The federal government’s policies aimed at helping Americans get free rapid tests are insufficient for many households including people of color. Graphic via KHN.
On Tuesday, the site went live early in “beta test” form before its formal launch on Wednesday. Within hours of it going live, public health experts were already raising equity concerns about the free test distribution program. To address these concerns, the federal government should release data on where the free tests go—including breakdowns by state, county, ZIP code, race and ethnicity, the tests’ delivery dates, and more.
As the link to the testing order site was shared widely on social media, one thing quickly became clear: people who lived in high-density settings were at a disadvantage. Americans in traditional apartment buildings, houses split into multiple living spaces, dormitories, and other multi-unit dwellings attempted to order tests—only to get an error message stating someone at their address had ordered tests already.
The USPS ordering page is set up to allow just one test order per address, to prevent people from abusing the free test program. But, despite having literally every address in the U.S. on file, the USPS apparently failed to account for many apartment buildings. Some apartment-dwellers were able to get around this issue by placing their apartment number on the first address line, removing “Apt” from the address, or otherwise adjusting how they filled out the form, but these tricks didn’t work for everyone.
I myself ordered the free tests before I learned about these issues on Twitter; I later sheepishly texted the groupchat for my Brooklyn, seven-unit apartment building, preemptively apologizing in case I’d fucked up my neighbors’ chances of obtaining free tests. (Luckily, my building seemed to be unaffected by the USPS issue—one of my neighbors responded saying that she was able to order the tests without a problem.)
Still, a “small percentage of orders” could add up to millions of people living in multi-unit housing who were unable to obtain free tests, or would have to share just four tests among an apartment building’s worth of residents. Without more precise data, it’s hard to understand the scope of this problem.
All the Twitter discourse about apartment buildings obscures another group that shouldn’t have to share a small number of tests among many people: large households. The USPS is sending just four tests in each order—not four testing kits, four individual tests. That’s not enough for a family of four to test themselves according to FDA recommendations (i.e. twice within two days) after a potential exposure; it’s certainly not enough for large families including five or more people.
And minority communities are more likely to include such large households. According to a Kaiser Family Foundation analysis of Census data: “More than a third of Hispanic Americans plus about a quarter of Asian and Black Americans live in households with at least five residents…Only 17% of white Americans live in these larger groups.”
Households in West coast states are also more likely to include five or more residents, according to a similar analysis from the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill’s Carolina Demography center. States with the highest shares of five or more resident households are: Utah (18.8%), California (13.7%), Hawaii (13.5%), Idaho (13.2%), and Alaska (12.9%). On the other hand, in some East coast states, under 7% of households include five or more residents.
!function(){“use strict”;window.addEventListener(“message”,(function(e){if(void 0!==e.data[“datawrapper-height”]){var t=document.querySelectorAll(“iframe”);for(var a in e.data[“datawrapper-height”])for(var r=0;r<t.length;r++){if(t[r].contentWindow===e.source)t[r].style.height=e.data["datawrapper-height"][a]+"px"}}}))}();
The USPS test distribution system also gave an advantage to Americans with internet access. At one point on Tuesday afternoon, the USPS order site was drawing more than half of all government website traffic, demonstrating its popularity with internet users—while people without internet were not yet able to order tests.
As of Friday, those without internet access can order the free tests over the phone, at 1-800-232-0233. This phone line is open daily from 8 AM to midnight Eastern Time, according to NPR, and Americans can order in over 150 languages. The USPS website itself is available in English, Spanish, and Chinese.
While this phone line is very helpful now, the delay between the website’s release (on Tuesday) and the phone line’s release (on Friday) means that Americans without internet may be behind in the queue for actually receiving their tests. Already, the federal government has said that people who ordered their tests may need to wait for weeks to receive their tests.
Of course, as analysis from KHN has shown, Americans of color are less likely to have internet access than their white neighbors. 27% of Native Americans, 20% of Black Americans, and 16% of Hispanic Americans have no internet subscription, compared to 12% of white Americans.
Finally, the USPS test distribution system leaves out one major group of vulnerable Americans: those who don’t have an address at all. Homeless people are particularly vulnerable to COVID-19: many outbreaks have occurred in shelters, and many of these people have health conditions that increase their risk of severe symptoms. The impact of COVID-19 among homeless Americans is not well understood due to a lack of data collection; still, we know enough to indicate free tests should be a priority for this group.
The White House has said that equity will be a priority for the free rapid test rollout: each day, 20% of test shipments will go to people who live in highly vulnerable communities, as determined by the CDC’s Social Vulnerability Index. This index ranks ZIP codes according to the communities’ ability to recover from adverse health events, based on a number of social, environmental, and economic factors.
This priority is nice to hear. But without data on the test rollout, it’ll be difficult to evaluate how well the federal government is living up to its promise of equitable test distribution. I’d like to see data on the free test distribution that goes to the same level of detail as the data on our vaccine distribution, if not even more granular.
The data could include: tests distributed by state, county, and ZIP code; tests distributed to ZIP codes that rank highly on the Social Vulnerability Index; tests distributed by race, ethnicity, age, gender, and household size; dates that tests were ordered and delivered; tests delivered to single- and multi-unit buildings; and more.
Unlike other COVID-19 metrics that are difficult to collect and report at the federal level, the federal government literally has all of this information already—they’re collecting the address of every person that orders tests! There is no excuse for the government not to make these data public.
In short: USPS, where is your free rapid test distribution dashboard? I’m waiting.
After exposure to the coronavirus, someone may test negative on rapid antigen tests for multiple days before their viral load becomes high enough for such a test to detect their infection. Chart by Michael Mina, adapted by the Financial Times.
As Omicron spreads rapidly through the U.S., this variant is driving record case numbers—and record demand for testing, including both PCR and rapid at-home tests. In other words, it feels harder than ever to get tested for COVID-19, largely because more people currently need a test due to recent exposure to the virus than at any other time during the pandemic.
Also this week, the CDC changed its guidance for people infected with the coronavirus: rather than isolating for 10 days after a positive test, Americans are now advised to isolate for only five days, if they are asymptomatic. Then, for the following five days, people should wear a mask in all public settings. This guidance change has prompted further discussion (and general confusion) about who needs to get tested for COVID-19, when, and how.
Here’s a brief FAQ, to help navigate this complicated testing-and-isolation landscape. In addition to the CDC guidance, it’s inspired by a recent question from a reader about testing and isolation following a positive PCR result in her family.
What’s the difference between being infected and being contagious?
As we think about interpreting COVID-19 test results in the Omicron era, it’s key to distinguish between being infected with the coronavirus and being actively contagious.
Infected: The virus is present in your body.
Contagious: The virus is present in your body at high enough levels that you can potentially spread it to other people.
In a typical coronavirus infection, it takes a couple of days after you encounter the virus—i.e. breathe the same air as someone who was contagious—for the coronavirus to build up enough presence in your body that tests can begin detecting it. PCR tests can typically detect the virus within one to three days after an infection begins, while rapid tests may take longer.
How do you use testing to tell if you’re infected and/or contagious?
Timing is extremely important with coronavirus tests, and has become even more so with Omicron. If you learn about a recent exposure to the virus, you don’t want to get tested immediately after that exposure, since the test would not pick up a potential infection yet. Say you had dinner with a friend on Wednesday, and they tell you on Thursday that they just tested positive; you should wait until Friday or Saturday to get tested with PCR, or until Saturday or Sunday to get tested with a rapid at-home test. (And ideally, you would avoid interacting with other people while you wait to get tested.)
PCR tests can detect the virus within a couple of days of infection. Rapid tests, which are less precise, generally can’t detect the virus until it’s at high enough levels for someone to be contagious. This can take time—though Omicron may have shortened the window between infection and becoming contagious to just three days, according to some early studies. A new CDC study released this week provides additional evidence here.
This chart, an adaptation of a figure by rapid test expert Michael Mina published in the Financial Times, shows how someone could potentially test negative on rapid tests for multiple days after a coronavirus exposure, even though they are infected:
When this person tests positive on a rapid test, the result indicates that they’ve become contagious with the virus. Then, it’s possible that the person may continue testing positive on PCR tests after they stop testing positive with antigen tests, because they are no longer contagious but continue to carry enough virus genetic material that a PCR test can pick it up.
How do you get ahold of rapid tests, in the first place?
In order to use rapid tests to tell whether you’re contagious with the coronavirus, you need to get some rapid tests! Here are a couple of suggestions:
Order online from Walmart: If you look at this website right now, Walmart will probably say that Abbott BinaxNOW rapid tests are out of stock. But if you leave the page open and refresh often, you may be able to snag some rapid tests right after Walmart restocks (which happens roughly once a day, I think). I like ordering from Walmart because they’re cheaper than other BinaxNOW vendors and ship quickly, usually within a week.
Order online from iHealth Labs: iHealth Labs is one rapid test manufacturer that’s grown in popularity recently, as an alternative to BinaxNOW. You can order up to 10 packs (with two tests each) directly from the manufacturer, and report test results in an app. In my experience, though, iHealth Labs is slower to ship than other distributors; an order I placed on December 22 is due to arrive two weeks later, on January 5.
Use NowInStock to see availability: This website tracks rapid test availability at a number of websites, including CVS, Walgreens, Walmart, Amazon, and others. It’s helpful to see your options for a number of different tests, but bear in mind that tests sold by third-party vendors (like Amazon) may be less reliable than those sold directly by pharmacies.
Follow local news: A lot of city and state governments have recently started making rapid tests available to the public for free, from D.C. libraries to Connecticut towns. I recommend keeping an eye on local news and government websites in your area to look for similar initiatives—or, if your area isn’t making rapid tests available, call your local representative and ask that they do!
Why did the CDC change its guidance for isolation?
As I mentioned above, the CDC recently changed its guidance for people who test positive for the coronavirus. If someone has no symptoms five days after their positive test result, they can stop isolating from others—but they need to wear a mask in all public settings.
According to the CDC, the new guidance is “motivated by science demonstrating that the majority of SARS-CoV-2 transmission occurs early in the course of illness, generally in the 1-2 days prior to onset of symptoms and the 2-3 days after.” In other words, the CDC is saying that people are generally contagious for a few days after their symptoms start. After that, they’re less likely to infect others, so isolation may be less necessary—and good mask-wearing may be sufficient to prevent further coronavirus spread.
Many experts are attributing the guidance chance to economic needs: as Omicron causes flight cancellations, closed restaurants, and other business disruptions, a shorter isolation period can help people get back to work more quickly. The recent isolation change follows a similar guidance change the previous week, which said healthcare workers could shorten their isolation periods if their facilities were experiencing staffing shortages.
Generally, it does seem that most people—particularly vaccinated people—are no longer contagious five days after their symptoms start. (Reminder: five days after symptoms start could be seven to nine days into the infection period, since it takes time for the virus to build up in your body and cause symptoms.) But this is by no means guaranteed for everyone, as each person infected with the coronavirus has a unique COVID-19 experience.
As a result, many experts have said that the CDC should have required negative rapid tests for people to leave isolation after five days. A negative rapid test would indicate that someone is no longer contagious, the argument goes, and they can then go back into the world. In the U.K., two negative rapid test results are required to shorten isolation from ten to seven days.
CDC’s new guidance to drop isolation of positives to 5 days without a negative test is reckless
Some ppl stay infectious 3 days,Some 12
I absolutely don’t want to sit next to someone who turned Pos 5 days ago and hasnt tested Neg
However, for everyone in the U.S. to be able to rapid test out of isolation, the country would need a far greater supply of those tests than we currently have available. This Twitter thread, by epidemiologist Matt Ferrari, explains the challenges posed by limited rapid testing:
There’s a lot to unpack here. One thing I’ve heard from clinicians throughout the pandemic is “don’t order at test you won’t act on”. Here that is married with “don’t order a test that you can’t offer”. There is a lot here that makes sense to me, even if I’m not 100% on board 1/ pic.twitter.com/wE5w32dQKj
— The Ferrari Lab: @TheFerrariLab.bsky.social (@TheFerrariLab) December 30, 2021
Ferrari argues that the CDC guidance makes sense, given the information and resources currently available in the U.S., as well as the fact that simpler rules are easier to follow. Still, I personally would say that, if you have the rapid tests available to test out of isolation, you should.
Antigen test kit image via Dronepicr // Wikimedia Commons.
This week, I had a story on COVID-19 testing published in Slate’s Future Tense vertical. The piece explores how testing will change in the next few months as more Americans become vaccinated and rapid tests become more widely available, with a practical focus: how should you interpret the test numbers on your local COVID-19 dashboard?
Overall, I found, we will need to keep getting tested even post-vaccination. But the purpose of testing may shift, for many of us in the U.S., from diagnostic testing—a test to figure out if you are currently sick with COVID-19—to more screening and surveillance testing—tests to identify case trends and stomp out outbreaks in a broader community. This shift may be aided by the rise of rapid, at-home tests, which are becoming much more widely available thanks to investment from the federal government. Just this week, USA Today reported that at-home tests will soon be sold at national pharmacies CVS, Walgreens, and Walmart.
In the CDD today, I’m excited to share one of the interviews I conducted for the piece, with Dan Larremore, a statistician at the University of Colorado and long-time advocate for the potential of rapid tests. We talked on April 2, just days after two major developments in the testing space: the FDA gave Emergency Use Authorization to several rapid tests for over-the-counter use, and the CDC and NIH announced a massive study to investigate how well these tests work for population-level screening. (One more piece of context: when we talked, case numbers were rising at a more concerning rate than they are now.)
Larremore and I talked about his reaction to the rapid test news, how to interpret testing numbers, other new test types that may come on the market, and more.
The interview below has been lightly edited and condensed for clarity.
Betsy Ladyzhets: First question is, since a lot of this piece is meant to be about the numbers of testing, what would you consider the most useful metric or metrics right now to how successful testing is, whether that’s test positivity or other things?
Dan Larremore: I think about testing for three different reasons. One reason is information about the trajectory of the pandemic, which is things like test positivity rates, number of new cases. We test to kind-of get our bearings in the movement of the pandemic. The second reason that we test is more at the individual level, but it’s still that [same] information. And that is, I would test because I want to know, am I sick? Might I give the disease to somebody else? Or, can my current symptoms be explained by being infected? So the first two are informational.
The third reason that we might test is specifically just to break transmission chains, which is more like testing as an answer, not as a question. And so, for at-home testing, for serial testing, for the regular kind of testing that we have to do to be on campus here [at the University of Colorado]… To me, that’s much more about an intervention to slow down transmission than it is about gaining information.
So, that’s a roundabout way of answering your question. But I think, in terms of what numbers to look at, it really matters what the intention of the testing is. So if people continue to take the pandemic seriously, and continue to, like, get tested regularly, or get tested when they feel sick, then those sort of daily case numbers will remain useful and interesting. And therefore the test positivity rate information will continue to tell us something about the trajectory of the pandemic. Does that answer your question?
BL: Yeah, I think that does answer my question. Because I think that was one of the big kind of questions I had going into this story is like, is test positivity still useful if maybe, as people get vaccinated, they stopped thinking they need to get tested or as other dynamics change. But yeah, I had another person who I’ve interviewed for this story also had kind of a hierarchy description [of testing], so that definitely is a useful thing to think about.
DL: Knowing why people come in to get tested just gives you so much more interpretability of like, what the numbers mean. Here on campus, if I want to be here on campus, I need to get tested weekly. I’ve been vaccinated, one dose, dose number two soon. But nevertheless, I still need to spit in the tube every week, and they test it. So, the test positivity rates here on campus are minuscule. Because with high compliance, everybody gets tested, so the denominator in that positivity rate is huge. At a drive up site, or at a doctor’s office, where people are coming in because they feel sick, the test positivity rates are going to be a lot higher.
And I think, as people get more and more vaccinated—regardless of the case counts—as the pandemic feels like it’s winding down, I think people may be less likely to get tested. And so you can imagine test positivity rate being driven by, not just what the virus is doing, but a lot of the human behavior as well… I guess, the way that you can put it is, that you can see changes in the test positivity that are driven entirely by human behavior with respect to getting tested at all. And not so much about changes in the virus.
BL: That makes sense. And I think it’s also about access, right? Are people able to go and get tested if they feel sick? Or if you’re thinking about schools and workplaces, is their employer having everyone get tested once a week? Is that something we’re going to see more of now that we have—like, literally earlier this week, the FDA gave EUA to a bunch of antigen tests, right?
DL: Yeah, for at-home use.
BL: Right. Do you think we’re gonna finally see that massive use of rapid tests that experts have wanted to see since, like, the summer?
DL: A lot of people, myself included, have been excited about the possibility of at-home repeated antigen testing, as a way to really take community transmission levels and push them down. Because we know that asymptomatic transmission occurs, we know that getting people results rapidly is absolutely critical. Because four-day-old information is totally useless if you have infected people in those four days.
I don’t know how useful those test kits are going to be right away, like, right now, given that we just now have an EUA for that kind of at home use that we’ve been hoping for for a long time. But at the same time, cases are shooting up due to these new variants around the U.S. and more importantly, around the world. So, I think these tools are still going to be useful, especially this fall, as we get a lot more kids in school. And we start bringing people together, temperatures starting to cool off, more people are indoors. I think that having the rapid test as a screening tool will still be valuable, particularly if we see limited uptake of the vaccine.
BL: That makes sense… Another question around rapid tests is, that I know in the U.S., it’s really hard to get comprehensive data on them. I volunteered at the COVID Tracking Project, and I wrote [a blog post] about the problem of antigen test data. So I was curious as to how we will know how well the tests are working. And if there are any specific studies that you’re watching or data sources that you recommend, in terms of, like, knowing if people are actually using these at home tests.
DL: I am excited about… On the 30th, there was a press release about the NIH and CDC rolling out at-home testing to two cities.
BL: I saw that, yeah!
DL: The work that Michael Mina and I did last year was showing that, at the individual level, the trade off between test sensitivity and turnaround time, should really tell us that turnaround time is critical. Like, theoretically, at the individual person level, the rapid test idea is really, really good. What we’ve not yet seen—outside of Slovakia—is the ability to flood the zone with tests, as Fauci put it, and just catch as many positives as possible and drive the epi curve downward, just because of the rapid tests.
My feeling is that, really, the proof is in the pudding. If people can, at a community level, use a boatload of rapid tests regularly for a few weeks, and we can watch the new cases spike as we find those positives and then crash as we break all the transmission chains. That’s the key thing. That’s the key thing that I’m looking out for in these new trials.
The Slovakia folks showed some of the limitations of this [strategy]. There’s a paper in Science where they wrote up their results. And basically what they found was the rapid testing worked really well, but the problem was on the isolation side. [Not everyone who tests positive can truly and effectively isolate.] In the short term, while they still had the supplies, these three waves of everybody in the country getting tested, worked like they were supposed to work, worked like the theory said. However, once you stop testing, you take your foot off the brakes, things re-accelerate. The second thing is that a lot of folks in particularly rural areas were like, okay, well, I’m positive, but I live with my family. How am I going to isolate? So unlike on a college campus here, where when somebody tests positive, we have a separate dorm set up for them for two weeks—in real life, that isolation stuff is going to be harder.
BL: So it’s kind-of like, you need to pair it with the social services aspect, or some other way to help people out. I know, in New York, there’s a hotel room program, where if you test positive, you can contact the City Department of Health, and they’ll like, put you up in a hotel for two weeks. I don’t know how much it gets used, but it definitely seems like something that should be around in more places.
DL: I mean, even if it’s just supporting people, by telling them like, this is gonna be awkward, but wear your mask at home, and don’t hang out with your family. Go watch TV in the basement, or, you know, otherwise keep distance from people. Whatever these interventions are, they can help. And we know that what we call the secondary attack rate is actually not that high. So, even among people who live in the same household, even among spouses, if one person is sick, that doesn’t mean that the other person definitely gets it. It’s only [around 20%] chance that they do. We looked at pairs of roommates here on campus, and studied [transmission between] them. And even among roommates, the secondary attack rate is not that high [20-28%].
BL: Well, that brings me to another question I wanted to ask you, which is how public health communication around testing either is changing or should be changing in order to express like, okay, maybe you’ve been vaccinated, but you still need to get tested, or what needs to be communicated about these at home tests, or any other messages that you think are important to be conveying.
DL: One thing that’s important is that we know that we need to keep our eye on the variants. And evidence is emerging… that there are some breakthrough variants, they are less well handled by the vaccine, even though the vaccine works really well… So, testing is going to remain important, even as, more broadly, the vaccine protects people from the most severe disease.
We’re seeing a really interesting split right now, right? Where like, cases are going up, and we expect hospitalizations to then go up, and then mortality to go up. But I wonder if we’re gonna see that in the U.S. this time. Like, week on week, mortality continues to go down. And the question is, are we gonna get it again?
BL: Is it gonna go up again?
DL: Or did we vaccinate enough of the high-risk people that the mortality stays flat even while cases go up?
BL: I definitely think there’s going to be kind-of a demographic aspect of it. Like,I’ve seen charts where people do, with the HHS hospitalization data, they publish it by age. So, you can see that hospitalizations are going way up in people ages, like, 18 to 30, but not so much in seniors. Although, kind-of tangentially, one data gap that I get annoyed by is that there’s very little demographic data for testing. Like, if you look at race data, for example, there are maybe five states that publish testing data by race and ethnicity. And there’s not a lot of it by age. So it’s kind-of hard to track patterns there.
DL: I mean, I don’t know what the right messaging is around testing, other than, [if you feel like you’re sick], if you have the symptoms, you’ve got to go get tested. It doesn’t matter if you’re vaccinated or not. If you feel sick, you should go get tested. If you are going to be around somebody who you know is really vulnerable, if testing is available, go get tested.
I still think it’s a valuable intervention, especially in places where vaccine uptake is low or vaccine availability is low. But I think the question is, like, really, how long is—what’s the expiration date on recommendations about testing? If 70% of the US is vaccinated by July, let’s say, does it still make sense to recommend a huge amount of testing? And I don’t know the answer to that. What I would like to see is people equipped for this fall, if there are spikes in cases, or if there are variants that are circulating even among vaccinated people, it would be amazing if, like, a local public health authority could tell everybody, this Sunday, I want everybody to use your rapid at-home test. Report your results anonymously to this number. And, if you test positive, take it seriously, take precautions. Measures like that could preserve privacy, while still collecting that key surveillance data and crashing the epidemic curve.
BL: Right, that would be really cool to see. Are there any other types of COVID tests or surveillance methods that you think might become more useful and more prevalent in the next few months or heading into the fall?
DL: Yeah, there are two kinds. So, one key point about at-home tests is that privacy-preserving aspect. Like, I trust local public health here. But I tend to vote left of center and generally trust the government. I live in Colorado, and not everybody feels that way. There’s definitely a strong libertarian independent streak. And I feel like one of the key advantages of at-home tests is that they appeal to that kind of person. They empower a person and their family to make health decisions, and they give you the information. But they don’t necessarily get recorded by something like COVID Tracking Project or HHS.
BL: Yeah.
DL: There’s less visibility for authorities, but for some folks who want information that they can act on to protect themselves and others, then that’s going to be fine. And so, as much as I would like to know exactly what is happening with the pandemic, if the trade-off for lower cases is that we don’t know about a lot of cases among folks who would rather not report their data, I think that’s a fair trade-off.
BL: Yeah, that makes sense.
DL: But it’s sort of like uncomfortable for me, who likes the data to say that. You know what I mean?
BL: It reminds me of the conversation around exposure notification apps. I talked to someone who works on those apps recently, and she kind-of said the same thing, that she would rather have everyone using the app than really good data from a tiny subset of the population that’s okay with their privacy being violated.
DL: A big thing to me is that, we know that the pandemic has been political. And I don’t see any reason why we can’t have solutions that work for the person who votes left of center, the person who votes in the middle, and the person who votes right of center.
But the other kind of tests that I’m excited about, only because they’re extremely cheap and really easy, are anosmia screens. We know that loss of sense of smell is highly specific to COVID. If you don’t have a stuffy nose, and you [suddenly] can’t smell things, you probably have COVID. So, there are companies that produce, like, a little card with a scratch-and-sniff quiz. You don’t know what’s behind the panel, but you scratch, pull up a smartphone app, and then say what you think the smell is from a multiple choice test.
One of the cool things is that anosmia only occurs in around 40% of people [with COVID] if you ask them to self-report. But if you give them one of these objective quizzes, the prevalence of anosmia as a symptom goes up to [around 75 or 80%], depending on which study you look at. The important thing is that those cards cost 25 cents apiece, and multiple people can use the same card. It’s literally a scratch-and-sniff with an online quiz.
BL: That’s incredible. Do you know if there are tests like that that are up for EUA?
DL: Yeah. Roy Parker, Michael Mina, and I collaborated with a great team to write this paper last year on typical COVID testing [PCR, LAMP, and antigen testing], test sensitivity and frequency and turnaround time. Then, Roy and I teamed up with Derek Toomre at Yale School of Medicine, and took the same idea and said, well, what if we use frequent, repeated anosmia screening tests?
One of the things that I like about those is that they’re cheap. But another thing that I like about them is that nobody thinks that [a smell test is] the same thing as a proper COVID test. You can’t get them confused. [This is important because one of the questions with rapid tests is how people may interpret a negative test—they might be infected, but the virus is at a low level. So if they get a negative rapid test and then go to the gym, the test could actually have an unintended effect. But if an anosmia test tells you that you still have your sense of smell… People understand that just because you still have your sense of smell doesn’t mean that you’re COVID-free. There’s lower risk of unintended consequences.]
Anyway, I think the messaging around those [anosmia] tests is easy. They’re easy to use, you can do them at home. And they can print them for, like, a quarter apiece. So the modeling suggests that they could be pretty effective and really cheap. You could literally mail somebody a stack of 10 of these things to everybody in the U.S.
BL: And do it once a week!
DL: Yeah, do it once a week. So, that’s another kind of test that I would like to see out there. The company that Derek started, that makes those [tests], just won one of the XPRIZEs for COVID testing. So, I think that’s cool. It’s a more creative kind of test, and it’s inexpensive.
BL: Sweet. So, that was all the questions that I had. Is there anything you think is important on this topic that I should know for this article?
DL: I just think it’s really important to keep a global perspective… As with vaccines, we know there are inequities within the U.S. But there are definitely global inequities. And while we might feel like we’re on a glide path to herd immunity through vaccination here in the States, things look very different in the rest of the world. And so, the use of these tests may become more important this fall, we may get more variants globally, even as the U.S. cases go down. I think it’s an ongoing story, even if hospitalizations and deaths continue to drop here in the States.
BL: And those tests you’re talking about that are cheaper and easier to use are useful in many places, not just here.
DL: Yeah, that’s the hope… I feel generally optimistic about [the state of the pandemic], but like, hesitant.
BL: I feel you. It’s definitely weird to see everyone getting very excited about the summer when I’m kind-of sitting here in my COVID reporting bubble, like, ahhh, not there yet.
DL: Well, one of the hardest parts, I think, for public health officials is going to be, if cases are going up, but mortality and hospitalizations are flat or going down. If COVID is only making people sick, but it’s not hospitalizing and killing them. Then, like, do we just reopen everything? Do we open up the schools? That’s tough when we’ve been acclimated to keep our foot on the brakes as much as possible.
Since our main stories this week focused on NYC, here are a couple of updates from the federal public health agencies.
CDC releases demographic vaccination data: This past Monday, the CDC published a MMWR report on characteristics of Americans vaccinated during the first month of our vaccine rollout, December 14 to January 14. Race/ethnicity data are missing for almost half of the vaccinations recorded here, but the existing data show white Americans getting vaccinated at higher rates than Black and Hispanic/Latino Americans.
CDC vaccination dashboard now includes time series: As of Thursday, the CDC’s COVID Data Tracker now includes a page called “Vaccination Trends,” which shows daily counts of total doses administered, people receiving 1 dose, and people receiving 2 doses. The doses are assigned to the date they’re administered, not the date they’re reported, so they may not match time series on other dashboards. Time series aren’t yet available for individual states.
U.S. Department of Education surveying COVID-19’s impact for students: On Friday, the Department of Education announced that the Institute of Education Sciences would collect “vital data on the impact of COVID-19 on students and the status of in-person learning.” Data gathered in the survey will include the share of America’s schools that are open in-person vs. remote, enrollment by various demographic metrics, attendance rates, and information on the logistics of in-person and remote instruction. Notably, the survey does not promise to collect data on COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, and deaths associated with K-12 schools.
At-home tests are coming: This week, the White House announced that the new administration has contracted with diagnostic company Ellume and six other suppliers to produce tens of millions of at-home tests by the end of the summer. Ellume’s test is an antigen test, and, though the other test suppliers haven’t yet been announced, we can assume they also make antigen or rapid nucleic acid amplification tests; neither test type is currently reported by the federal government. If these tests do become a significant part of America’s COVID-19 response—and some experts are skeptical that this will happen—a major change in test reporting practices will be needed.
COVID-19 Data Dispatch 