states Archives - Virus Reports

A US study suggests strong gun control regulations reduce a state’s firearm deaths, but having neighbors with more lenient laws undermines their effect.

road sign suggesting divergent routes — New research suggests that one state’s lax gun laws could undo the effects of its neighbor’s stricter firearm regulations.

In 2017, 39,773 people died from gun-related injuries in the United States, according to the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control.

Overall, research indicates that stronger state laws governing the sale and ownership of firearms reduce firearm-related deaths. However, some states have relatively high rates of gun deaths despite strict regulations.

To investigate why this might be the case, scientists at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, and the Boston University School of Public Health at Boston, MA, looked into the effects of firearm laws in neighboring states.

They used the Web-based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System to obtain figures for firearm-related deaths in the 48 adjacent U.S. states from 2000 to 2017.

There were 578,022 firearm deaths in total, including homicides and suicides, but excluding deaths due to shootings by police or other law enforcement agents.

The scientists also searched the State Firearm Laws Database for laws in each state regarding:

background checks
gun dealer regulations
buyer regulations
gun-trafficking laws

The team used the number of these laws as a proxy for gun control strength in each state.

If you would like to check your registration status or register to vote, we have added some useful links at the bottom of this article.

Overall, stronger state gun laws were associated with reduced firearm deaths, but having a neighboring state with more permissive laws undermined this protective effect.

Larger policy differences across state borders were associated with increased gun-related deaths, suicides, and homicides, though the results were statistically stronger for suicide than homicide.

The authors conclude:

“This study adds to the growing literature emphasizing the role played by neighboring states’ firearm regulations in addition to own-state firearm regulations in firearm deaths. Failing to account for neighboring states with weaker laws, in some instances, can make a state’s own regulations appear less effective in reducing firearm deaths.”

The scientists calculate that, on average, failure to account for weaker firearm laws in neighboring states make it appear as though a state’s laws were about 20% less effective at reducing deaths than they really were.

They report their findings in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine.

The researchers write that higher prices and strong marketing regulations can lead consumers to purchase firearms in adjacent, relatively unregulated markets. They say these are a frequent source of the guns used in crimes.

They believe their work supports the case for more cooperative legislation between neighboring states and at the federal level.

“I think the main message of this study is that to solve a nationwide problem we need to think of a nationwide or at least a regional-level (i.e. multistate) approach, like we may also need for the COVID-19 pandemic,” says Dr. Ye Liu, who is a doctoral student in the Department of Health Care Organization and Policy at the University of Alabama and the first author of the study.

“An ‘each state on its own’ approach is ultimately inadequate to address one of the biggest public health challenges in this country,” Dr. Liu adds.

The authors acknowledge the number of gun-control laws may not perfectly reflect the strictness of a state’s regulations. In addition, they note states may vary in how diligently they enforce these laws.

They call for further studies that might use alternative measures of regulatory strength, focus on specific categories of law, or explore the effects of regulations in more distant states.

To check your voter registration status, click here to visit VoteAmerica, a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization dedicated to increasing voter turnout. They can also help you register to vote, vote by mail, request an absentee ballot, or find your polling place.

Analysis: Why vaccine nationalism is winning

Governments have failed to unite in the fight against covid-19. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the race to develop a vaccine against the novel coronavirus. Rather than consolidate efforts, many countries are striking out on their own.

The fragmented forces of vaccine nationalism won another victory this week: U.S. officials told The Washington Post that the United States would not participate in the Covid-19 Vaccines Global Access (Covax) Facility, a global effort to help develop and distribute a coronavirus vaccine backed by the World Health Organization.

The U.S. absence is a major blow for a project seeking to overcome unequal access to immunization. More than 170 countries are in talks to participate in Covax. But America is not alone in going it alone. Following the U.S. example, many others countries are pursuing unilateral plans, focused on producing a vaccine for priority use or buying up potential vaccines from other nations.

By Adam Taylor

Universities can’t use privacy laws to withhold data on coronavirus outbreaks, experts say

University of Alabama faculty members were threatened by department leaders Aug. 24 with “serious consequences” if they shared news of coronavirus infections on campus.

Arizona State University, which boasts one of the largest student enrollment numbers in the country, divulged its first case count in the past week amid public pressure after the school’s president refused to.

With coronavirus clusters popping up around campus in August, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill told its student newspaper it would not reveal the number of people infected in the outbreaks.

As students file onto campuses across the country for in-person classes, these universities and others tightened transparency, wielding one or a combination of two significant federal laws: FERPA, a federal law protecting the privacy of student education records, and HIPAA, a federal health privacy rule.

But these laws do not apply to withholding overall coronavirus campus data, three legal experts told The Washington Post.

By Meryl Kornfield

Those symptoms you Googled could help researchers better understand coronavirus

The first thing people should probably do when they fear they have contracted the novel coronavirus is call their doctor. The first thing most people actually do is Google their symptoms.

That’s good news for researchers. Google is sharing its treasure trove of data about runny noses and fevers to help health researchers learn more about covid-19, the disease caused by the coronavirus. The data set could even help them predict future hot spots for the disease or learn more about what long-term effects it has.

On Wednesday, Google is making county-level data on symptom searches in the United States available to researchers and the public. The information goes back three years and includes up to 400 symptoms and conditions, not just those known to be associated with covid-19. It will have information on searches for things such as stress and diabetes so experts can learn more about secondary health impacts.

By Heather Kelly

Debate rages over whether FDA should use emergency powers to clear a coronavirus vaccine early

A fierce debate has erupted over whether the Food and Drug Administration should use its emergency authority to clear a coronavirus vaccine before it is formally approved — a move opponents warn could pose safety dangers and inflame anti-vaccination sentiment but others say could save thousands of lives by speeding protection from the virus.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has told state and local health officials to be ready to distribute a vaccine to health-care workers and other high-risk groups as early as Nov. 1 — part of an elaborate planning process happening while clinical trials are underway that has spurred anxieties in some quarters.

By Laurie McGinley and Carolyn Y. Johnson

Life expectancy data underscore the importance of state policies.

a man walking past an election map while looking at his phone — Research indicates that state laws and approaches have a bearing on average life expectancy.

Image credit: BAY ISMOYO/AFP via Getty Images.

“Americans die younger than people in other high-income countries,” says Prof. Jennifer Karas Montez, a sociologist at Syracuse University, in New York, and the lead author of a new study investigating life expectancy across the United States.

“This gap in life expectancy between the U.S. and other countries emerged in the 1980s and has grown ever since. Since that time, gaps in life expectancy between U.S. states also expanded,” she adds.

The study that Prof. Montez helmed has found that people who live in “blue states” live longer than those in “red states,” due to differences in state policies.

In blue states, voters primarily opt for Democratic Party candidates, while red states are mainly home to Republican Party voters.

During the 1980s and after 2010, changes to state policies have had a negative impact on life expectancy in the U.S., the study authors report, and these changes have had the most profound effect on women.

The researchers estimate that since 2010, there would have been a 25% greater gain in life expectancy for women and a 13% gain for men, had certain states not become more conservative.

The study has been published in The Milbank Quarterly.

“The difference between the highest and lowest life expectancy states has grown to 7 years — the largest ever recorded,” says Prof. Montez. Those states are Connecticut and Oklahoma, respectively.

In Connecticut, life expectancy rose by 5.8 years between 1980 and 2017. During the same period, Oklahoma residents saw an increase of just 2.2 years.

Life expectancy in Connecticut ranks between that in Denmark and Costa Rica, while the life expectancy in Oklahoma places the state between Serbia and Brazil.

The study also observes that as political polarization across the country has accelerated, Connecticut has become one of America’s most liberal states, while Oklahoma has become one of its most conservative.

The authors of the study looked at 18 topics of state policy, 10 of which strongly predict life expectancy.

Overall, liberal policies were associated with longer lives and conservative policies with shorter lives.

The difference was especially striking in terms of policy concerning tobacco use, immigration, civil rights, the environment, and labor issues — such as right-to-work laws and the minimum wage.

Minimum wage levels, earned income tax credits, abortion laws, and Medicaid availability particularly affect the life expectancy of women, the researchers found.

They controlled for factors specific to each state and its residents, and they also considered the effects of gun control policy.

“If all states enacted liberal policies across the 18 domains, our study estimated that U.S. life expectancy would increase by 2.8 years for women and 2.1 years for men. However, if all states enacted conservative policies, U.S. life expectancy would decline by 2.0 years for women and 1.9 years for men. If all states followed current national policy trends, there would continue to be little improvement in life expectancy.”

– Prof. Jennifer Karas Montez, lead author of the study

The authors report that changing current conservative policies could improve health and longevity in the U.S. Simply changing state labor laws, for example, from conservative to liberal could result in a life expectancy gain of 1 year.

“In particular,” says Prof. Montez, “it is essential to enact policies that protect the environment, regulate tobacco and firearms, and ensure labor, reproductive, and civil rights.”

However, the authors caution that prioritizing longevity may not be simple. In many states, policymakers also consider the interests of corporations and their lobbyists — particularly those of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC).

Pro-corporation and politically conservative lobbying groups, such as ALEC, are highly active in places like Oklahoma but far less influential in places like Connecticut.

Prof. Montez concludes, “Policymakers and the public must recognize that putting profits over people cuts lives short.”

Please Note

Analysis: Why vaccine nationalism is winning

Universities can’t use privacy laws to withhold data on coronavirus outbreaks, experts say

Those symptoms you Googled could help researchers better understand coronavirus

Debate rages over whether FDA should use emergency powers to clear a coronavirus vaccine early