COVID cuts US life expectancy again

Drop in Life Expectancy 'Speaks Volumes' About How US Handled Covid

JESSICA CORBETT for Common Dreams

Just over a month into year three of the Covid-19 pandemic, research revealed Thursday that life expectancy in the United States declined again in 2021—which followed a well-documented drop in 2020 and contrasted a recovery trend in other high-income countries.

The paper, which has not yet been peer-reviewed, shows that U.S. life expectancy fell from 78.86 years in 2019 to 76.99 years in 2020 and 76.60 years in 2021, a net loss of 2.26 years.

The study comes as progressives in Congress continue to fight for Medicare for All legislation to replace the U.S. for-profit healthcare system—one in which 112 million adults struggle to afford care, according to Gallup and West Health.

The research also comes just days after a Poor People's Campaign analysis exposed how the public health crisis was twice as deadly in poor counties as in wealthy ones and "exacerbated preexisting social and economic disparities that have long festered in the U.S."

Johns Hopkins University's case tracker reported that as of Thursday afternoon, Covid-19 had claimed 984,571 lives across the United States, or nearly 16% of the more than six million deaths globally.

Dr. Steven Woolf, co-author of the new study and director emeritus of the Center on Society and Health at Virginia Commonwealth University, said in a statement that "we already knew that the U.S. experienced historic losses in life expectancy in 2020 due to the Covid-19 pandemic. What wasn't clear is what happened in 2021."

Major changes made to Charlestown's electoral map

You might find you now live in a different precinct

By Will Collette

After every US Census, electoral maps change to reflect changes in population. All of Rhode Island's maps have changed ranging from Congressional districts down to municipal precincts to make each political geographical entity roughly equal in population.

Charlestown continues to have four precincts. To the left is the old map done after the 2010 Census. The most conservative of these precincts is Precinct 0503 (yellow), the stronghold of the Charlestown Citizens Alliance. 

The two North of One precincts, 0501 (red) and 0502 (green) tend to vote more progressively, favoring Democrats.

The newly adopted electoral map for Charlestown (right) reflects the changes in population. 

The 2nd Precinct (green) appears largely unchanged. 

The 1st Precinct (red) took some land and people from the 4th Precinct (blue) and gave up a lot of land and people to the 3rd precinct (yellow).

What this means to you is that you might find yourself in a new precinct. That will probably require you to go to a different polling place to vote.

Charlestown does not have single-member districts where there is a town council member specifically elected from your precinct.

De facto, the CCA's senior Council member Bonnie Van Slyke represents her neighborhood of Arnolda first, the CCA's interests second following distantly by the needs of everyone else.

CCA Councilor Denise Rhodes represented her neighborhood in Precinct 1, near the old Copar Quarry first above all else. Rhodes dropped off the Council.

In my opinion, Charlestown should consider a Charter change to move to single-member districts, with a fifth at-large (i.e. town wide) Council seat. This would end the charade played by the CCA that they represent everyone when they have historically favored residents South of One, especially wealthy summer people.

Expect to receive a new voter card from the town Board of Canvassers which will tell you what precinct you are in so that you can figure out where to vote.

Why climate change is driving some to skip having kids

A reasonable choice?

University of Arizona

When deciding whether to have children, there are many factors to consider: finances, support systems, personal values. For a growing number of people, climate change is also being added to the list of considerations, says a University of Arizona researcher.

Sabrina Helm, an associate professor in the Norton School of Family and Consumer Sciences in the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, is lead author of a new peer-reviewed study that looks at how climate change is affecting people's decisions about whether to have children.

"For many people, the question of whether to have children or not is one of the biggest they will face in their lives," Helm said. "If you are worried about what the future will look like because of climate change, obviously it will impact how you view this very important decision in your life."

Helm and her collaborators wanted to better understand the specific climate change-related reasons people have for not wanting to have children. They started by analyzing online comments posted in response to news articles written about the growing trend of people forgoing having children due to climate change concerns.

They then sought out adults ages 18 to 35 who said climate change plays an important role in their reproductive decision-making. They interviewed 24 participants about their concerns.

The researchers' findings, published in the journal Population and Environment, identify three major themes that emerged in both the online comments and the interviews.