Life expectancy drop in 2020. Estimates based on Human Mortality Database.

In many countries of the world, COVID-19 pandemic has led to exceptional changes in mortality trends. Some studies have tried to quantify the effects of Covid-19 in terms of a reduction in life expectancy at birth in 2020. However, these estimates might need to be updated now that, in most countries, the mortality data for the whole year are available. We used data from the Human Mortality Database (HMD) Short-Term Mortality Fluctuations (STMF) data series to estimate life expectancy in 2020 for several countries. The changes estimated using these data and the appropriate methodology seem to be more pessimistic than those that have been proposed so far: life expectancy dropped in the Russia by 2.16 years, 1.85 in USA, and 1.27 in England and Wales. The differences among countries are substantial: many countries (e.g. Denmark, Island, Norway, New Zealand, South Korea) saw a rather limited drop in life expectancy or have even seen an increase in life expectancy.

Introduction

The most striking effect of the COVID–19 pandemic is the number of deaths that most of the countries in the world have witnessed. This has also drawn the attention of researchers to the possible changes that may have occurred in mortality age patterns, as well as to the possible inequalities in the responses to the pandemic. Nevertheless, the measurement of the extent to which the COVID–19 pandemic has affected countries’ mortality rates is still a strongly debated topic.

Certain researchers studied the identified COVID–19 deaths [1]; while others [2, 3] preferred to focus on excess mortality. However, the latter depends on age structure [4]. Similar to other research work [4-6], we chose to focus on changes in life expectancy. This well–known measure, quantifies the expected number of years lived by an individual of a so-called “synthetic cohort”, which survival is entirely defined according to the rates of a single period [7]. Despite it refers to an hypothetical cohort, in modern times, period life expectancy is a useful indicator of mortality, available for past years, and independent from the population age structure. Note that life expectancy can be computed at different ages, but using life expectancy at birth (age 0) is the most common choice to summarize the mortality level of a population.

To the best of our knowledge, most of the research that has been conducted so far has underestimated the effect of the COVID–19 pandemic–related mortality on the life expectancy figures for 2020. Several authors, for instance, have estimated that life expectancy has reduced, but, so far, this has often been concluded on the basis of incomplete information: in Spain [5], a 0.9-year decline has been predicted (updated on July 16th); in England and Wales, Aburto et al. [4] estimate a 0.9-year reduction for women and 1.2-year reduction for men (updated on the 47th week). In USA, Andrasfay and Goldman [6] estimated a loss of 1.13-year (updated on October 3th) based on COVID deaths.

Taking advantage of the work carried out by the Human Mortality Database team [8], who have provided the Short-Term Mortality Fluctuations (STMF) data series for several countries [9] and for both genders, we have tried to provide what we believe are more realistic estimates for life expectancy decline in 2020.

Materials and methods

The data used for the analysis are taken from the Short-Term Mortality Fluctuations (STMF) data series for several countries [9] that have been generated by the Human Mortality Database. For each country, the STMF offers weekly death counts by age groups (0–14, 15–64, 65–74,75–85, and 85+), and the relative weekly death rates calculated suing the formula: where, is the number of deaths in week w and age group x, and E is the population exposure for age group x. Note that population exposures are sometimes forecast by the HMD under the assumption of zero migration. When the data for all weeks are available, the annual death rate is calculated as follows:

If the last weeks are missing for 2020 (this is the case for Canada) the related weekly rates are substituted with the correspondent rates for 2019, so the (1) will change as follows:

This is not intended to serve as a forecast of the missing weekly death rates, but, instead, a “best scenario”, since rates at 2019 may be considered an estimate of rates in 2020 in case there had not been excess of mortality.

There are certain countries that have a relevant number of deaths with missing weeks, and these deaths have been included using the following formula: where, 2020 D is the number of deaths with non-missing weeks for the year 2020, while is the number of deaths with missing weeks for the same year. The estimation of life expectancy for the year t is retrieved by constructing the related life table, starting from , following the methodology used in [10]. This methodology involves calculating the average number of person-years lived by those who have died during the interval (x, x + n) ( a). Here, the values of a are taken from the Human Mortality Database and aggregated using the following formula: where, L is the number of life years lived during interval (x, x + n), n is the length of the interval and l represents the number of survivors at age x + n + 1. The same procedure has also been applied to years before 2020 that are available in the STMF dataset, so that the life expectancy estimated with the STMF data can be compared, as a quality check, with the life expectancy provided by the Human Mortality Database. The values are extremely close for each country (full comparison is available at https://github.com/selectPRIN/LifeExp2020_Drop/blob/main/STMF_HMD_compare.md. Not surprisingly, the aggregated weekly rates calculated using the STMF data are approximate values for the annual ones. First, the weekly data might be published based on the date of registration instead on the date of occurrence, which is the case for the HMD data, and this might assign certain deaths to a different year. Second, delayed registrations are not included in the weekly statistics even though the HMD regularly updates the STMF series, but last weeks may be incomplete; third, one year in the weekly data is not equal to a calendar year, as each year in the STMF series refers to 52 weeks. However, the comparison between the STMF-based and the HMD-based life expectancy estimates reveals that these issues do not substantially affect the results presented here.

Elaborations have been generated using R software, and the code is available at the github repository https://github.com/selectPRIN/LifeExp2020_Drop/blob/main/HMD_e0_predict.R.

Results

The estimates of the decrease in life expectancy in 2020 are reported in Table 1 and indicate particularly high losses in several countries: the highest reduction has been registered in Russia, with a 2.16 year drop with respect to 2019. For USA the figure is 1.86, much higher than the estimates provided by [6] and even higher than what the authors refer to as “higher mortality scenario” (1.22). Such a large difference is not that surprising for two reasons: first, the above article relies on the predictions of COVID–19 deaths, and it is well known that in this way the death toll of the pandemic is underestimated [11]. Second, the predictions have been made on the basis of the models defined by the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, which, similarly to many other models, are short–term forecasting tools and cannot be used for months-ahead forecasts [12]. These issues are well recognized by authors even though they hypothesize that such underestimations could have been offset by the so called harvesting effect (i.e. many deaths brought about by the COVID-19 particularly hit the frailest population, and many of them would have died during the year anyway). The estimates reported here suggest that this harvesting effect is much more limited than expected.

Table 1

Life expectancy at birth in 2019 and 2020 for several countries.

Elaborations from the Human Mortality Database.

Country	e0 2019	e0 2020	difference
Austria	82.32	81.67	0.65
Belgium	82.02	80.89	1.13
Bulgaria	74.47	72.88	1.59
Canada	82.66	82.03	0.63
Chile	82.21	81.12	1.10
Croatia	78.17	77.35	0.82
Czech Rep.	79.36	78.42	0.93
Denmark	81.58	81.96	-0.39
Estonia	78.80	78.75	0.05
England & Wales	81.95	80.67	1.27
Finland	82.00	81.92	0.08
France	82.98	82.25	0.72
Germany	81.00	80.46	0.54
Greece	81.49	81.12	0.37
Hungary	76.21	75.32	0.89
Island	83.44	83.36	0.08
Israel	83.76	83.46	0.30
Italy	83.21	81.87	1.34
Latvia	75.04	74.62	0.42
Lithuania	75.80	74.09	1.71
Luxembourg	82.95	82.52	0.43
Netherlands	82.27	81.52	0.75
New Zealand	82.37	83.25	-0.88
North Ir.	81.31	80.36	0.94
Norway	83.29	83.55	-0.26
Poland	77.93	76.51	1.42
Portugal	81.65	80.80	0.85
Russia	72.52	70.35	2.16
Scotland	79.28	78.31	0.97
Slovakia	77.83	76.96	0.87
Slovenia	81.45	80.34	1.11
South Korea	84.22	84.37	-0.15
Spain	83.86	82.50	1.36
Sweden	83.47	82.74	0.73
Switzerland	84.18	83.49	0.69
Taiwan	80.92	81.72	-0.79
USA	79.36	77.31	1.85

A particularly high life expectancy decline is also registered in some Eastern European countries (Lithuania 1.71, Bulgaria 1.59, Poland 1.42) and Spain (1.36 years), Italy (1.34) and England and Wales (1.27). The decrease in Lithuania, Bulgaria and Poland is even more significant considering that the excess of death is concentrated in the last three months of 2020 (see excess of death data in the STMF data [9]). As for Spain, the previous estimate provided in [5], based only on the first wave of the pandemic, was of 0.9-year drop, which means that the second wave has been less severe of the second one. England and Wales also show a higher drop in life expectancy than what was predicted [4]. In this case, it appears that the new B.1.1.7 variant of the virus played a significant role in contributing to a rise in mortality rates in the last weeks of 2020 [13]. A notable drop in life expectancy is found also in Chile (1.10), Belgium (1.13) and Slovenia (1.11); it is also worth noting the relatively high drop in Sweden (0.73), especially when compared to neighboring countries. It should be noted that similar results, with a slighlty different methodology have been obtained by Aburto et al. [14].

Finally, there are several countries in which life expectancy has been affected only a little by the COVID-19 outbreak. Many of them (Norway, Denmark, New Zealand, South Korea and Taiwan) show an increase in life expectancy, while others (Finland, Estonia and Island) present a limited decrease in life expectancy with a magnitude similar to the decline registered for several countries in 2015 [15].

Discussion

Measuring the effects of COVID-19 pandemic in terms of life expectancy drop might be useful in a comparative perspective, as other measures are flawed by issues that make comparisons more difficult: COVID-19 deaths are limited by missclassification problems [16], while excess mortality (i.e. the difference between the number of observed deaths in 2020 and the expected number that would have been observed without the pandemic) may be extremely variable, depending on the way the baseline is estimated (see Schöley [17] and Nepomuceno et al. [18]). One issue of life expectancy at birth is that it is often misintepreted, due to the fact it refers to an hypothetical cohort and not a real one, hence the best way to understand what the figures in Table 1 really mean, is to compare them with the life expectancy drops or gains in past years. It can be easily seen that in many countries, the drop that has been experienced on 2020 is unprecented or comparable to those occurred during the World Wars periods. Finally, it might be kept on mind that so-called “dry-tinder” effects (i.e. the increased mortality can depend on high stock of extrmely vulnerable people in the population that faced the pandemic) can affect these results, even though when it has been measured, it has been found only a modest impact of “dry-tinder” effect (see Rizzi et al. [19]).

Conclusion

With the hope that the effect of the COVID–19 pandemic on mortality will be over by 2022, researchers will have to wait until the end of 2021 to fully understand its impact on populations’ structures. The first estimate of the effects only for 2020 are already striking, particularly when observing an easily readable indicator such as life expectancy at birth. Unfortunately, the estimates proposed here, which to the best of our knowledge, are based on more up-to-date data than those that have been previously published, present a gloomy scenario, even more than what already presented in the existing literature. In only a year, many countries have seen a reduction of more than one year of the life expectancy at birth. The differences across countries are notable: some of them that very early blocked the spread (e.g., New Zealand or South Korea) have seen an increase in life expectancy, which is probably also due to the limitations (e.g. car use) established by the measures introduced to contain the diffusion of the virus. In contrast, in other countries, in which, as is known, the pandemic has hit a large part of the population, the results in terms of longevity have indicated a loss of more than one year in 2020 and, in some cases, even more than two years. These data offer some further information, such as the major expected differences observed between men and women in almost all countries; nevertheless, for a better understanding of how the observed losses vary across the subgroups of populations (e.g., defined by some social determinant of health), further research and data are needed.

10 Jun 2021

PONE-D-21-15829

Life expectancy drop in 2020. Estimates from Human Mortality Database

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. MAZZUCO,

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.

Specifically: Please address all comments made by reviewers .In addition ,this manuscript requires a good English edit.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 25 2021 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:  http://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,

Amir Radfar, MD,MPH,MSc,DHSc

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. Please update your submission to use the PLOS LaTeX template. The template and more information on our requirements for LaTeX submissions can be found at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/latex.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

[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: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #2: 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: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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: This short exploration of life expectancy calculated from Human Mortality Database adds additional information and context to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in various countries with available data.

The concept and result are well presented, but with some errors in standard English usage that might cause some ambiguity and should be addressed.

Reviewer #2: In general this article is concise and well-written. I only have few minor corrections. In the abstract, it says the US life expectancy dropped by 1.69 years and 1.83 in Spain. These do not correspond with the data in the manuscript. Please take a look at this discrepancy and correct either the abstract or the results and table.

Minor grammatical issues:

Lines 3-5: This sentence is unclear and awkward. Please revise.

Line 79: "deacline" should be "decline"

Line 106: Replace "diffusion" with "spread"

**********

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

Reviewer #2: 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.

30 Jun 2021

Response to reviewers is attached.

Submitted filename: Response_to_reviewers.pdf

Click here for additional data file.

2 Sep 2021

PONE-D-21-15829R1

Life expectancy drop in 2020. Estimates based on Human Mortality Database

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. MAZZUCO,

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.

Specifically, please address comments made by reviewer #3

Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 17 2021 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:  http://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,

Amir Radfar, MD,MPH,MSc,DHSc

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

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 #3: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #4: 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 #3: Partly

Reviewer #4: (No Response)

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: (No Response)

**********

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 #3: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: (No Response)

**********

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 #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: (No Response)

**********

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 #3: The article sounds informative and valuable. However, the following items should be considered:

• In the first line of the introduction, it is mentioned: “after one year”. It has been more than a year since the start of the pandemic. Please update.

• The exact definition of “Life expectancy at birth” should be stated in the introduction. Also, what is the difference between this factor and “life expectancy”.

• The discussion needs to cover some similar studies to compare. This part could have been written more comprehensively to better highlight and interpret the results in the context of previous research. Also, mention the limitations and strengths of the present study.

• It is better to include a separate conclusion paragraph.

• There are still some grammatical and dictation issues (e.g. line 120: WhileIn contrast, line 60: xhich is)

• The article can also be considered as a short communication, based on the editor’s decision.

Reviewer #4: (No Response)

**********

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 #3: No

Reviewer #4: 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.

14 Sep 2021

Se attached file

Submitted filename: Response_to_reviewers__2.pdf

Click here for additional data file.

19 Oct 2021

19 Oct 2021

"In the last sentence of the abstract there are two “even”s, one of which is extra. Please do not forget to omit it."

We dropped the duplicate "even" in the abstract

7 Jan 2022

Life expectancy drop in 2020. Estimates based on Human Mortality Database

PONE-D-21-15829R3

Dear Dr. MAZZUCO,

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,

Amir Radfar, MD,MPH,MSc,DHSc

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 #3: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #5: 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 #3: Yes

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #5: 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 #3: Yes

Reviewer #5: 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 #3: Yes

Reviewer #5: 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 #3: Thanks for revision

It is now acceptable for publication in Plos one……………………………………………………………………………..

Reviewer #5: It is OK. I think all comments have been addressed. This manuscript is very well. I have not comments.

**********

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 #3: Yes: Mitra Amini

Reviewer #5: Yes: Masoud Behzadifar

21 Jan 2022

PONE-D-21-15829R3

Life expectancy drop in 2020. Estimates based on Human Mortality Database

Dear Dr. Mazzuco:

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. Amir Radfar

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE