New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

COVID Caused a Baby Bump when Experts Expected a Drop. Here’s Why

During the COVID pandemic, the U.S. initially saw a drop in births followed by a bump

A line chart shows birth prediction based on prepandemic chart and prediction based on pandemic unemployment in comparison with the actual number between 2016 and 2021.

Amanda Montañez

Birth rates tend to decline during economic recessions or disasters, so many experts predicted that the COVID pandemic would prompt people to have fewer children. A recent study of fertility trends in the U.S. from 2015 through 2021, however, reveals there was actually a baby bump.

Demographers expected to see a decline in birth rate in December 2020, nine months after COVID became a pandemic. But the decline started earlier than that. It was driven largely by a drop in births to people born outside the U.S.—especially people from China, Mexico and Latin America—who would have traveled here but were prevented by pandemic restrictions. Some of them would have been coming as immigrants, whereas others would have been visiting to secure U.S. citizenship for their babies before returning home.

In 2021 the birth rate bounced back even more than predicted. This reversal is attributable mainly to an increase in births to mothers born in the U.S. (except among Black women). The biggest increases in births occurred among women younger than 25 and those having their first child. Among women older than 25, the largest upticks in births were for those aged 30 to 34 and those with a college education. Because there is a lag in data on births, these results do not include the most recent trends. But data from California suggest births were still increasing as of early 2023.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Study co-author Janet Currie, an economist at Princeton University, speculates that working from home (for those who were able to) gave people more flexibility to start a family. In other words, Currie says, “if you made it easier for people to have children, maybe more of them would.”

Number of U.S. Births

The number of babies born from one month to the next is variable but tends to follow a fairly predictable pattern. Researchers suspected that COVID’s economic impacts would alter this pattern, but surprisingly, the 2020 dip in births was not proportional to the rise in unemployment. And in 2021, the numbers rebounded sharply, making the net loss in births less severe than expected.

Credit: Amanda Montañez; Source: “The COVID-19 Baby Bump in the United States, by Martha J. Bailey Janet Currie and Hannes Schwandt, in PNAS, Vol. 120; August 15, 2023

U.S. Total Fertility Rates

Total fertility rate measures the expected number of children a woman will have in her lifetime based on current trends. In 2020 U.S. fertility fell to a record low, but the decline was largely driven by pandemic border restrictions, which kept those in other countries from giving birth in the U.S. Among U.S.-born mothers, fertility experienced a net increase from the start of 2020 to the end of 2021.

Credit: Amanda Montañez; Source: “The COVID-19 Baby Bump in the United States, by Martha J. Bailey Janet Currie and Hannes Schwandt, in PNAS, Vol. 120; August 15, 2023

To measure COVID’s effects on birth rates, it is useful to compare data from each month with what researchers think those numbers would have looked like had prepandemic trends continued. Since about 2007, U.S. fertility has been falling steadily. The pandemic initially seemed to amplify this trend, but among U.S.-born mothers, 2021 saw a “baby bump” of 5.1 percent above pre-COVID estimates.

Credit: Amanda Montañez; Source: “The COVID-19 Baby Bump in the United States, by Martha J. Bailey Janet Currie and Hannes Schwandt, in PNAS, Vol. 120; August 15, 2023

How Changes Varied among Specific Groups

These charts show how birth rates shifted in different ways for different demographic groups. Each of the specified subgroups pushed the numbers up or down to arrive at a net gain or loss in total births over the 2020–2021 period, compared with pre-COVID predictions.

Credit: Amanda Montañez; Source: “The COVID-19 Baby Bump in the United States, by Martha J. Bailey Janet Currie and Hannes Schwandt, in PNAS, Vol. 120; August 15, 2023

Tanya Lewis was formerly senior desk editor for health and medicine at Scientific American. She wrote and edited stories for the website and print magazine on topics ranging from COVID to organ transplants. She also appeared on Scientific American’s podcast Science Quickly and wrote Scientific American’s weekly Health & Medicine newsletter. She held a number of positions over her nearly 10 years at Scientific American, including health editor, assistant news editor and associate editor at Scientific American Mind. Previously, she has written for outlets that include Insider, Wired, Science News and others. She has a degree in biomedical engineering from Brown University and one in science communication from the University of California, Santa Cruz. Follow her on Bluesky @tanyalewis.bsky.social

More by Tanya Lewis

Amanda Montañez is senior graphics editor and been at Scientific American since 2015. She produces and art directs information graphics for the Scientific American website and print magazine. Montañez has a bachelor's degree in studio art from Smith College and a master's in biomedical communications from the University of Toronto. Before starting in journalism, she worked as a freelance medical illustrator. Follow her on Bluesky @unamandita.bsky.social

More by Amanda Montañez
Scientific American Magazine Vol 329 Issue 5This article was published with the title “The COVID Baby Bump” in Scientific American Magazine Vol. 329 No. 5 (), p. 90
doi:10.1038/scientificamerican1223-90

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe