COVID-19 mortality in the United States: It’s been two Americas from the start

Michael A. Stoto; Samantha Schlageter; John D. Kraemer

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0265053

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionFebruary 21, 2022
8 Mar 2022 Decision Letter - Wenping Gong, Editor PONE-D-22-05243COVID-19 mortality in the United States: It's been two Americas from the startPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Stoto, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 22 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Wenping Gong, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ 3. Please remove your figures from within your manuscript file, leaving only the individual TIFF/EPS image files, uploaded separately. These will be automatically included in the reviewers’ PDF. Additional Editor Comments: 1. Please present this manuscript as a brief report rather than full article 2. A detaied discription on the section of methods is needed. 3. Please carefully revise the manuscript following the reviewer's comments. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Partly ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: I Don't Know ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: The authors are to be congratulated for an insightful analysis highlighting marked differences in excess mortality by state. The manuscript is well-written and, although, is short of novelty it does has value in that it re-iterates the need to consider disaggregated data on excess mortality. There are several aspects of the manuscript in its current format that might benefit from further revisions. 1. There are statements in the Introduction that require referencing, to add substance to inferences (e.g., last sentence). 2. While not a major issue, this Reviewer fails to see the relevance of political context (voting behaviour) for Covid-related excess mortality. 3. Might help unfamiliar readers to have more context as to the rationale for regional differences in excess mortality within the US. 4. In this Reviewer opinion, the Methods section should detail the analytical approach to enable replication of study findings. At a minimum, definition of excess mortality and how differences by region were compared. How did authors adjusted for different region sizes and variation in length of follow-up? 5. Figure are unclear and should include a legend - these should be self-explanatory. 6. The research value of the work could be enhanced by discussing potential reasons for variation in excess mortality across the different regions. ****** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review?** For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0265053.r001
Revision 1
13 Mar 2022 Author Response Thank you for the comments we received, and the opportunity to revise and re-submit the paper. Please see our detailed responses below. Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf We have revised the manuscript to meet the journal’s style requirements 2. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ Done 3. Please remove your figures from within your manuscript file, leaving only the individual TIFF/EPS image files, uploaded separately. These will be automatically included in the reviewers’ PDF. Done Additional Editor Comments: 1. Please present this manuscript as a brief report rather than full article The editorial submission system does not give me this option. 2. A detailed description on the section of methods is needed. The methods section has been expanded as suggested by the Reviewer. 3. Please carefully revise the manuscript following the reviewer's comments. Please see our responses to the specific comments below. Review Comments to the Author (Reviewer #1) The authors are to be congratulated for an insightful analysis highlighting marked differences in excess mortality by state. The manuscript is well-written and, although, is short of novelty it does has value in that it re-iterates the need to consider disaggregated data on excess mortality. There are several aspects of the manuscript in its current format that might benefit from further revisions. Thank you for these comments. The novelty in this research, we believe, is that it illustrates that regional differences in COVID-19 excess mortality started to mirror deep political differences in the United States long before they became apparent in the uptake of pandemic vaccines. Please see our detailed responses below. Please note that we have also made a number of minor edits, mainly updating references, to reflect new publications and a different situation since we originally submitted this manuscript. 1. There are statements in the Introduction that require referencing, to add substance to inferences (e.g., last sentence). We have added six references to the Introduction, especially the last sentence. 2. While not a major issue, this Reviewer fails to see the relevance of political context (voting behaviour) for Covid-related excess mortality. As noted above, an important contribution of this research is to illustrate that regional differences in COVID-19 excess mortality started to mirror deep political differences in the United States long before they became apparent in the uptake of pandemic vaccines. In trying to maintain the objectivity that is expected in a scientific journal we may have underplayed these issues, so bearing in mind that non-American readers need more information to interpret this, we have added some text to clarify this point. 3. Might help unfamiliar readers to have more context as to the rationale for regional differences in excess mortality within the US. Consistent with our response to comment #2, regional differences in the U.S. are driven in large part by political differences, so we have added text on this too. 4. In this Reviewer opinion, the Methods section should detail the analytical approach to enable replication of study findings. At a minimum, definition of excess mortality and how differences by region were compared. How did authors adjusted for different region sizes and variation in length of follow-up? We have added text to the Methods section on the definition of excess mortality and how it is calculated, how we took into account different region sizes and time periods, and calculated “avoidable mortality.” 5. Figure are unclear and should include a legend - these should be self-explanatory. We have expanded the legends of the figures to make them more self-explanatory. 6. The research value of the work could be enhanced by discussing potential reasons for variation in excess mortality across the different regions. As noted above, we believe that the regional differences are driven by political differences, and have added text to make this point. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Two Americas response to review 3-13-22.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0265053.r002
8 Apr 2022 Decision Letter - Wenping Gong, Editor COVID-19 mortality in the United States: It's been two Americas from the start PONE-D-22-05243R1 Dear Dr. Michael A Stoto, We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication. An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. Kind regards, Wenping Gong, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: No further comments. The authors have satisfactorily addressed my initial comments. Congratulations on an interesting analysis. Reviewer #2: The authors analyzed excess mortality of COVID-19 in the United States from January 3, 2020 to September 26, 2021. The study is performed well, and the results are straightforward. ****** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review?** For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0265053.r003
Formally Accepted
19 Apr 2022 Acceptance Letter - Wenping Gong, Editor PONE-D-22-05243R1 COVID-19 mortality in the United States: It's been two Americas from the start Dear Dr. Stoto: I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org. If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Wenping Gong Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0265053.r004

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .