United States County-level COVID-19 Death Rates and Case Fatality Rates Vary by Region and Urban Status
Bibliographic record
Abstract
COVID-19 is a global pandemic with uncertain death rates. We examined county-level population morality rates (per 100,000) and case fatality rates by US region and rural-urban classification, while controlling for demographic, socioeconomic, and hospital variables. We found that population mortality rates and case fatality rates were significantly different across region, rural-urban classification, and their interaction. All significant comparisons had p < 0.001. Northeast counties had the highest population mortality rates (27.4) but had similar case fatality rates (5.9%) compared to other regions except the Southeast, which had significantly lower rates (4.1%). Population mortality rates were highest in urban counties but conversely, case fatality rates were highest in rural counties. Death rates in the Northeast were driven by urban areas (e.g., small, East Coast states), while case fatality rates tended to be highest in the most rural counties for all regions, especially the Southwest. However, on further inspection, high case fatality rate percentages in the Southwest, as well as in overall US counties, were driven by a low case number. This makes it hard to distinguish genuinely higher mortality or an artifact of a small sample size. In summary, coronavirus deaths are not homogenous across the United States but instead vary by region and population and highlight the importance of fine-scale analysis.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".