and removes pesticide residue from fruit and vegetables. Kinderman explained that there are no toxic chemicals in the house either. "We make our own perfumes using essential oils," she told Newsweek. "This age is really big for girls wanting to smell pretty and unfortunately perfumes are a cocktail of hormone-disrupting chemicals." Meanwhile mom of two daughters—7 and 4—Nicky Skinner has taken similar steps to delay her own daughters' first periods. On her Instagram page (@nourished_and_vibrant), Skinner, from New Zealand, raises awareness that girls are starting their periods earlier than ever. Her recent reel on the topic, which had clocked up 8 million views at the time of writing, provides a list of reasons why other moms may want to join her on her mission. But while delaying first menses is her goal, it's not about artificially manipulating natural development, she told Newsweek. "It's about creating an environment that doesn't bring the period on prematurely," she said. "It's about an awareness that girls are starting to ovulate earlier, knowing that comes with risk, so doing what I can to ensure the environmental factors I can control as a mother—knowing there's a lot I can't control—are not impacting my girls' health in a negative way." Indeed, the two moms are part of a growing group of parents rethinking early puberty and how modern life may influence when a girl has her first period. And the subject is gaining traction with with experts too. Lara Briden, a doctor of naturopathic medicine with almost 30 years of experience in women's health, notes that very early menarche—before age 8—is considered abnormal and warrants medical attention. "But even early menarche—before age 11—is not ideal," Briden told Newsweek. "From a health [and] biology perspective, early female puberty and menarche are also associated with a greater risk for insulin resistance, PCOS [polycystic ovary syndrome], and breast cancer later in life. "Importantly, the early menarche may not directly cause those long-term health risks. Rather, it may simply be another manifestation or complication of the metabolic dysfunction (high insulin) that drives all the downstream health risks." Briden, who is also the author of Period Repair Manual, said that the timing of female puberty is significantly influenced by food supply and environmental factors, leading to variations throughout human history. She said that during periods of scarcity, puberty tends to be delayed. Meanwhile in times of abundance, it generally occurs earlier—adding that male puberty is not as sensitive to food supply. "The modern trend toward earlier menarche is, in part, a biological response to more reliable nutrition, which is a good thing," Briden said. "But it has also coincided with an alarming rise in metabolic dysfunction (insulin resistance), which now affects people across all ages. It's not just that metabolic problems are increasing. They're also amplifying in severity, and that's happening across generations because of epigenetics." Young girls playing on rope swing in park with blue sky in background. Young girls playing on rope swing in park with blue sky in background. @bec_kinderman So, is it any wonder that moms doing everything they can to delay their daughters' first period to prevent the associated risks? Of course, Kinderman and Skinner acknowledge that, while moms can try their best to do everything they can to delay their daughters' first periods, there is no guarantee. "It's important to remember that genetics play a big part in this, too," Skinner said. "If mother got her period early, even if you do everything 'right,' the daughter may still menstruate earlier, too. There need be no shame or guilt around this." Bridgers said that genetic factors at play and even environmental factors can be very hard to control, and warns that setting a goal to delay a girl's menarche can cause shame and failure for both parents and girls, and may lead to unhealthy parenting practices. "I do think, however, that parents should do their best to make sure their children are eating a healthy diet and getting plenty of outdoor exercise," Bridgers said. "We know this will be good for them anyway." Bridgers advised limiting sugars and processed foods, ensuring they have plenty of time outside and away from screens and avoiding heavy use of personal care products with known endocrine disrupters. Briden said that, while something can be done, the goal shouldn't be to delay menarche. "It's not about restriction or micromanaging childhood, and certainly not about calorie restriction for kids," she said, adding that she doesn't believe Skinner or Kinderman are suggesting this. "Instead, it's about trying to create or restore a food environment that allows normal human female physiology to unfold." Both Kinderman and Skinner are also advocates of open conversation around periods with their daughters. Kinderman told Newsweek that she is always been open with her girls about their cycles and puberty. "My hopes are that, when it does happen, it will be a really positive experience for them," she said. "There won't be any fear or uncertainty. I've heard too many women share that they weren't prepared for it, mothers never talked about it or talked very little about it, and they got it young and felt scared. My hopes are that my girls feel excited for the day and will be celebrated when it happens."
