US could have avoided almost 400,000 Covid deaths with better response, report claims

Researcher suggests US death toll could have reached 1.27 million without development of vaccine

Donald Trump says US deaths total 'lower than the world'

Leer en Español

As many as 400,000 deaths could have been avoided with a better response to Covid-19 by the United States, a study has claimed.

Although the nation’s death toll stands at 540,000 and counting, as many as 400,000 of those could have been avoided, according to a group of research papers released at a Brookings Institution conference.

Andrew Atkeson, an economics professor at the University of California, said 400,000 deaths were avoidable through the widespread use of face coverings, social distancing, and testing in the run-up to a vaccine rollout, which began in December.

Former president Donald Trump was widely criticised for his response to the virus throughout 2020 by opponents and officials.

Read more:

Mr Atekson said the former president allowed a “patch work” of restrictions across the US that caused deaths to “cruise control” throughout the pandemic.

Mr Trump was infamously mask averse and refused to order any national mandates on face coverings to fight Covid-19 — in spite of recommendations by the US Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

Mr Atkeson suggested that the final number of US deaths from Covid could reach 670,000, as vaccines continue to be delivered — but without any vaccines, he estimated that US deaths could have reached 1.27 million.

The group of research papers added that certain financial initiatives were at times “wasteful” in the 12 months since Covid-19 reached the US, including the Trump administration’s Paycheck Protection Program (PPP).

It was revealed in December that $700bn was spent on PPP loans, which were designed to be spent on payroll, rent, utilities and mortgage interest payments.

But at least 25 PPP loans worth more than $3.65m were for businesses with addresses at real estate properties belonging to the former US president and his son-in-law, according to analysis by NBC News.

The programme was described as “an interesting and noble experiment” but also “problematic on many levels,” according to one of the researchers, University of California economics professor Christine Romer.

Although other researchers said the payments had “mixed” results, while “food insecurity remained elevated throughout 2020”, Ms Romer said direct payments were not effective for all of those effect by Covid, and could in fact prevent future spending.

“If something like the $1 trillion spent on stimulus payments that did little to help those most affected by the pandemic ends up precluding spending $1 trillion on infrastructure or climate change in the next few years, the United States will have made a very bad bargain indeed,” Ms Romer wrote.

The research follows the lifting of Covid restrictions in states including Alaska, Arizona and Texas, as well as the passing of a $1.9bn relief bill supported by the Biden administration, which Ms Romer also criticised for its size.

Additional reporting by Reuters

Register for free to continue reading

Registration is a free and easy way to support our truly independent journalism

By registering, you will also enjoy limited access to Premium articles, exclusive newsletters, commenting, and virtual events with our leading journalists

Please enter a valid email
Please enter a valid email
Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number
Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number
Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number
Please enter your first name
Special characters aren’t allowed
Please enter a name between 1 and 40 characters
Please enter your last name
Special characters aren’t allowed
Please enter a name between 1 and 40 characters
You must be over 18 years old to register
You must be over 18 years old to register
Opt-out-policy
You can opt-out at any time by signing in to your account to manage your preferences. Each email has a link to unsubscribe.

By clicking ‘Create my account’ you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use, Cookie policy and Privacy notice.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy policy and Terms of service apply.

Already have an account? sign in

By clicking ‘Register’ you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use, Cookie policy and Privacy notice.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy policy and Terms of service apply.

Register for free to continue reading

Registration is a free and easy way to support our truly independent journalism

By registering, you will also enjoy limited access to Premium articles, exclusive newsletters, commenting, and virtual events with our leading journalists

Already have an account? sign in

By clicking ‘Register’ you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use, Cookie policy and Privacy notice.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy policy and Terms of service apply.

Join our new commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in