COVID-19 Data Dispatch

Tag: Testing

  • Answering reader questions: Incubation period, vaccines coming this fall, nasal sprays

    I received a couple of reader questions in recent weeks that I’d like to answer here, in the hopes that my responses will be more broadly helpful. As a reminder, if you ever have a COVID-19 question that you’d like to ask, you can email me at betsy@coviddatadispatch.com, or send it anonymously through this Google form.

    COVID-19’s incubation period

    One reader asked:

    I’d love to learn more about COVID’s incubation period. I have read that it’s 2 to 14 days … but the median time seems to be on the low end (and could be as low as 24 hours?) How likely is it that it’s more like 14 days? I’d love to better understand this so that I know how to better handle exposures… Should I avoid someone who has had an exposure for two full weeks?

    This is a tricky question for two reasons. First, the incubation period—or the time between exposure to COVID-19 and starting to show symptoms of infection—does indeed vary a lot. One review of studies on this topic, posted as a preprint in May, found a range from two to seven days, though it can be even longer. The CDC recommends precautions for up to ten days after exposure.

    Second, the incubation period has changed as the coronavirus has mutated. The virus is constantly evolving to keep infecting us even as people build up immunity; shortening the incubation period is one of its strategies. Omicron has a notably shorter period than past variants; Katherine Wu at The Atlantic wrote an article about this in December 2021 that I think is still informative.

    The preprint I cited above found that Omicron had an average incubation period of 3.6 days, shorter than other variants. I think it’s reasonable to assume that this period has continued to get shorter as Omicron has evolved into the many lineages we’re dealing with now. But the pace of research on this topic has slowed somewhat (with less contact-tracing data available for scientists to work with), so it’s hard to say for certain.

    So, with these complexities in mind, how should one handle exposures? My personal strategy for this (noting that I’m not a doctor or qualified to give medical advice, just sharing my own experience) is to rely on a combination of timing, testing, and symptom monitoring. For the first couple of days after exposure, you wouldn’t be likely to have a positive test result even if you are infected, as it takes time for enough virus to build up in the body for tests to catch it. So, for those days, I’d just avoid people as much as possible.

    After three to four days, PCR tests would start to be effective, and after five to six days, rapid tests would be. So at that point, I’d start testing: using a mix of PCR and rapid tests over the course of several days, up to two weeks after exposure. Studies have shown that the more tests you do, the more likely you are to catch an infection (and this applies to both PCRs and rapids). Daily is the best strategy, but less frequent regimens can still be useful if your access to tests is limited. At the same time, I’d keep track of any new symptoms, as that can be a sign of infection even if all tests are negative.

    I’d personally be comfortable hanging out with someone who has had an exposure but consistent negative test results and no symptoms. But others who are less risk-tolerant than I am might avoid any contact for two weeks. The type of contact matters, too: a short, outdoor meeting or one with masks on is safer than a prolonged indoor, no-mask meeting.

    Vaccine effectiveness

    Another reader asked:

    Is there any information on the effectiveness of the latest vaccines, including vaccines that combine Covid and RSV, and are there similarities between these viruses (related?)

    As we head into respiratory virus season in the U.S., there will be, for the first time, vaccines available for all three major diseases: COVID-19, the flu, and RSV. I’ll talk about effectiveness for each one separately, because they are all separate vaccines for separate viruses. There’s no combined COVID-RSV vaccine on the market.

    COVID-19: We know the fall boosters will target XBB.1.5, a variant that has dominated COVID-19 spread in the U.S. recently. There isn’t much data available on these vaccines yet, because the companies developing them (Pfizer, Moderna, Novavax) have yet to present about their boosters to the FDA and CDC, as is the typical process. The CDC’s vaccine advisory committee is meeting this coming Tuesday to talk fall vaccines, though, so it’s likely we will see some data from that meeting.

    Also worth noting: some early laboratory studies suggest that vaccines based on XBB.1.5 will provide good protection against BA.2.86, despite concerns about differences between these variants. (More on this later in today’s issue.)

    Flu: Every year, scientists and health officials work together to update flu vaccines based on the influenza strains that are circulating around the world. Effectiveness can vary from year to year, depending on how well the shots match circulating strains.

    This week, we got a promising update about the 2023 flu vaccines: CDC scientists and colleagues studied how well these shots worked in the Southern Hemisphere, which has its flu season before the Northern Hemisphere. The vaccine reduced patients’ risk of flu-related hospitalization by 52%, based on data from several South American countries that participate in flu surveillance. This is pretty good by flu vaccine standards; see more context about the study in this article from TIME.

    RSV: There are two new RSV vaccines that will be available this fall, both authorized by the FDA and CDC in recent months. These vaccines—one produced by Pfizer, one by GSK—both did well in clinical trials, reducing participants’ risks of severe RSV symptoms by about 90% (for the first year after infection, with effectiveness declining over time).

    Both vaccines were authorized specifically for older adults, and Pfizer’s was also authorized for pregnant people as a protective measure for their newborns. We’ll get more data about these vaccines as the respiratory virus season progresses, but for now, experts are recommending that eligible adults do get the shots. This article from Yale Medicine goes into more details.

    Nasal sprays as COVID-19 protection

    Another reader asked:

    I’m thinking of researching what foods and supplement are anti-viral anti-COVID. I’m wondering if anyone has done any research on that?

    I haven’t seen too much research on about foods and supplements, since dietary options are usually not considered medical products for study. Generally, having a healthy diet can be considered helpful for reducing risk from many health conditions, but it’s not something to rely on as a precaution in the same way as you might rely on masking or cleaning air.

    Another thing you might try, though, would be nasal sprays to boost the immune system. I have yet to try these myself, but have seen them recommended on COVID-19 Safety Twitter and by cautious friends. The basic idea of these nasal sprays is to kill viruses in one’s upper respiratory tract, essentially blocking any coronavirus that might be present from spreading further. People take these sprays as a preventative measure before potential exposures.

    A couple of references on nasal sprays:

    https://twitter.com/Clean_Air_Club_/status/1685790242681331713

  • Sources and updates, August 27

    • Project Next Gen announces first grants: Project Next Gen, the federal government’s effort to support next-generation COVID-19 vaccines and treatments, announced its first round of scientific funding this week. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has now allocated $1.4 billion of a total $5 billion in the program, with funding going to set up clinical trials for new vaccines and a new monoclonal antibody developed by Regeneron. HHS hasn’t actually selected vaccine candidates yet; that will come in a later announcement. Notably, as I reported on Twitter, HHS officials said during a press conference that they do not anticipate future Project Next Gen funding going towards Long COVID research.
    • Biobot Analytics expands to other respiratory viruses: Biobot Analytics, one of the leading COVID-19 wastewater surveillance companies, launched a new testing panel this week for a broader range of respiratory pathogens. The panel will allow health agencies to monitor their local sewersheds for COVID-19, flu, and RSV at the same time. Biobot is rolling this testing option out in time for this year’s respiratory virus season. While the company hasn’t announced this yet, I suspect Biobot will make some data from the respiratory virus testing available online, similar to its current COVID-19 and mpox dashboards.
    • KFF launches health misinformation tracker: The Kaiser Family Foundation has announced a new polling effort focused on health misinformation, and released the first round of data from this initiative. This release includes data about COVID-19 and vaccines, as well as other key areas of misinformation like reproductive health and firearms. According to KFF’s surveys, a majority of Americans have heard false claims about COVID-19, such as that the vaccines caused many sudden deaths in otherwise healthy people; smaller but still significant shares of people (around 20% to 30% depending on the statement) say these false claims are true.
    • Excess deaths in China after ending restrictions: Last winter, China abruptly ended its “zero COVID” policy (which had included strict quarantines, testing, and other measures), leading the coronavirus to spread widely—but with limited official data tracking its impacts. A new study from researchers at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Washington state examines excess deaths in China, or deaths above historical norms, following that policy change. About 1.87 million excess deaths occurred among Chinese adults over age 30 in just two months after the end of the zero COVID policy, the researchers estimated. These deaths mainly impacted older residents, many of whom weren’t vaccinated against newer variants.
    • Long COVID without a positive test: Another notable study from this week: researchers at Northwestern Medicine’s Long COVID clinic compared immune responses and symptoms among patients who did and did not have proof of their initial coronavirus infections. While this was a small study (including just 29 patients), the researchers found that the majority of those without proof of infection had COVID-related immune system signals similar to those patients who did have initial proof. The study offers further evidence to a trend that I’ve long heard in interviews with people with Long COVID: many patients weren’t able to get positive tests during their initial infections but still clearly have Long COVID, and they should not be excluded from research.
    • COVID-19 risk for essential workers: One more new study: researchers at the University of Gothenburg, in Sweden, used available occupational data to examine how people in specific jobs were at higher risk for COVID-19 cases. The study included 550,000 cases from October 2020 through December 2021. People working in public-facing jobs such as bus drivers, school staff, and nurses were at higher risk for getting COVID-19—and developing severe symptoms that required hospitalization—than those in less public-facing professions, the researchers found. Essential workers receive less attention now than they did early in the pandemic, but they still need protections to stay safe, the study suggests.

  • Sources and updates, August 6

    • Novavax vaccine safety: This week, the CDC published new data in its Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR) affirming the safety of Novavax’s COVID-19 vaccine. Unlike the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines (which use the virus’ genetic information), the Novavax vaccine works by inserting direct copies of the coronavirus spike protein into the body. It was authorized in summer 2022 as a primary series or booster for people who may be unable or unwilling to receive an mRNA vaccine. The CDC found that, among 70,000 Novavax vaccine doses administered between July 2022 and March 2023, no new safety concerns emerged.
    • Insurance coverage for COVID-19 tests: Insurance companies have covered COVID-19 tests very unevenly since the federal health emergency ended this spring. But that could change, if an advisory panel called the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends that the federal government require insurers to cover COVID-19 testing. The panel is exploring this option, reports Sarah Owermohle at STAT News, though it could face legal challenges.
    • Breath test for COVID-19: A couple of weeks ago, I shared a new tool for detecting SARS-CoV-2 particles in the air, developed by researchers at Washington University in St. Louis. The same team has just published another paper, in ACS Sensors, about a similar tool that can diagnose a coronavirus infection using a patient’s breath. This breath test can detect the virus with as few as two breaths and in under 60 seconds, and is close in accuracy to a PCR test. The research team is working to continue testing this device and potentially manufacture it more broadly, according to a press release.
    • COVID-19 spread among white-tailed deer: A recent paper in Nature Communications describes how SARS-CoV-2 has circulated widely among white-tailed deer across the U.S. The research team (which includes scienitsts at the CDC, U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the University of Missouri) collected about 9,000 respiratory samples from deer in 26 states and Washington D.C. between fall 2021 and spring 2022. Hundreds of the samples were positive for SARS-CoV-2, leading the team to study genetic sequences and study how the virus had evolved in this population. The team’s full data are available online. (H/t Data Is Plural.)

  • COVID source shout-out: Free PCR tests from Walgreens

    In May 2023, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Walgreens, and Labcorp started offering free PCR tests at select pharmacy locations. The program appears to still be available following the end of the federal public health emergency.

    Through the program, Americans can pick up a free kit to take a PCR test at home, then ship their sample to Labcorp for analysis. No insurance information is required. Results should be available within two days of the lab receiving the patient’s sample, according to Walgreens. About 1,000 Walgreens locations across the country are stocking these free tests, but they need to be picked up in person.

    I learned about this Walgreens program from the People’s CDC, which included it in their Weather Report newsletter on July 10. The newsletter suggests this program is recent, though I haven’t been able to find any other news about it besides a press release from May 2022. So, either tests are still available from the original iteration of the program or Walgreens revamped it recently.

    Either way, this Walgreens program is a helpful option for anyone looking to get a free PCR test—though it’s obviously far below the extensive, accessible PCR testing network that the U.S. continues to need. If any readers try this out, I would be curious to learn about your experience!

    more source spotlights

  • Sources and updates, July 16

    • Real-time detection of coronavirus in the air: A new study, published this week in Nature Communications, describes a tool to detect airborne SARS-CoV-2 particles. Researchers at Washington University in St. Louis developed this tool; it works by collecting aerosols in a container and screening them for chemical properties matching the coronavirus spike protein. In the researcher’s proof-of-concept study, the detector tool was able to detect coronavirus particles with 77% to 83% accuracy, and could detect the virus when it was present at relatively small volumes. If the tool holds up to further tests, it could be valuable for monitoring healthcare settings and other public places.
    • Routine respiratory virus testing at K-12 schools: Another study about testing, published in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report: researchers in Kansas City, Missouri regularly tested students and staff members at the public school district for SARS-CoV-2, the flu, RSV, and several other common respiratory viruses. About 900 participants opted into monthly testing for the 2022-23 school year, for a total of 3,200 tests conducted. Overall, about one in four tests were positive for at least one respiratory virus. Pre-K students had the highest positivity rate (40%), while rhinovirus/enterovirus was most commonly detected. The study shows how many viruses are going around in school settings, as well as the potential value of testing for reducing spread.
    • Predicting COVID-19 activity with Google searches: COVID-19 data commentators have long suspected that online trends indicating people were losing their sense of smell or taste in large numbers could predict an upcoming surge. (Remember the Yankee Candle Index?) Well, a new study in the CDC’s Emerging Infectious Diseases journal provides some evidence for this pattern. Researchers at Yale and Columbia Universities compared Google search trends for “loss of smell” and “loss of taste” to COVID-19 hospitalization and death numbers in five countries. They found a strong correlation between these searches and COVID-19 increases for major COVID-19 waves. So, even as official data become less available, online trends may still be a good indicator.
    • Estimating infection rates from mortality data: COVID-19 mortality data can be used to work backward and estimate true infection rates, according to a new paper in Science by researchers at the University of California Davis and the University of the Basque Country (in Spain). The scientists used a machine learning model to analyze death reports from several European countries, essentially predicting infection rates in reverse. Their analysis found that lockdowns and mask requirements, among other COVID-19 safety measures, had a major impact on transmission, one of the authors said in a press release. Mortality data continues to present a useful tool for tracking COVID-19’s full impact.
    • Long COVID cohort study suggests full recovery may be rare: One more notable new study, shared by The Lancet as a preprint: researchers at a hospital in Barcelona shared the results of a study following Long COVID patients for two years. The study followed 548 people, including 341 with Long COVID and 207 who did not have long-term symptoms after acute COVID-19. Only 26 (7.6%) of the Long COVID patients recovered during the two-year follow-up period, according to symptom surveys and diagnostic testing. Hannah Davis, a patient-researcher at the Patient-Led Research Collaborative, shared additional highlights and takeaways from the study in a Twitter thread.
    • New bill to strengthen wastewater surveillance: Finally, a bit of hopeful news: three U.S. senators just introduced a bipartisan bill that would strengthen the CDC’s National Wastewater Surveillance System (NWSS). The bill would specifically expand NWSS to include surveillance for other public health threats, and would enable it to provide more funding to state and local health agencies. Cory Booker from New Jersey, Angus King from Maine, and Mitt Romney from Utah are the three sponsors. I’m not a political reporter, so I won’t pretend to know how likely this bill’s chances are of passing, but I hope it’s a step toward making the U.S.’s wastewater surveillance infrastructure permanent.

    Editor’s note, July 23, 2023: An earlier version of this post misstated the virus most commonly detected in the Kansas City schools study. (It was rhinovirus/enterovirus, not RSV.)

  • National numbers, June 18

    National numbers, June 18

    COVID-19 hospital admissions and test positivity (from a select number of labs) are both trending slightly down. Chart from the CDC.

    In the past week (June 4 through 10), the U.S. reported about 6,600 new COVID-19 patients admitted to hospitals, according to the CDC. This amounts to:

    • An average of 950 new admissions each day
    • 2.0 total admissions for every 100,000 Americans
    • 8% fewer new admissions than last week (May 28-June 3)

    Additionally, the U.S. reported:

    • 4.0% of tests in the CDC’s surveillance network came back positive (a 5% decrease from last week)
    • A 5% lower concentration of SARS-CoV-2 in wastewater than last week (as of June 14, per Biobot’s dashboard)
    • 40% of new cases are caused by Omicron XBB.1.5; 26% by XBB.1.16; 21% by XBB.1.9 (as of June 10)

    Overall, the national COVID-19 picture remains fairly similar to what we’ve seen for the last few weeks. The U.S. is at a plateau of COVID-19 spread; we could see an increase this summer, but limited data make it hard to say for sure.

    New hospitalizations for COVID-19 continue to trend slightly down, with just under 1,000 patients admitted each day nationwide. This is the first time that the U.S. has passed this low benchmark since early in the pandemic, and suggests the protective value of vaccinations and prior infections for preventing severe symptoms.

    Biobot Analytics resolved the data issue I mentioned last week and provided updated wastewater numbers, also showing a continued (though slight) downward trend. Current national coronavirus levels are far below this time last year, when Omicron BA.2 variants were spreading widely, though they’re still above prior low points in 2020 and 2021.

    Biobot’s regional data also show mostly plateaus, though coronavirus levels may be increasing very slightly in the Northeast. The CDC’s wastewater data also suggest some places in the Northeast may be seeing increased viral spread, but it’s difficult to identify a clear regional trend.

    Trends from the CDC’s lab testing network similarly show a potential increase in COVID-19 spread in the Northeast over the last couple of weeks, though this testing trend has yet to translate to higher hospitalizations. In New York City, some of the sewersheds that reported recent coronavirus upticks now appear to be trending back down.

    Is a summer surge coming for the Northeast, and then the rest of the country? Right now, it’s quite hard to say; signals from wastewater and testing data are mixed, sometimes delayed, and tough to interpret in the short term. I’ll be watching closely to see how this changes in the coming weeks.

    Meanwhile, it’s important to remember that data are especially limited when it comes to Long COVID, one of the most severe (and most likely) impacts of coronavirus infection. As testing becomes less and less accessible, fewer people will recognize their infections—and, as a result, they may be less likely to recognize later symptoms as Long COVID. But those symptoms can still occur, and cause lasting damage.

    more national numbers

  • Sources and updates, May 28

    • New Long COVID papers from the Patient-Led Research Collaborative: Speaking of new Long COVID research: the Patient-Led Research Collaborative, a group of long-haulers who do and support research on their condition, has recently published two new papers. The first, published in Nature and based on a patient survey, discusses Long COVID’s intersection with common psychiatric conditions such as depression and anxiety. The second, published in Fronteirs in Rehabilitation Science, is a review paper going over the reproductive health impacts of Long COVID. Long COVID frequently causes disruptions to the menstrual cycle, gonad function, fertility, and other areas of reproductive health, yet these symptoms are understudied.
    • FDA fully approves Paxlovid: The FDA has provided full approval to Pfizer for its antiviral COVID-19 pill, Paxlovid. Millions of Americans have received Paxlovid since it earned Emergency Use Authorization in late 2021, and many studies have shown that it’s effective in reducing the risk of severe COVID-19 symptoms. With the federal public health emergency’s end, the FDA has encouraged pharmaceutical companies to apply for full approval for their COVID-19 products so that they can permanently remain on the market; Paxlovid is a high-profile example of that trend.
    • Bivalent COVID-19 vaccines protect, but wane: The CDC published another study this week evaluating the bivalent (or Omicron-specific) COVID-19 booster shots. These vaccines clearly provide additional protection against severe COVID-19 symptoms, the study finds, but this immune system boost goes away after several months. In the study, vaccine effectiveness against hospitalization declined from 62% in early weeks post-vaccination, to 24% at three to six months post-vaccination. The study shows that additional boosters and/or newer vaccines are needed for vulnerable adults.
    • Value of regular testing for controlling outbreaks: Another notable new study: researchers at the University of Wyoming compared how well different mitigation strategies work for preventing the spread of COVID-19 and other diseases, using a model informed by both epidemiological and economic factors. They found that frequent testing—paired with isolation for people who tested positive—was more effective at reducing disease spread than physical distancing measures, like closing businesses or having employees work from home. The paper suggests that testing can help reduce illness while keeping businesses open.
    • Funding for a WHO disease surveillance initiative: The Rockefeller Foundation and World Health Organization recently announced a new partnership, with the foundation providing $5 million to support the WHO’s Hub for Pandemic and Epidemic Intelligence. This Hub was established in 2021, with goals including fostering global collaboration on disease surveillance, providing better (and more complete) data, and improving tools for public health decisions. Rockefeller’s support will help with scaling up genomic surveillance, real-time data collection, and more.

    All featured sources

  • Answering reader questions about wastewater data, rapid tests, Paxlovid

    I wanted to highlight a couple of questions (and comments) that I’ve received recently from readers, hoping that they will be useful for others.

    Interpreting wastewater surveillance data

    One reader asked about how to interpret wastewater surveillance data, specifically looking at a California county on the WastewaterSCAN dashboard. She noticed that the dashboard includes both line charts (showing coronavirus trends over time) and heat maps (showing coronavirus levels), and asked: “I’m wondering what the difference is, and which is most relevant to following actual infection rates and trends?”

    My response: Wastewater data can be messy because environmental factors can interfere with the results, and what may appear to be a trend may quickly change or reverse course (this FiveThirtyEight article I wrote last spring on the topic continues to be relevant). So a lot of dashboards use some kind of “risk level” metric in addition to showing linear trends in order to give users something a bit easier to interpret. See the “virus levels” categories on the CDC dashboard, for instance.

    Personally, I like to look at trends over time to see if there might be an uptick in a particular location that I should worry about, but I find the risk level metrics to be more useful for actually following infection rates. Of course, every dashboard has its own process for calculating these levels—and we don’t yet have a good understanding of how wastewater data actually correlate to true community infections—so it’s helpful to also check out other metrics, like hospitalizations in your county.

    Rapid test accuracy

    Another reader asked: “Is there any data on the effectiveness of rapid tests for current variants like Arcturus? I’m hearing more and more that they are working less and less well as COVID evolves.”

    My response: Unfortunately, I’m not aware of any specific data on rapid test effectiveness for recent variants. Early in the Omicron period, there were a few studies that showed the rapid tests still worked for that variant. The virus has obviously evolved a lot since then, but there is less interest in and fewer resources for evaluating these questions at this point in the pandemic, so it’s hard to say whether the continued mutations have had a significant impact on test effectiveness.

    I think it’s important to flag, though, that rapid tests have never been highly accurate. People have tested negative on rapids—only to get a positive PCR the next day—since these tests were first introduced in spring 2021. The tests can be helpful for identifying if someone is contagious, with a high viral load, but are less accurate for people without symptoms. So, my recommendation with these tests is always to test multiple times, and to get a PCR if you have access to that. (Acknowledging there is less and less PCR access these days.) Also, if you were recently exposed to COVID-19, wait a few days to start rapid testing; see more details in this post from last year.

    Double dose of Paxlovid

    Another reader wrote in to share their experience with accessing Paxlovid during a recent COVID-19 case. The reader received a Paxlovid prescription, which led to a serious alleviation of symptoms. But when she experienced a rebound of symptoms after finishing the Paxlovid course, she had a hard time getting a second prescription.

    “Fauci, Biden, head of Pfizer and CDC director got a second course of Paxlovid prescribed to them,” the reader wrote. “When I attempted to get this, my doctors pretended I was crazy and said this was never done.” She added that she’d like to publicize the two-course Paxlovid option.

    My response: I appreciate this reader sharing her experience, and I hope others can consider getting multiple Paxlovid prescriptions for a COVID-19 case. The FDA just provided full approval to Pfizer for the drug, which should alleviate some bureaucratic hurdles to access. I also know that current clinical trials testing Paxlovid as a potential Long COVID treatment are using a longer course; 15 days rather than five days. The results of those trials may provide some evidence to support a longer course overall.

    If you have a COVID-19 question, please send me an email and I’ll respond in a future issue!

  • Sources and updates, May 14

    • CDC updates ventilation guidance: On Friday, the CDC made its first-ever official air quality recommendation for all indoor spaces, in an update to its overall ventilation guidance. The agency now says all buildings should strive for five air changes per hour (ACH) at a minimum; in other words, clean air should circulate through the space every 12 minutes or more. This update is a victory for many clean air advocates who’ve pushed for better guidelines during the pandemic as a way to reduce the risk of COVID-19 and other respiratory pathogens. As expert and advocate Devabhaktuni Srikrishna said to me on Twitter: “This is exactly the clarity we were pushing CDC for for since last year… Now the question becomes, how does everyone do it in their home, school, and office? How much does it cost? Where do you get it?” 
    • Millions Missing in Washington, D.C.: On Friday, myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) and Long COVID patient advocates held a demonstration at the National Mall in Washington, D.C. to show U.S. leaders how chronic disease has pulled millions of Americans out of public life. The demonstration, organized by ME Action and Body Politic, included an installation of 300 cots with hand-made pillowcases created by patients across the country. Each cot is intended to represent people who can no longer work or do other day-to-day activities that were routine before they got sick with Long COVID or a similar chronic illness. You can learn more by watching ME Action’s press conference from the demonstration.
    • Post-PHE prices for COVID-19 testing: Researchers at the Kaiser Family Foundation put together a new report describing how much Americans will likely pay for PCR and at-home tests now that the federal government no longer supports blanket insurance coverage. At-home test prices range from $6 to $25 per test, depending on the brand and number of tests purchased at once, the KFF analysis found based on a variety of data sources. PCR tests and others performed in healthcare settings range from $25 to $150 per test, with medians around $50. Tests including COVID-19 and other pathogens are the priciest.
    • Sleep apnea and Long COVID risk: A new paper, published this week in the journal SLEEP, finds that people with sleep apnea have a higher risk of developing Long COVID compared to those who don’t have this condition. Researchers at New York University (and other institutions) compared Long COVID symptoms among adults and children with and without sleep apnea through multiple electronic health record databases, finding people with sleep apnea had up to a 75% higher risk of long-term COVID-19 symptoms. This study was supported by the National Institutes of Health’s RECOVER initiative. Like other papers to come out of RECOVER (including another recent study looking at comorbidities), it’s utilized health records rather than the actual cohort of patients recruited into the NIH’s research program.
    • Diagnosing COVID-19 through breath: Another notable recent paper, published in the Journal of Breath Research in April: researchers at the University of Colorado Boulder and the National Institute of Standards and Technology have found they can identify whether a patient has COVID-19 by testing their breath. The technique involves using sensitive lasers and artificial intelligence to differentiate between chemicals in a patient’s breath; it’s similar to a breathalyzer for alcohol testing, though more complicated. In addition to COVID-19, breath testing might help identify other diseases.

    All featured sources
  • The CDC’s new COVID-19 dashboard hides transmission risk

    The CDC’s new COVID-19 dashboard hides transmission risk

    The CDC’s new COVID-19 dashboard suggests that the national situation is totally fine, because hospitalizations are low. But is that correct?

    On Thursday, the CDC revamped its COVID-19 dashboard in response to changing data availability with the end of the federal public health emergency. (For more details on the data changes, see my post from last week.) The new dashboard downplays continued COVID-19 risk across the U.S.

    Overall, the new dashboard makes it clear that case counts are no longer available, since testing labs and state/local heath agencies aren’t sending those results to the CDC anymore. You can’t find case counts or trends on the homepage, at the top of the dashboard, or in a county-level map.

    Instead, the CDC is now displaying data that shows some of COVID-19’s severe impacts— hospitalizations and deaths—without making it clear how widely the virus is still spreading. Its key metrics are new hospital admissions, currently-hospitalized patients, emergency room visits, and the percentage of recent deaths attributed to COVID-19. You can find these numbers at national and state levels in a revamped “trends” page, and at county levels in a “maps” page.

    The “maps” page with county-level data has essentially replaced the CDC’s prior Community Level and Transmission Level page, where users were previously able to find COVID-19 case rates and test positivity rates by county. In fact, as of May 13, the URL to this maps page is still labeled as “cases” when you click into it from the main dashboard.

    While these changes might be logical (given that case numbers are no longer available), I think the CDC’s design choices here are worth highlighting. By prioritizing hospitalizations and deaths, the CDC implicitly tells users of this dashboard that the virus should no longer be a concern for you unless you’re part of a fairly small minority of Americans at high risk of those severe outcomes.

    But is that actually true, that COVID-19 is no longer a concern unless you’re going to go to the hospital? I personally wouldn’t agree. I’d prefer not to be out sick for a week or two, if I can avoid it. And I’d definitely like to avoid any long-term symptoms—or the long-term risks of heart problems, lung problems, diabetes, etc. that may come after a coronavirus infection.

    These outcomes still persist after a mild COVID-19 case. But the current CDC data presentation makes it hard to see those potential outcomes, or your risk of getting that mild COVID-19 case. The agency still has some data that can help answer these questions (wastewater surveillance, variant surveillance, Long COVID survey results, etc.) but those numbers aren’t prioritized to the same degree as hospitalizations and deaths.

    I’m sure the CDC data scientists behind this new dashboard are doing the best they can with the information they have available. Still, in this one journalist’s opinion, they could’ve done more to make it clear how dangerous—and how widely prevalent—COVID-19 still is.

    For other dashboards that continue to provide updates, see my list from a few weeks ago. I also recommend looking at your state and local public health agencies to see what they’re doing in response to the PHE’s end.

    More federal data