shape
carat
color
clarity

Coronavirus Updates January 1, 2022

missy

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jun 8, 2008
Messages
54,132
Tests continued...


"
Home PCR tests:
These take 30 minutes and are more accurate than antigen tests and more likely to pick up variants.

  • Lucira Check It COVID-19 Test Kit, which uses PCR, can be purchased by consumers directly from Lucira's website. It does not require a prescription. It is a single-use test that works by swirling a self-collected nasal swab sample (from the inside walls of both nostrils) in a vial that is then placed in the test unit. In 30 minutes or less, the results can be read directly from the test unit's light-up display that shows whether a person is positive or negative for the SARS-CoV-2 virus (see below for accuracy). According to Lucira, the test is also able to detect alpha, beta, delta, gamma, lambda, mu and omicron variants of the virus. The test is authorized for self-collection for individuals aged 14 or older and adult collection for children aged 2-13. The test costs $75, which may be reimbursed by insurance (see Lucira's website and check with your insurance for details). Online orders are processed within two business days, and ground shipping is free (expedited shipping available at additional cost). It is the same test as the Lucira COVID-19 All-In-One-Test Kit, which requires a prescription and is available to healthcare providers.

At-home sample collection

  • Pixel from LabCorp allows users to collect their own nasal swab samples and mail them to LabCorp for testing. Pixel was initially only available to healthcare workers and first responders but is now generally available. The test is currently available for purchase online through Walgreen's Find Care program at a cost of $119 if used for basic screening purposes, but is also available for no upfront cost to consumers (and billed to consumers' health insurance or paid by federal funding for uninsured) who are experiencing symptoms, have been exposed to someone who is infected, or if directed to test by their healthcare provider. It is also available through CVS.com and for over-the-counter purchase and at select CVS Pharmacy locations. No prescription is necessary.
  • Everlywell COVID-19 Test Home Collection Kit ($109) is sent to users after completing an online eligibility questionnaire. The kit allows users to collect their own nasal swab samples. Samples are then sent directly to an accredited laboratory. The company promises online results within 3-5 days from purchase and results are reviewed by a physician.
  • Kroger Health COVID-19 Test Home Collection Kit is currently available to Kroger employees and will soon be available to non-employees. Based on results of an online screening, a healthcare professional will issue a prescription and the home collection kit is shipped to the home within 24-48 hours. The home collection kit includes a nasal swab, transport vial, instruction sheet, prepaid shipping label, and packing materials for return shipment of the sample to the laboratory. Upon receipt of the home collection kit, a healthcare professional guides the home collection process via video chat. The patient will then ship their sample overnight to Gravity Diagnostics, which has developed an FDA authorized virus test yielding results 96.8% and 100% in agreement with the CDC's own tests, respectively, on positive and negative samples. Results are provided online or by phone within 24-48 hours.
  • Rutgers Clinical Genomics Laboratory allows users to collect their own saliva sample using a special collection device and return it for testing at Rutgers. This test requires a prescription.
  • Quest Diagnostics Self-Collection Kit for COVID-19 +Flu received FDA authorization in December 2020 and allows users to collect their own nasal swab sample and return it to Quest Diagnostics laboratory for analysis for the SARS-CoV-2 virus as well as influenza A and B. Compared to nasopharyngeal samples collected by healthcare professionals, results using this kit have an extremely high percent agreement (99.6+%) for influenza samples and somewhat less but still fairly high agreement for SARS-CoV-2 (96.4% positive agreement and 98% negative agreement). This test requires a prescription.

Antibody Test
There are significant differences in the accuracy of antibody tests based on their "sensitivity," or their ability to identify those with antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 (true positive rate), and their "specificity," or their ability to identify those without antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 (true negative rate).

As noted earlier, the tests also differ as to whether they look for antibodies to the virus spike proteins (proteins on the outside of the virus that can bind to receptors on human cells), nucleocapsid proteins (proteins inside the virus), or both. An advantage to testing for antibodies to the nucleocapsid is that these antibodies can be easier to detect; however, antibodies to the spike proteins are believed to be more important in conferring immunity against the virus, as these antibodies may block viral entry into cells — although antibodies to nucleocapsid proteins may still serve as proxies for immunity.

Although it is not recommended that antibody tests be relied upon to determine the effectiveness of vaccines, be aware that only tests that focus on antibodies to spike protein would be useful for this purpose because the authorized vaccines generate antibodies only to spike proteins. A negative result on a nucleocapsid antibody test provides no information about the effectiveness of a vaccine although it would suggest that a person has not had COVD-19. The list of authorized antibody tests below indicates whether a test focuses on spike, nucleocapsid, or both types of proteins.

If, at some point, tests for spike protein antibodies are indicated for assessing antibody response to COVID-19 vaccines, those that provide a quantitative or semi-quantitative measurement, will be more useful than those that provide only a yes/no answer. As shown below, several authorized antibody tests focus on the spike protein and are semi-quantitative.

An example of a semi-quantitative test for spike protein antibodies is the Roche Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 S (IgG) (note the "S" for "spike"), which is available from LabCorp where it is listed as test number 164090 (this specific test must be requested when ordered, otherwise the more common, nucleocapsid test, may be run, which will not provide useful results.) This test is 96.6% sensitive and 100% specific, as shown in the table below. A result of 0.8 U/mL or greater with this test indicates detectable antibodies, although results will typically be much higher. Antibody levels 3 to 4 weeks after the 2nd dose of the Pfizer vaccine were shown to generally range from about 30 U/mL up as much as 9,000 U/mL in a group of 185 people ages 70 to 89 in England, although most were in the 100 — 1,300 U/mL range. Even higher results were seen among those who previously had COVID (Subbarao, Eurosurveil 2021). The implications of these values in terms of protection, however, has not yet been determined. (Quantifiable results for this test are normally up to 250 U/mL, but when results are higher, labs may perform dilutions to obtain a quantifiable value).

Quest Diagnostics also offers a semi-quantitative lab-based test for spike protein antibodies (listed as test number 34499) which is manufactured by Siemens as its SARS-CoV-2 IgG (COV2G) test. It has a sensitivity of 100% (somewhat better than the test at LabCorp) and specificity of 99.9%. Values are reported based on an index, with results of 1.00 or greater indicating a positive result. The semi-quantitative reportable range is 1.00 to 20.00 (Quest, FAQ, Question 9). However, the implications of these values in terms of protection has not yet been determined.

Siemens makes several similar tests, which are more sensitive, although it not clear which labs in the U.S. offer these tests. Abbott has developed a quantitative/semi-quantitative spike protein antibody test (SARS-CoV-2 IgG II Quant) but this test is not yet authorized for use in the U.S., although it has received certification in Europe.

Agencies within the U.S. government, such as the NIH, have been evaluating the FDA-authorized antibody tests. Ongoing evaluations of the 29 currently authorized tests (see table below) show that sensitivity ranges from 88% to 100% and specificity ranges from 94.4% to 100%. Only three tests provide 100% on both measures: Babson Diagnostics and InBios SCoV-2 Detect IgG (which improved since its original release), both of which are run on high-throughput systems, and Hangzhou Biotest, a rapid test. Babson is offering its antibody test for free to COVID-19 patients and front-line workers in the Austin, Texas area. The Hangzhou Biotest product is being marketed in the U.S. by Premier Biotech. (Note: Rapid test strip products cannot be purchased for home use, but must be performed in an authorized laboratory or, in some instances, a point-of-care facility, such as a pharmacy.)

The next best performing products, all of which require high throughput systems run on laboratory devices, are Abbott Alinity, Abbott Architect, Roche Elecsys, and four tests from Siemens — its ADVIA Centaur, ADVIA Atellica, Dimension EXL, and Dimension Vista, each providing 100% sensitivity and, respectively, 99%, 99.6%, 99%, 99.8%, 99.8, 99.9%, and 99.8% specificity. These tests are offered in many hospitals and commercial laboratories, including the two largest commercial labs in the U.S., Quest Diagnostics (uses Abbott Architect and another test) and LabCorp (uses Roche Elecsys as well as other tests). A doctor can order these specific tests.

The first rapid antibody test to be authorized by the FDA for use in point-of-care settings is the Assure COVID-19 IgG/IgM Rapid Test, which is available for $25 without at prescription at Krogerlocations using blood from a fingerprick. It has 100% sensitivity and 98.8% specificity and the indicator on the test stick shows results for both IgM (antibodies that last only a few weeks) and IgG (more persisting antibodies) to the virus spike or nucleocapsid.

Note that in a population where few people (e.g., 5%) actually have antibodies, positive results on a test that is not at 100% specific (such as the test from Healgen that provides 97.56% specificity and 100% sensitivity) may only be correct 67.8% the time, although a negative result would nearly always be correct.


Selected Antibody Tests Authorized by the FDA
PRODUCTVIRAL TARGET1SENSITIVITYSPECIFICITY
ELISA-based Equipment:
Abbott Alinity
i SARS-CoV-2 IgG
Nucleocapsid100%99%
Abbott Architect
SARS-CoV-2 IgG
Nucleocapsid100%99.6%
Babson Diagnostics
aC19G1 (IgG)
Spike100%100%
Beckman Coulter Access
SARS-CoV-2 IgG
Spike96.8%99.6%
Bio-Rad Platelia
SARS-CoV-2 Total Ab (IgG)
Nucleocapsid92.2%96.6%
DiaSorin LIASON
SARS-CoV-2 S1/S2 IgG
Spike97.6%99.3%
Diazyme Laboratories
Diazyme DZ-Lite
SARS-CoV-2 IgG
CLIA Kit
Spike and Nucleocapsid100%97.4%
Emory Medical Laboratories
SARS-CoV-2 RBD IgG
Spike100%96.4%
EUROIMMUN SARS-COV-2
ELISA (IgG)
Spike90%100%
InBios SCoV-2
Detect IgG
Spike100%100%
InBios SCoV-2
Detect IgM ELISA
Spike96.7%98.8%
Luninex xMAP SARS-CoV-2 Multi-Antigen IgGSpike and NucleocapsidNot posted by FDANot posted by FDA
Mount Sinai Hospital
Clinical Laboratory COVID-19
ELISA Antibody Test
(IgG/IgM)
Spike92.5% *100% *
Ortho-Clinical Diagnostics
VITROS (IgG)†
Spike90%100%
Roche Elecsys
Anti-SARS-CoV-2
(IgG)
Nucleocapsid100%99.8%
Roche Elecsys
Anti-SARS-CoV-2 S
(IgG)
Spike
(Semi-quantitative)
96.6%100%
Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics
ADVIA Centaur
SARS-CoV-2
IgG (COV2G)
Spike
(Semi-quantitative)
100%99.9%
Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics
Atellica IM
SARS-CoV-2
IgG (COV2G)
Spike
(Semi-quantitative)
100%99.9%
Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics
ADVIA Centaur
SARS-CoV-2 Total
(COV2T) (IgG)
Spike100% *99.8% *
Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics
ADVIA Atellica IM
SARS-CoV-2 Total
(COV2T) (IgG)
Spike100%99.8%
Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics
Dimension EXL
SARS-CoV-2 Total
antibody assay
Spike100% *99.9% *
Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics
Dimension Vista
SARS-CoV-2 Total
antibody assay
Spike100% *99.8% *
Vibrant America
Clinical Labs
COVID-19 Ab
Spike and Nucleocapsid98.1% *98.6% *
Wadsworth New York
SARS-CoV Antibody
Detection (IgG)
Nucleocapsid88%98.8%
Rapid Test Strip**:
Assure Tech. Assure COVID-19
IgG/IgM Rapid Test [Also authorized for Point-of-Care settings]
Spike and Nucleocapsid100% *98.8% *
Beijing Wantai Biological
Pharmacy Enterprise
Spike100% *98.8% *
Biohit Healthcare (Hefei)
SARS-CoV-2 IgM/IgG
Nucleocapsid96.7% *95% *
Cellex
qSARS-CoV-2
IgG/IgM Rapid Test
Spike and Nucleocapsid93.8% *96% *
Healgen COVID-19
IgG/IgM
Rapid Test Cassette
Spike100%97.5%*
Hangzhou Biotest
Biotech RightSign
COVID-19 IgG/IgM
Spike100% *100% *
Hangzhou Laihe Biotech
LYHER Novel Coronavirus
IgM/IgG (Colloidal Gold)
Spike100% *98.8% *
Megna Health Rapid COVID-19
IgM/IgG Combo Test
NucleocapsidNot posted by FDANot posted by FDA
Salofa Oy Sienna-Clarity
COVIBLOCK COVID-19
IgG/IgM Rapid Test
SpikeNot posted by FDANot posted by FDA
Bold text indicates higher accuracy compared to most other tests.
*Combined IgG and IgM performance.
** Rapid test strips are known as "lateral flow" tests. Currently, may only be performed in an
authorized or certified clinical laboratory.
† Ortho's reagent pack and calibrator have also been evaluated and authorized
†† Requires separate reader device.
1 Viral Target refers to the viral proteins targeted by the antibodies found in the test. Antibodies to spike proteins likely play a greater role in immunity, although antibodies to nucleocapsid proteins may serve as a proxy for immunity.



A project in California involving researchers at universities and biology institutes, including the Chan Zuckerberg Biohub, tested ten rapid test strip products — none of which were approved by the FDA. Six had CE certification from Europe and four had no certification. A preliminary reportindicated that many of the rapid tests were less effective at correctly identifying COVID-19 antibodies than previously claimed. The results also highlighted the importance of waiting at least 21 days after symptom onset to detect antibodies and after symptoms have subsided, as the proportion of correct positive diagnoses (or sensitivity) was extremely low in blood samples from people who had virus for less than two weeks. For example, the sensitivity of the BioMedomics "COVID-19 IgM/IgG Rapid Test" increased from just 31% (5 days or less), to 64% (6 to 10 days), 76% (11-15 days), 81% (16-20 days), and 82% for over 20 days.

What Does a Negative Antibody Test Mean?
If you took a coronavirus antibody test and it came back negative, it can mean one of several things:



  • The test was not sensitive enough to detect antibodies that existed. This is more likely if the test had a sensitivity of less than 100% (see Finding the Best COVID-19 Test — Antibody Test for sensitivities of FDA-authorized tests);
  • You may have never had COVID-19;
  • You took the test too early -- generally less than 20 days after first disease symptoms, although, according to the CDC, some people may take longer; or
  • You didn't develop levels of antibodies high enough to be detected by tests -- which preliminary research suggests may happen in mild and asymptomatic cases (Long, Nature Med 2020).
There is currently not enough data to know if a negative result could result from taking the test too late. More research is needed to determine how long significant levels of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 persist.

The CDC cautions, "Regardless of whether you test positive or negative, the results do not confirm whether or not you are able to spread the virus that causes COVID-19. Until we know more, continue to take steps to protect yourself and others."

Can COVID-19 Tests Identify Which Variant Caused an Infection?
Although COVID-19 tests can identify if you've been infected by SARS-CoV-2, the standard tests cannot identify which variant caused your infection although, if a PCR test is negative for the spike protein gene but positive for other genes of the virus, this is suggestive of infection with the Omicron strain. . Special genomic sequencing tests can make variant identification, but this is not available for individual diagnostic purposes. It is used for surveillance purposes: The CDC and public health partners characterizes variants from 750 SARS-CoV-2 samples each week, and commercial diagnostic laboratories contracted by the CDC sequence about 20,000 samples per week to estimate the prevalence of variants in the general population (CDC's Role in Tracking Variants, Updated June 17, 2021).

[You can see a list of all current, FDA-authorized virus and antibody tests on the FDA website. Virus tests are listed as "Molecular" or "Antigen" tests, while antibody tests are listed as "Serology" tests. A medical diagnostics industry website, 360dx.com, has also been tracking tests that have been given FDA-allowance and/or the "CE mark" for conforming to European standards. On that site, most virus tests are denoted as "PCR" (the scientific term for the method of genetic amplification), while most antibody tests denoted as "serological.""
 

missy

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jun 8, 2008
Messages
54,132

1M COVID Cases in Single Day*; Theranos' Holmes Guilty; Omicron Upending Schools​

— A daily roundup of news on COVID-19 and the rest of medicine​

by Ryan Basen, Enterprise & Investigative Writer, MedPage Today January 4, 2022

The U.S. reported 1 million COVID-19 cases on Monday, with some of the excess attributed to the holiday backlog. (CNBC)

As of Tuesday at 8 a.m. EST, the unofficial U.S. COVID toll is 56,191,733 cases and 827,749 deaths, increases of 3,996,899 cases and 9,378 deaths versus this time a week ago.

Hospitalizations are up 27% over last week, exceeding 103,000 -- the most since late summer. New York state surpassed its pandemic peak, at now more than 9,500 hospitalizations. (Washington Post, ABC7)



Former Theranos CEO Elizabeth Holmes was convicted on four counts of fraud and conspiracy, and found not guilty of four other felony charges -- she could be imprisoned for up to 20 years for each count. (AP)

Following widespread backlash, NIAID Director Anthony Fauci, MD, suggested the CDC may add a negative test component to its updated isolation guidelines. (NPR)

Thousands of schools stalled returning from the holiday break, or turned back to remote learning, due to the continued spread of the Omicron variant. (Reuters)

Congress has also been affected by the variant's rapid spread, with its weekly positivity rate surging from 1% in late November to 13% at a congressional test site. (Reuters)

Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin tested positive for the virus and reportedly has "mild" symptoms. (CNN)

Dan Patrick, the 71-year-old Texas lieutenant governor who insinuated older Americans were willing to die of COVID to help the economy, tested positive with mild symptoms. (New York Post)



"This narrative that it's just a mild virus is not accurate," Peter Hotez, MD, dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor, told CNN.

Meanwhile, the World Health Organization says more evidence is pointing toward a milder course of illness with Omicron. (Reuters)
 

lissyflo

Brilliant_Rock
Premium
Joined
May 23, 2016
Messages
1,720
On her nose and throat swab, collected as per the UK instructions, the positive was clear as day.

UK tests moved to nasal collection only at least a month or so ago, if not longer. The original antigen tests that first appeared had a longer swab and stated to collect throat then nose, but the tests we’ve been issued over recent months provide a much shorter swab and state to test nasal only. I assumed the reagent part of the tests was becoming increasingly precise and sensitive hence the procedure change, but maybe not if your friend did a direct comparison. I wonder why the change if it’s less sensitive? I hope it’s not just because they’re cheaper for the government to source…
 

missy

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jun 8, 2008
Messages
54,132
UK tests moved to nasal collection only at least a month or so ago, if not longer. The original antigen tests that first appeared had a longer swab and stated to collect throat then nose, but the tests we’ve been issued over recent months provide a much shorter swab and state to test nasal only. I assumed the reagent part of the tests was becoming increasingly precise and sensitive hence the procedure change, but maybe not if your friend did a direct comparison. I wonder why the change if it’s less sensitive? I hope it’s not just because they’re cheaper for the government to source…

It seems the throat swab might be more accurate for omicron than the nasal swab.
 

lissyflo

Brilliant_Rock
Premium
Joined
May 23, 2016
Messages
1,720
It seems the throat swab might be more accurate for omicron than the nasal swab.

It would fit with our government’s current covid management strategy to change to nasal only swabs at precisely the wrong time :roll:
 

missy

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jun 8, 2008
Messages
54,132
It would fit with our government’s current covid management strategy to change to nasal only swabs at precisely the wrong time :roll:

It seems our governments have much in common. ::)
 

DAF

Brilliant_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jan 7, 2012
Messages
778
There is a new variant, called "IHU" discovered in a little over a dozen people in Marseilles, France. It has 46 mutations.
 

missy

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jun 8, 2008
Messages
54,132
And what we already knew was finally studied and the conclusion is cloth masks are not effective especially when compared to surgical and medical masks.

Why Cloth Masks Might Not Be Enough as Omicron Spreads​

With the new Covid-19 variant surging, doctors advise doubling up or trying N95 masks​



im-460448

Certain masks are more effective than others in protecting people from the Omicron variant.​

PHOTO: GETTY IMAGES
By
Clare Ansberry Follow





and
Nidhi Subbaraman Follow




Jan. 2, 2022 10:00 am ET



"
Doctors and healthcare systems say it might be time to change your face masks.

With infections surging due to the fast-spreading Omicron variant, including among the vaccinated, physicians are now urging people to ditch cloth face masks, which they say may not provide enough protection against the virus. Instead, they recommend pairing cloth masks with surgical models or moving on to stronger respirator masks.

The Mayo Clinic began on Thursday requiring all patients and visitors to wear surgical masks or N95 or KN95 masks. Anyone wearing a single-layer, homemade cloth mask, gaiter or bandanna, or a mask with a vent, will be provided a medical-grade mask to wear over it.
Single-layer cloth masks, which many people prefer for comfort and style, can block larger droplets carrying the virus, but aren’t as effective in blocking smaller aerosols or particles carrying the virus, according to infectious-disease specialists.

Breaking Down a KN95 Mask​

Because KN95 masks have a filter layer made of polypropylene, which is a type of plastic, they are effective at trapping small particles. The extra layer provides a higher level of protection against Covid-19 when compared to cloth or surgical masks.​

OG-GD256_30c2b1_355PX_20211231154526.jpg

Inner
Cotton
Outer
Filter layer:
Made from a type of plastic and where electrostatic filtration occurs
Note: Exact filter layers and order vary by make and model of KN95 and N95s. This illustration depicts how the multiple layers add protection.
Sources: National Center for Biotechnology Information (layers); E.P. Vicenzi/Smithsonian's Museum Conservation Institute and National Institute of Standards and Technology (cross-section)
Jemal R. Brinson/THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s most recent guidance recommends that people wear masks, including cloth ones that are multilayered and tightly woven, that fit snugly and have an adjustable wire nose bridge. It also suggests layering masks, using a disposable mask underneath a cloth mask and reserving N95 masks for healthcare workers.





But many professionals in the field say certain masks are more effective than others in protecting people from the Omicron variant and that cloth masks alone aren’t.
“If you really want no exposure, you have to wear the right type of mask,” says Monica Gandhi, an infectious disease specialist at the University of California, San Francisco. Dr. Gandhi recommends N95 masks, which are certified in the U.S., or the KN95, KF94 and FFP2 masks, which are certified in China, South Korea and Europe respectively. If those aren’t available, she recommends double masking—a multilayered cloth mask tightly on top of a surgical mask. Surgical masks are made of polypropylene, which has electrostatic charge characteristics that block the virus.
“If everyone is just wearing a cloth mask or just a surgical mask, it won’t make any difference” with this highly-transmissible variant, she says.
im-460451

Properly fitted, certified N95 masks can filter up to 95% of particles in the air.​

PHOTO: GETTY IMAGES
Others in the field say high-quality surgical masks, worn properly, offer protection, but they would also like more data and research on how they stand up against Omicron.

N95 masks, which are certified by the U.S. National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, have a denser network of fibers than surgical or cloth masks. That tighter mesh, together with an electrostatic charge in the material, generally makes such masks the most efficient at trapping larger droplets and aerosols that are exhaled by the wearer. They also better block such particles from being inhaled.
Properly fitted, certified N95 masks can filter up to 95% of particles in the air.



“Any mask is better than no mask. But cloth masks and then surgical masks are not as good as N95-caliber masks,” says Ranu Dhillon, a physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS​

What mask have you found to be the best? Join the conversation below.
Megan Srinivas, a clinician and infectious disease specialist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, says she and other family members wear KN95 masks, which have five layers of overlapping material and a tighter fit to reduce droplets from escaping or entering. She would recommend those same masks, which come in children’s sizes, to parents getting ready to send their children to school in the new year. If those aren’t available, she suggests disposable authorized surgical masks.
“We need to educate the public and say that different quality masks offer different protection,” she says.

Time it takes to transmit an infectious dose of Covid-19​

OG-GD259_8d5308_540PX_20220102152605.jpg

PERSON NOT INFECTED IS WEARING
Cloth
mask
Surgical
mask
Nothing
N95
30
min.
15
min.
20
min.
2.5
hours
Nothing
PERSON INFECTED IS WEARING
40
min.
20
min.
27
min.
3.3
hours
Cloth mask
1
hour
30
min.
40
min.
5
hours
Surgical mask
5
hours
2.5
hours
3.3
hours
25
hours
N95
It will take 25 hours for an infectious dose of Covid-19 to transmit between people wearing non-fit-tested N95 respirators. If they’re using tightly sealed N95s—where only 1% of particles enter the facepiece—they will have 2,500 hours of protection.
Note: Results published in Spring 2021. The CDC expects the Omicron variant to spread more easily.
Source: ACGIH’s Pandemic Response Task Force
Graham Snyder, medical director of infection prevention and hospital epidemiology at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center , says any quality mask that offers an effective seal and is worn correctly—covering the nose and mouth—offers protection.
Dr. Snyder says he would like data from the CDC on how Omicron spreads and whether the transmission is related to the types of masks. He is concerned about the number of people in the community who don’t wear masks of any type.

“Masking works. Period,” he says.
Write to Clare Ansberry at [email protected] and Nidhi Subbaraman at [email protected]
Corrections & Amplifications
Graham Snyder is the medical director of infection prevention and hospital epidemiology at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center. An earlier version of this article incorrectly gave his last name as Synder in one instance. (Corrected on Jan. 3, 2022)
Copyright ©2022 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
 

House Cat

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Feb 22, 2009
Messages
4,602
It’s just crazy to me. When the wildfires were blowing thick smoke into our area, the parents had all of their kids in n95’s. Now that we’re in the middle of a global pandemic, those same parents have their kids in cloth masks.
 

Babyblue033

Brilliant_Rock
Premium
Joined
Apr 11, 2008
Messages
1,190
I've been seeing a lot about types of masks lately, but one thing is not clear to me. When they talk about cloth mask not being as protective, are masks with removable filter as extra protection also falling into that category? Or just a single layer cloth mask?

My kids wear the cloth masks with 3 layer filter in the pocket but if those are also doing very little then I gotta try to find kids sized KN95 masks...
 

House Cat

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Feb 22, 2009
Messages
4,602
I've been seeing a lot about types of masks lately, but one thing is not clear to me. When they talk about cloth mask not being as protective, are masks with removable filter as extra protection also falling into that category? Or just a single layer cloth mask?

My kids wear the cloth masks with 3 layer filter in the pocket but if those are also doing very little then I gotta try to find kids sized KN95 masks...

If the mask isn’t creating an actual seal, it isn’t protecting the wearer as much as an n95 or kn95.
 

TooPatient

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Sep 1, 2009
Messages
10,295
Two friends tested positive this week. The first had just finished up a series of radiation treatments for his cancer. The second works from home and he and his wife have been very careful since this all started. Both friends plus their wives are fully vaccinated and had their boosters. The one with cancer has to work in person with masks mandatory. The one with cancer was referred to monoclonal antibody treatment, but did not qualify due to careful rationing with the limited supply.
 

missy

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jun 8, 2008
Messages
54,132
"

COVID Vaccines Have Slight, Temporary Effects on Menstrual Cycles​

— Patients experienced cycle length changes that are "not clinically significant," authors say​

by Amanda D'Ambrosio, Enterprise & Investigative Writer, MedPage Today January 6, 2022



A photo of a woman laying on a couch marking off days on a menstruation calendar

Women who were immunized against COVID-19 experienced a slight, but non-significant, change in the length of their menstrual cycle compared with those who were unvaccinated, according to a retrospective cohort analysis.
Patients experienced less than 1-day increases in cycle length after their first (0.71 day increase, 98.75% CI 0.47-0.94) and second (0.91-day increase, 98.75% CI 0.63-1.19) shots compared with the 3 months before they got the vaccine, reported Alison Edelman, MD, MPH, of Oregon Health & Science University in Portland.

Unvaccinated patients did not experience any significant change in cycle length over the course of the study. The length of menses was unchanged in both groups, the authors noted in Obstetrics & Gynecology.
In adjusted models, patients who received one vaccine dose had a 0.64-day increase in their menstrual cycles (98.75% CI 0.27-1.01) and those who received a second dose had a 0.79-day increase (98.75% CI 0.40-1.18) compared with unvaccinated patients.
Additionally, after adjustment, all women with a regular cycle experienced variations in the length of their menstrual cycle, despite vaccination status, Edelman and colleagues noted. While statistically significant differences existed between vaccinated and unvaccinated groups, they said the 1-day difference was "not clinically significant."
"Our findings are reassuring," they wrote. "We find no population-level clinically meaningful change in menstrual cycle length associated with COVID-19 vaccination."
Edelman and colleagues noted that the slight increase in cycle length among the vaccinated cohort appeared to be driven by patients who received two doses in a single menstrual cycle. This cohort experienced about a 2-day increase in the length of their cycles (2.32 days, 98.75% CI 1.59-3.04) compared with unvaccinated patients.

The proportion of people who experienced a clinically meaningful change in menstrual cycle length (8 days or more) did not significantly differ between the vaccinated and unvaccinated cohorts (4.3% for unvaccinated vs 5.2% for vaccinated, P=0.181).
Menstrual cycle changes are likely to occur throughout the life-course, explained Taraneh Shirazian, MD, of NYU Langone Health in New York City, who was not involved in this study. While there was a slight difference between the two groups, she told MedPage Today that it was not surprising nor significant.
"Menstrual cycling can often be irregular," Shirazian noted. As women age, the length of their cycle, duration of menses, and changes in blood color or flow are all expected, she added.
Timing of the menstrual cycle is regulated by the hypothalamic-pituitary-ovarian axis, Edelman's group explained. Stressors such as undergoing a surgery, getting sick, or starting a new medication may all affect how periods are regulated, even if only for a short time. The COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, which induce an immune response, may throw off that axis.

For this study, the authors compared within-individual cycle changes between vaccinated and unvaccinated patients ages 18 to 45 who had a regular cycle, and had at least three cycles since being pregnant or using hormonal contraception. They analyzed data that were collected from Natural Cycles, a digital fertility tracker, from October 2020 to September 2021.
Each patient contributed information on six menstrual cycles. Among the patients who received a COVID-19 vaccine, three pre-vaccine and three post-vaccine cycles were analyzed. Patients who were in menopause or those who received a vaccine that was not approved in the U.S. were excluded from the analysis. The researchers also controlled for confounders including age, race/ethnicity, parity, BMI, education status, and relationship status.
Nearly 4,000 women were included in the study, 60% of whom were vaccinated; 55% received the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine, 35% received Moderna, and 7% received Johnson & Johnson. The vaccinated cohort was more likely to be older, white, nulliparous, college-educated, and reside in the Northeast or the West.

Edelman and colleagues noted that these findings may not be generalizable to the broader U.S. population because the study exclusively included Natural Cycles users, who are more likely to be white and college-educated. Additionally, they chose only to analyze people who have a consistent, regular cycle length, and not all individuals fit into this category.
While people who received a two-dose vaccine regimen returned to a baseline cycle quickly, these data did not include enough subsequent cycles to investigate this fully, they noted.
Shirazian said the study data will be useful in patient counseling, as it can show patients that they might experience changes in their cycle after vaccination, but that those changes will be small and temporary.
"I think acknowledgment is key," Shirazian said.
"
 

missy

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jun 8, 2008
Messages
54,132

"​

Which Fully Vaccinated Adults Are Most at Risk of Severe COVID?​

— Study examines which factors did, and didn't, play a role in risk​

by Molly Walker, Deputy Managing Editor, MedPage Today January 6, 2022


A significant proportion of all fully vaccinated adults who died of COVID-19 had at least four risk factors associated with severe outcomes, researchers found.

In addition to older age (65 and up) and being immunosuppressed, having chronic kidney, cardiac, pulmonary, neurologic, or liver diseases, as well as diabetes, were all associated with higher odds of severe COVID outcomes, and 77.8% of fully vaccinated adults who died had at least four of these risk factors, reported Sameer Kadri, MD, of the NIH Clinical Center in Bethesda, Maryland, and colleagues in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.



However, there were no increased odds of severe outcomes associated with sex, race/ethnicity, time since primary vaccination, or whether the infection occurred during the Delta variant wave.

Kadri and team examined data from 465 U.S. healthcare facilities in the Premier Healthcare Database Special COVID-19 Release from December 2020 to October 2021, which included adults who were either fully vaccinated, received a third dose as part of their primary series, or received a booster dose after their primary series. Severe outcomes were defined as hospitalization with acute respiratory failure, non-invasive ventilation, ICU admission, and death.

Overall, 1,228,664 adults completed a primary vaccination series, and of those, 2,246 contracted COVID-19. Of these, 327 were hospitalized, 189 had a severe outcome, and 36 had a COVID-related death.

Not surprisingly, older age was associated with a higher risk of death (adjusted OR [aOR] 3.22, 95% CI 1.81-5.74), as was immunosuppression (aOR 1.91, 95% CI 1.37-2.66).

Of the six conditions, chronic pulmonary disease (aOR 1.69, 95% CI 1.31-2.18), liver disease (aOR 1.68, 95% CI 1.12-2.52), and kidney disease (aOR 1.61, 95% CI 1.19-2.19) were associated with the highest odds of severe outcomes.



Interestingly, Pfizer vaccine recipients had comparable risks of severe outcomes to those who received the Johnson & Johnson vaccine (aOR 0.70, 95% CI 0.39-1.26), while these risks were lower for those who received Moderna (aOR 0.56, 95% CI 0.32-0.98).

Kadri and colleagues noted that all adults with severe COVID outcomes had at least one of the eight risk factors. Only 19% of all adults with four or more risk factors had non-severe outcomes, while 57% had respiratory failure or were admitted to an ICU.

Among 36 adults who died, 15 had do-not-resuscitate orders at the time of hospital admission, and nine were discharged to hospice.

The authors noted that these results may not be applicable to time periods when other variants were predominant in the U.S.

"
 

missy

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jun 8, 2008
Messages
54,132
"

Nose or Throat: What’s Best for a COVID Test?​

— Early data support saliva testing, but it might be too early to tell​

by Sophie Putka, Enterprise & Investigative Writer, MedPage Today January 6, 2022



A female healthcare worker in full protective gear holds a swab to the camera in her blue rubber gloved hand

In the early days of the pandemic, public health officials scrambled to get a read on the new viral outbreak. The CDC covered all its bases, recommending specimens be sent to them in three ways for each person: from the back of their throat (oral-pharyngeal), deep into their nasal passage (nasopharyngeal), and from sputum.
Not a month later, the CDC announced a change -- only the nasopharyngeal testwas required. Later, shallower nasal swabs known as mid-turbinate or anterior nare swabs became more common, and the CDC reversed course on its preference for the nasopharyngeal test.

A handful of variants later, scientists are asking once again: Is nasal swabbing really the best way to detect Omicron quickly and accurately?
What's Known So Far
Two preprint studies, not yet peer reviewed and done with small sample sizes, made a preliminary case for testing with saliva by swabbing the mouth or back of the throat.
A preprint from scientists with the COVID-19 Sports and Society Working Group compared nasal rapid antigen tests to saliva PCR tests. Among 30 people with active Omicron infections tested daily with a nasal swab and saliva rapid antigen test, the nasal rapid antigen test did not pick up positive infections until around a day after a saliva PCR test did.
Notably, viral load in the saliva peaked in a subset of five patients in the first 1-2 days -- before the nasal rapid antigen tests even showed a positive test.

Another recent preprint from researchers in South Africa also suggested, based on 67 Omicron and Delta cases, that positive saliva tests were more reliable than positive nasal mid-turbinate swabs for Omicron. This is the opposite of Delta, where nasal swab results were more accurate than saliva swabs. Omicron had relatively more viral shedding in the mouth than in the nose compared with Delta.
For the saliva test, patients coughed three to five times, swabbed the inside of their cheeks, above and below the tongue, and on the gums and hard palate. The standard for comparison was a composite wherein infection was considered present if either the saliva or mid-turbinate swab came up positive.
But this is preliminary data, cautioned Benjamin tenOever, PhD, a microbiologist at NYU Grossman School of Medicine.
And it doesn't show a dramatic difference, he said. Looking over the figure in the study, he noted that "for Omicron, there is the same amount in saliva as it is for the [nasal] swab... I don't really know how you take that result and justify needing to ever do saliva or a mid-turbinate. It's really saying that you could do either."

Anecdotal and Expert Support
Around Christmas time, a flurry of tweets showed a seemingly strange phenomenon: people got a negative rapid test result when they swabbed their nose but got a positive when they swabbed both their throat and nose. One user wrote, "Today (after POSITIVE PCR) tried nose only (per leaflet). NEGATIVE! Same test done same time with nose + throat POSITIVE. How many people out there think they're clear?"
These may only be anecdotes, but leading voices in science think there's more to it. Eric Feigl-Ding, ScD, an epidemiologist with the Federation of American Scientists, tweeted on January 1, "Saliva samples (hence throat swabs) are much better for detecting Omicron coronavirus. We need clear public health messaging to adapt to this new reality."
Michael Mina, MD, PhD, formerly an epidemiologist at Harvard and now the chief science officer at eMed, also tweeted that "there is a chance the virus isn't yet growing in the nose when you first test. Virus may start further down. Throat swab + nasal may improve chances a swab picks up virus."

Mina also pointed out that the rapid antigen test, or rapid lateral flow test, can be used in both the nose and throat in the U.K., where that practice has been "fairly standard" throughout the pandemic. The U.K. Health Security Agency posted an instructional video on how to do both swabs using government-issued test kits in 2020. A Jamaica government hospital appears to swab both too.
Feigl-Ding said that there's no harm in adding a throat swab to a rapid antigen test in the privacy of your own home. "This is not, do B instead of A. This is, do A and B. I'm not saying 'don't swab the nose.' Swab the mouth and the nose. It's a precautionary thing. It's not taking a drug."
Difference in Tests
But to understand why tests from different parts of the body might yield different results, it's important to understand what kinds of specimens these tests gather.

"I'm not sure if we're totally set on which types of cells the virus infects versus where is the virus in high enough amounts for us to detect it?" said Christina Wojewoda, MD, of the University of Vermont and chair of the College of American Pathologists Microbiology Committee.
Throat and mouth, Wojewoda explains, are lined with similar epithelial cells. But those are slightly different from the lining of the nose and nasopharynx. Throat swabs and saliva tests (taken either by spitting in a cup or swabbing the inside of the mouth) gather the virus more from squamous epithelial cells, whereas nasal swabs grab it more from respiratory epithelial cells. Which type of cell a virus "prefers" -- what's called tissue tropism -- appears to be narrower for Omicron than previous variants.
Spokespeople for three leading at-home rapid antigen tests -- Abbott BinaxNOW, Quidel QuickVue, and BD Veritor -- confirmed that their tests don't have emergency use authorization from the FDA for use with a throat swab. And the companies must stick to the exact terms of their emergency use authorizations lest the FDA rescind them, Feigl-Ding said.

Why Would Omicron Be Different?
Omicron, a number of preprint studies in animal models have suggested, operates in a very different way from Delta: it infects the upper respiratory tract but may affect the lungs less. Daniel Rhoads, MD, a microbiologist at the Cleveland Clinic, said that because of this, "it would make sense that maybe the highest load of virus might be in a slightly different anatomic location than previous variants," but that more paired studies are needed.
This lung versus upper respiratory distinction with Omicron, tenOever said, shouldn't be critical for testing samples taken from saliva versus the nose. "It doesn't make a lot of sense that a rapid antigen test in the nose versus the back of your throat would give you different results, because that's all the upper respiratory tract, so I don't really understand why that would be the case," he said. "And I find it doubtful that it is the case."

But Mina and Feigl-Ding theorized that throat tests may be picking up more virus in the throat than in the nose also because of Omicron's differences in replication. There may be more virus in bronchial tubes, Feigl-Ding said, than with previous variants. "The biological plausibility is that there's a greater concentration in your windpipe than ever before. It just replicates differently, and it clearly has a different potential tissue replication," he said.
When to Change Methods
Though none of the experts disputed the possibility of changing how tests are done, they diverged on the burden of proof needed to take action.
Because COVID-19 changes so fast, Feigl-Ding argued, decisions made slowly could mean potentially infecting many more people.
"One thing in this pandemic that we've learned is we've made too many mistakes by sitting on our butts," he said. "Some people are like, 'Well, we should follow the rules.' But the rules have always been many, many steps behind the science and the curve and the emerging evidence."

Rhoads, on the other hand, was willing to wait a little longer to get it right. "We need to just follow the data, and as people continue to study this, if we find empirically that something seems to work better than another then we should be willing to pivot or modify our approach," he said.
Wojewoda took an intermediate tack: "I would like to see it repeated at least once," she said of the early findings. "Another study site or a multi-center study to show that this is really applicable to different patient populations would be great." She added that data on asymptomatic patients would also be valuable.
Feigl-Ding thinks change is only a matter of time. He speculated that public health officials will "review it over the next week or 2, [and say] 'Oh, it seems that maybe we should be swabbing the mouth.' I'm willing to bet that within 1 or 2 months, they'll probably change it. But by 1 or 2 months, it'll be too late."

"
 

missy

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jun 8, 2008
Messages
54,132

"​

US Hospitals Seeing Different Kind of COVID Surge This Time​

Rodrique Ngowi, Michael Casey, and Don Thompson

Hospitals across the U.S. are feeling the wrath of the omicron variant and getting thrown into disarray that is different from earlier COVID-19 surges.
This time, they are dealing with serious staff shortages because so many health care workers are getting sick with the fast-spreading variant. People are showing up at emergency rooms in large numbers in hopes of getting tested for COVID-19, putting more strain on the system. And a surprising share of patients — two-thirds in some places — are testing positive while in the hospital for other reasons.
At the same time, hospitals say the patients aren't as sick as those who came in during the last surge. Intensive care units aren't as full, and ventilators aren't needed as much as they were before.

The pressures are neverthless prompting hospitals to scale back non-emergency surgeries and close wards, while National Guard troops have been sent in in several states to help at medical centers and testing sites.

Nearly two years into the pandemic, frustration and exhaustion are running high among health care workers.
"This is getting very tiring, and I'm being very polite in saying that," said Dr. Robert Glasgow of University of Utah Health, which has hundreds of workers out sick or in isolation.
About 85,000 Americans are in the hospital with COVID-19, just short of the delta-surge peak of about 94,000 in early September, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The all-time high during the pandemic was about 125,000 in January of last year.

But the hospitalization numbers do not tell the whole story. Some cases in the official count involve COVID-19 infections that weren't what put the patients in the hospital in the first place.
Dr. Fritz François, chief of hospital operations at NYU Langone Health in New York City, said about 65% of patients admitted to that system with COVID-19 recently were primarily hospitalized for something else and were incidentally found to have the virus.
At two large Seattle hospitals over the past two weeks, three-quarters of the 64 patients testing positive for the coronavirus were admitted with a primary diagnosis other than COVID-19.
Joanne Spetz, associate director of research at the Healthforce Center at the University of California, San Francisco, said the rising number of cases like that is both good and bad.

The lack of symptoms shows vaccines, boosters and natural immunity from prior infections are working, she said. The bad news is that the numbers mean the coronavirus is spreading rapidly, and some percentage of those people will wind up needing hospitalization.

This week, 36% of California hospitals reported critical staffing shortages. And 40% are expecting such shortages.


Some hospitals are reporting as much as one quarter of their staff out for virus-related reasons, said Kiyomi Burchill, the California Hospital Association's vice president for policy and leader on pandemic matters.


In response, hospitals are turning to temporary staffing agencies or transferring patients out.

University of Utah Health plans to keep more than 50 beds open because it doesn't have enough nurses. It is also rescheduling surgeries that aren't urgent. In Florida, a hospital temporarily closed its maternity ward because of staff shortages.

In Alabama, where most of the population is unvaccinated, UAB Health in Birmingham put out an urgent request for people to go elsewhere for COVID-19 tests or minor symptoms and stay home for all but true emergencies. Treatment rooms were so crowded that some patients had to be evaluated in hallways and closets.

As of Monday, New York state had just over 10,000 people in the hospital with COVID-19, including 5,500 in New York City. That's the most in either the city or state since the disastrous spring of 2020.

"
 

missy

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jun 8, 2008
Messages
54,132
COMMENTARY

"​

Stop Gloating Over COVID Deaths Among Anti-Vaxxers​

Arthur L. Caplan, PhD



Hi. I'm Art Caplan. I head the Division of Medical Ethics at New York University's Grossman School of Medicine.

Have you ever heard the word schadenfreude? It's German for taking joy or pleasure in the miseries of others. Sadly, we've seen quite a bit of this taking place during the COVID-19 era.

There was a gentleman reported in The New York Times named Nick Bledsoe, from Alabama, who was an auto mechanic there. He had shared his opposition to vaccines and masks many times since last year on his Facebook page, basically saying, "Don't get vaccinated. I don't care if you ever get a vaccine, come on into my shop. I think vaccines are stupid."


He kept referring to and even cursing President Joe Biden for his mandates, saying, "Biden and his ridiculous vaccine requirements," and he frequently posted misinformation about the safety of vaccines on his website as well.


About 6 months after that, probably sometime in March or April of this year, he wound up on a ventilator. Although he said he wanted to be vaccinated at that time, it was too late. He never left the hospital. He died at the age of 41, leaving behind a wife and four kids. Sadly, if you will, he was an opponent of vaccination and ended up suffering for it.

What happened as a result of this death of someone who was such a critic was that pro-vaccine people began to pile on to his website, insulting him, basically calling him out as a hypocrite, a fool, or worse, and basically leveled all kinds of, if you will, schadenfreude — taking joy in his death.

That raises an ethics question: Should a patient get involved in that, what do you say? Is it ever right to say, "Look, you said all these things and they resulted in your death, so you deserved it or you merited it"? I don't think so.


As much as it might be tempting to say, "You basically have caused harm because you've told others not to vaccinate, you didn't vaccinate yourself, you spread misinformation, and now you got yourself sick and you died," I think the goal here is to try to get people who don't want to vaccinate and don't want to mask to do so — to get better behavior.

I have to say, flat out, that making fun of, insulting, sneering at their surviving spouse, their surviving children, doing it in a public way... I don't think it's going to be persuasive in any way to vaccine critics and opponents. Indeed, it's probably likely to just make them mad and further the divide that exists between pro-vaccine and anti-vaccine, between pro-science and anti-science attitudes that we see all over the United States.

I get the temptation. This guy did some harm by running a website where he put out nonsense and false information, and he paid the price. That's sad enough for his wife and kids. Just commenting on the fact that he died, I think, makes all the points that need to be made about the importance of vaccines.

Would it be useful if, later, one of his children said, "I want to talk about the importance of vaccines because I lost my dad"? Yes, but that's something that the family gets to choose. That's something that the family might decide to do in order to try to correct misinformation or hope that a tragedy doesn't happen to another family.

I absolutely do not encourage badmouthing, finger-pointing, or insulting anybody who's lost someone to COVID-19, even if part of the reason that might have happened is that they didn't take the proper precautions or they didn't follow the best medical advice.


At the end of the day, if we're cruel to those we disagree with, I don't think it's going to move the needle in terms of getting them to do better, to support better practices, or to reconsider some of their opposition to the best tools we have to protect them against diseases like COVID-19.


It just doesn't work that way. I don't think hate delivers.


I'm Art Caplan at the Division of Medical Ethics at the New York University Grossman School of Medicine. Thank you for watching.

"


Arthur L. Caplan, PhD, is director of the Division of Medical Ethics at New York University Langone Medical Center and School of Medicine. He is the author or editor of 35 books and 750 peer-reviewed articles as well as a frequent commentator in the media on bioethical issues.
 

House Cat

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Feb 22, 2009
Messages
4,602
We talked to my husband’s doctor yesterday. He said 40% of the hospital staff is out sick. He said he was the only doctor in the large complex, all of the other doctors are out sick.


 

House Cat

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Feb 22, 2009
Messages
4,602
With the testing shortage, if you have symptoms, assume you have Omicron.

 

Asscherhalo_lover

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Aug 16, 2007
Messages
5,734
An anecdotal experience from a NYC student (I'll share my own experience from this past week tomorrow):

Copied and pasted from a nyc high school students essay- I completely believe the kids should be in person as much as possible! Can't stand remote- but this gives retrospect- and I can totally visualize all of this happening- what a mess this is! Can't wait for the light at the end of the tunnel!!!

I Am a New York City Public High School Student. The Situation is Beyond Control.
I'd like to preface this by stating that remote learning was absolutely detrimental to the mental health of myself, my friends, and my peers at school. Despite this, the present conditions within schools necessitates a temporary return to remote learning; if not because of public health, then because of learning loss.

A story of my day:

- I arrived at school and promptly went to Study Hall. I knew that some of my teachers would be absent because they had announced it on Google Classroom earlier in the day. At our school there is a board in front of the auditorium with the list of teachers and seating sections for students within study hall: today there were 14 absent teachers 1st period. There are 11 seatable sections within the auditorium ... THREE CLASSES sat on the stage. Study hall has become a super spreader event -- I'll get to this in a moment.

- Second period I had another absent teacher. More of the same from 1st period. It was around this time that 25% of kids, including myself, realized that there were no rules being enforced outside of attendance at the start of the period, and that cutting lass was ridiculously easy. We left -- there was functionally no learning occurring within study hall, and health conditions were safer outside of the auditorium. It was well beyond max capacity.

- Third period I had a normal class period. Hooray! First thing the teacher did was pass out COVID tests because we had all been close contacts to a COVID-positive student in our class. 4 more teachers would pass out COVID tests throughout the day, which were to be taken at home. The school started running low on tests, and rules had to be refined to ration.

- "To be taken at home." Ya ... students don't listen. 90% of the bathrooms were full of students swabbing their noses and taking their tests. I had one kid ask me -- with his mask down, by the way -- whether a "faint line was positive," proceeding to show me his positive COVID test. I told him to go the nurse. One student tested positive IN THE AUDITORIUM, and a few students started screaming and ran away from him. There was now a lack of available seats given there was a COVID-positive student within the middle of the auditorium. They're now planning on having teachers give up their free periods to act as substitute teachers because the auditorium is simply not safe enough.

- Classes that I did attend were quiet and empty. Students are staying home because of risk of COVID without testing positive (as they should) and some of my classes had 10+ students absent. Nearly every class has listed myself and others are close contacts.

- I should note that in study hall and with subs we literally learn nothing. I spent about 3 hours sitting around today doing nothing.

- I tested positive for COVID on December the 14th. At the time there were a total of 6 cases. By the end of break this number was up to 36. By January the 3rd (when we returned from break) the numbers were up to 100 (as listed on the school Google Sheet). Today there are 226. This is around 10% of my school. As of Monday, only 30 of whom were reported to the DOE ... which just seems like negligence to me.

- 90% of the conversations spoken by students concern COVID. It has completely taken over any function of daily school life.

- One teacher flat out left his class 5 mins into the lesson and didn't return because he was developing symptoms and didn't believe it safe to spread to his class.

I've been adamantly opposed to remote learning for a while, and thought that it was overall an unmitigated disaster for the learning and mental health of students. At the present time, however, schools cannot teach and function well enough in person. We must go remote.

I should note that I wrote this on Wednesday.

Edit: I’ve removed the name of my school as it made me uncomfortable sharing such information, but I’ll say that it’s a specialized high school. This is occurring everywhere. I’ll probably reveal it on comments but I’d prefer for it not be in the body of the post.

Edit 2: NOTE — NOT TRYING TO BE DAMAGING TO THE SCHOOL FACULTY AND TEACHER STAFF. THEY ARE DOING THEIR ABSOLUTE BEST WITH THE CARDS THEY’VE BEEN DELT, AND ALL STUDENTS ARE APPRECIATIVE. ITS DIFFICULT FOR EVERYONE AND TEACHERS AND STAFF ARE REMAINING SAFE AND SUPPORTIVE.

Update: 40% is teachers are out today. They can’t even take attendance because it’s impossible. You can sit anywhere in study hall one chair apart.
 

missy

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jun 8, 2008
Messages
54,132

The latest​

The omicron wave is weighing heavily on the nation's beleaguered hospitals and their diminishing staffs. The number of Americans hospitalized with covid-19 reached its highest level in a year this week, with many providers reporting record surges of cases. At the same time, hospital workers are stretched more than ever. Nearly 1 in 4 medical centers reported this week that they're experiencing a “critical” staffing shortage, the highest proportion in the pandemic. Hospitals are turning away ambulances, canceling procedures and warning people to stay away because they can't deliver prompt care.

As omicron cases soar, the less infectious but probably more severe delta variant is still burning hot in some places. This one-two punch has left our health-care systems more vulnerable to omicron than they might have been had delta not resurged in the fall. Death and hospitalization rates are lower in this wave than previous ones — but the raw number of serious cases we're seeing now could be devastating for hospitals if infections keep climbing. Our data team has a helpful series of graphics breaking this down.

Even as the omicron variant continues to surge across the United States, there may be a silver lining — with lots of caveats. Some infectious-disease experts believe that the variant's high transmissibility could end up boosting immunity broadly and, possibly, help damp down the pandemic. But there is no scientific consensus, and experts also concede that much depends on the virus itself, which could generate new variants that once again evade the front-line defenses of the immune system.

After hearing hours of arguments, some Supreme Court justices on Friday appeared skeptical that the Biden administration could impose a broad vaccination-or-testing requirement on workers at large companies, but seemed more receptive to the administration's vaccine mandate for certain health-care workers. The court is considering emergency petitions on whether to allow such regulations — and the decision could come soon. My colleagues Robert Barnes and Ann Marimow report.

As the pandemic enters its third year, six former health advisers to President Biden's transition team are calling on the administration to recalibrate the U.S. coronavirus response. Rather than continuing in a “perpetual state of emergency,” they said in a series of journal articles this week, the administration should try to find a “new normal” focused on suppressing infection peaks and not attempting to eliminate the virus entirely. Among other recommendations, they suggest better infection surveillance and investments in tests, vaccines and prevention tools beyond what the White House has done.

For now, White House officials are quietly working on a request to Congress for a new health spending package, my colleagues Jeff Stein, Tyler Pager and Dan Diamond report. The request would be tens of billions of dollars or more and would probably be centered on ramping up therapeutics and vaccine distribution. The administration says it has enough money on-hand to respond to the current surge and that the new funds would be to prepare for future contingencies.

Other important news​

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention presented data Friday aimed at keeping children in school. The CDC acknowledged uncertainty about a rise in pediatric hospitalizations, but offered strong evidence on the efficacy of vaccines in kids.

The White House and the U.S. Postal Service are finalizing a plan to deliver 500 million test kits around the country. The goal is to start shipping them this month.

The U.S. economy added a disappointing 199,000 jobs in December. But unemployment fell slightly and wages are up on the year.

Serbian tennis star Novak Djokovic was denied a vaccination exemption after he flew to Australia. He's now being held in a hotel pending a hearing.

Vaccine makers were just beginning to catch up to global demand. Then omicron hit.

The government's first study on vaccines and periods found “no meaningful change” in the length of menstrual cycles in people who've gotten the shots.
 

missy

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jun 8, 2008
Messages
54,132

"​

NYT​

Here’s When We Expect Omicron to Peak​


By Jeffrey Shaman
Dr. Shaman is an infectious disease modeler and epidemiologist at Columbia. His team built one of the first Covid-19 models.
The Omicron variant is spreading widely and infecting large numbers of people, including the vaccinated and those previously infected with the virus. While spikes in cases have been the norm for the past two years, there are clear indications this wave will differ substantially from previous ones.
The record number of cases in the United States and globally is largely because Omicron is more contagious than other variants and has a greater ability to evade immunity to infection. At the same time, early evidence indicates that it’s less common for people infected with Omicron to experience severe disease and end up in the hospital. This has important implications when estimating just how disruptive Omicron will be in terms of deaths, hospitalizations and work and school interruptions.
To assess the future burden of a variant like Omicron, epidemiologists like myself often turn to mathematical modeling and projection. The idea is to use a computer-based representation of how the virus spreads to simulate potential future outcomes.
It is important for modelers to explore the unknowns around Covid. For instance, evidence indicates that Omicron is more transmissible than the Delta variant, but by how much? By incorporating uncertainties into our models, we don’t merely project a single outcome. Instead, we create a distribution of outcomes, much like the cone of uncertainty used for a hurricane landfall forecast.



Projecting the Covid-19 burden is also more difficult now because of the December holidays. Reporting of cases is often delayed during the two weeks beginning shortly before Christmas until shortly after New Year’s Day. As a consequence, reported case numbers can give the misleading short-term appearance of steep case increases, or even declines.
All these issues create uncertainty and limit how far we can reliably project the burden of Omicron. My inclination is that four to six weeks is as far as modelers should routinely project.
So what does my team see for January 2022?
Our models project that the United States is likely to document more Covid-19 cases in January than in any previous month of the pandemic, but a smaller fraction of those cases will require hospitalization. Whether hospitals experience more or less strain than they did in January 2021 will depend on case numbers and how severe they are. For example, if twice as many people become infected but these people are half as likely to be hospitalized, the demand for hospital beds would be the same. This calculus also applies to estimated deaths from the virus, as well as expected disruptions to the work force.





lines2-600.png

This month will likely see a record number of cases
Total new Covid-19 cases by month, United States
25 million total cases
Likely
range
20
15
Projected
10
5
Jan. 2021
Jan.
2022
Previous months
0
1
5
10
15
20
25
30
Day of the month

Sources: Projections by Teresa Yamana, Sen Pei, Marta Galanti and Jeffrey Shaman at Columbia University.
Our projections depict a rapid surge of cases nationally that peaks at record high numbers during the first one to three weeks of January. Just how many? Our middle-of-the-cone projection produces five million cases during the worst week but ranges from three million to more than eight million cases. And the estimates vary by location. New York City is projected to peak during the first week of January; other locations peak later.



As we move deeper into January, it will be important to monitor whether the steep rise of Omicron cases is followed by a rapid decline, as has been seen in South Africa. This would make the Omicron wave intense but short-lived. However, a rapid decline is not guaranteed. South Africa has a younger population compared to the United States, and younger people are more likely to have mild, undetected infections. South Africa is also in summer, which is less favorable for virus transmission.
Other countries like Britain, which has demographics more similar to the United States and is also in winter, will be critical to watch. If Britain also experiences a rapid case decline, that may bode well for the United States.
The implications for hospitalizations and deaths here from the Omicron wave are even less certain. While Omicron is causing record numbers of infections, the hope is that vaccinations, booster shots and prior infections by other variants will still protect most people from the worst effects of the virus. Early evidence supports this conclusion. However, Omicron may still greatly affect our daily lives in other ways: If teachers test positive and schools move to remote instruction; if flights, subways and buses are disrupted because of a lack of workers, or if elective surgeries are postponed because of staffing shortages.
What will happen beyond January? We don’t yet know the ultimate fate of SARS-CoV-2 and all its variants. The future burden of Covid depends in large part on whether highly transmissible variants able to evade pre-existing immunity, such as Omicron, continue to emerge.
If new variants arise roughly twice per year, for example, then we should expect multiple outbreaks each year, even in the summer. If such variants emerge less frequently, then outbreaks might occur annually or even less frequently. The severity of these outbreaks will depend on the characteristics of those new variants and whether prior infections, vaccination and new drugs can keep people at a lower risk of severe disease.
The long-term implications of Omicron remain unknown, but in the near term, everyone should expect an intense month of disruption. Still, the familiar advice remains the best: get vaccinated, get booster shots and prepare for a bumpy January.


"
 

missy

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jun 8, 2008
Messages
54,132
@Asscherhalo_lover thank you for sharing that poignant story. It is surreal what the teachers and children and parents are going through.


www.nytimes.com/2022/01/07/nyregion/nyc-schools-omicron.html

"

The first week of school after the New York City holiday break left many of the city’s approximately 80,000 educators and well over a million parents with a deeply uncomfortable and familiar feeling – that the deep insecurity that characterized the city’s troubled 18-month school reopening process had returned.

Schools in the country’s largest district opened as planned on Monday, amid an extraordinary increase in cases driven by the highly contagious Omicron variant, which in turn has turned New York into a coronavirus epicenter. A new test system went into effect this week, with rapid tests available at all schools. Attendance was around 70 percent during the week.

In two dozen interviews with parents, teachers, and students this week, New Yorkers were divided over whether schools should currently be open to personal learning, but most reiterated a familiar sense of discomfort.
Matt Baker, a high school math teacher at Brooklyn Latin School who craves Williamsburg and Bushwick, said the week had been chaotic. “We try to help children who are not here, but also children who are here,” he said. “It’s not clear how long they will be out, we’re just trying to make ends meet.”

“I’m glad that schools are generally open,” said Mr. Baker. “I just’m not convinced they should have opened this week.”
Mayor Eric Adams, who took office just two days before schools reopened after the winter break, has been adamant that the system will remain open despite the rise in virus cases and hospitalizations.

New York has been more aggressive than many other major cities in keeping its schools open. This policy has been supported by many public health experts and parents whose children struggled during virtual schooling, although some parents say they would prefer a long-term distance learning option.

The reopening had so far been largely successful, as the virus transmission in the school was extremely low in the year or so, from when the schools began to reopen, until Omicron hit. But the variant’s contagion poses a unique challenge, and keeping schools safe – while reassuring families and educators – has emerged as the first major test of leadership for the new mayor.

“The safest place for children is in a school building,” said Mr. Adams during a television interview Thursday. “There’s no one around it. It’s science, it’s fact. It does not spread fear.”

At a press conference Friday, the mayor said he wanted to give parents clarity that schools would be open and remain open after a series of delays and changes to the school’s reopening plan.

He and others have pointed out all the ways in which conditions are different than they were earlier in the pandemic.
New York educators gained access to vaccines almost a full year ago before some immunocompromised people and other vulnerable groups. All adults working in urban buildings must be vaccinated. Almost all of the city’s school children are eligible for vaccines, though more than half have not received a shot.

Testing, although still limited, is more available than during previous hikes. And although Omicron is more contagious than previous variants and more likely to spur on breakthrough infections, some evidence suggests that it causes milder disease than previous variants, especially in vaccinated humans.

There is also much less political friction with the city’s teachers’ association than there was earlier in the pandemic; Mr. Adams and Michael Mulgrew, president of the United Federation of Teachers, have said they work closely together to keep schools open.

Solange Farina sent her daughter, a first-year high school student, back to school in the Chelsea neighborhood of Manhattan this week. Ms. Farina, who lives in Astoria, Queens, said she did not feel nearly as scared as she did when the schools first closed in the spring of 2020. “But I certainly do not feel hopeful, as I did last June, before Delta ,” she said.
“I go in a way day by day,” she said. “It’s just stressful to live in this moment.”

Attendance data from the past week demonstrated the challenges of the moment. About a third of parents kept their children at home.
Interviews with parents around the city highlighted the gap that exists between them.
As she stood outside Public School 112 in East Harlem this week, Erica Alvarez said monitoring distance learning for her 7-year-old son earlier in the pandemic was “one of the toughest periods” of her life.
This week she said: “So far, everything is fine. They have made me feel good.”

But a few blocks away at Public School 155, Yamzi Aquino was waiting to pick up his 8-year-old son. He was nervous that his child was back in the classrooms.
“I would rather he is healthy and happy and waiting,” Mr Aquino said. “You risk too much.”
The number of cases in schools has been significantly higher in the last three weeks than at any other time of the pandemic. The city’s virus detection system for schools, known as the Situation Room, reported more than 13,000 positive cases among staff and students on Thursday.

Still, city officials warned that a majority of these cases were reported during the holiday season when children did not go to school and that they were part of a huge backlog in case reporting. The city also began tabulating the results of rapid home tests, not just laboratory-confirmed PCR tests, for the first time this week.
In an effort to make families and educators more comfortable returning to classrooms, the city increased its school test protocol in the final week of former mayor Bill de Blasio’s tenure.

Among the changes: 1.5 million quick home tests have been distributed to schools, and entire classrooms no longer need to be quarantined when someone tests positive. And students and staff can return after an exposure as long as they receive two negative home test results over five days.

Elana Rabinowitz, a middle school teacher in the Fort Greene neighborhood of Brooklyn, said she was relieved to find test kits and a KN95 mask waiting for her when she returned to her school building this week. She was assured that there would be enough to test herself twice a week.
“It gave me some faith that someone was in charge,” she said.

But Ms Rabinowitz said the staff shortage experienced by her school and many others due to positive cases was untenable. By Friday, she said, about half of the staff were absent and there were only a handful of students in most classrooms.
“As usual, we wear all the different hats to keep the school running. In a beautiful way, people have come together, ”she said. “However, it is like taking blood from a stone. Everything we have been through, and everything we continue to work on, we are already exhausted. ”

Despite staffing problems at many schools, the city kept all but one of its 1,600 schools open this week. The principal of a school, Public School 58 in Brooklyn, told parents Sunday night that she would close the school the next day without permission from the Department of Education. It was open again on Tuesday.

The municipality does not yet have data on employee attendance this week. During a news conference Friday, David C. Banks, the school’s chancellor, said the number of employees at the school had been “lower than we wanted to see.” He added that he expected both students and staff to increase next week.

But the fact that the schools have been open does not mean that they function normally.
Pilar Lu-Heda, 17, a high school senior living in Prospect Heights, Brooklyn, and who goes to school in Manhattan, said her first day back was “definitely a bit creepy” because so many students had not turned up back.

"
 

Karl_K

Super_Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Aug 4, 2008
Messages
14,693
I know or know of so many people that have or recently had covid that its really beyond words.
Mostly mild symptoms thankfully.
Part of it is that way way way to many people feel bad for 2 days then go out and about as soon as they are feeling slightly better and not waiting for the even the 5 day quarantine to expire.
They then spread it into another family and many of them catch it and on and on and on.
Many people who test positive by home kits are not reporting it to the health department and some have not told anyone they were in contact with.
Just makes me want to scream.
"YOU CAN KILL PEOPLE DOING THAT!"
 

Karl_K

Super_Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Aug 4, 2008
Messages
14,693
Also the pcr testing labs are so backed up many places stopped offering them and are just doing rapid tests.
We never did get our pcr results and I figure we wont and they are now offering rapid only.
 

missy

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jun 8, 2008
Messages
54,132
From the NYT

Just when Americans thought they understood the basics about the coronavirus, Omicron has left them with a new set of calculations to make.​
The highly contagious new variant, which has been circulating in the U.S. for at least five weeks, has ushered in a new and disorienting phase of the pandemic. In response to the surge, public health officials have shortened the isolation periodfor people with positive tests and have instructed Americans to upgrade their masks from cloth to medical-grade when possible, for greater protection.​
“Omicron has turned, quickly, into something that is just different,” said Dr. Allison Arwady, Chicago’s top health official.​
The pace of daily new infections of the coronavirus has nearly doubled globally in the past week, exceeding a staggering two million cases a day. Case counts have reached record highs in the U.S., but a fresh perspective on these metrics is necessary as a faster but less severe variant tears through the country. Here’s how to interpret the latest trends.​
mail
Amalia Harder, 7, attended school remotely in Chicago last week.Mustafa Hussain for The New York Times​
2. It’s a stressful time for school systems around the U.S. as they wrestle with how to go back to class amid the Omicron wave.​
Nowhere has the situation been more rancorous than in Chicago, where the teachers’ union and Mayor Lori Lightfoot are in a standoff over virus precautions and testing. Teachers’ unions elsewhere are agitating for change, citing staffing and testing shortages. The tensions are putting pressure on Democrats, who have vowed to keep schools open.​
Interviews with families across Chicago revealed a wide range of views on what should happen next. Families and educators were similarly divided on the topic in New York City. “We’re just trying to get by,” one high school math teacher said.​
The situation in the U.S. is similar to that in England: Staffing shortages are dire enough that retirees have been urged to return to duty.​
From Bloomberg.com
Patience is wearing thin with the millions of people who refuse to get vaccinated against Covid-19, as hospitals everywhere buckle under the weight of admissions. There’s a growing campaign to isolate the anti-vax crowd as antisocial outliers. In France, which suffered Europe’s highest tally of new infections, President Emmanuel Macron appears to be gambling on a strategy he says is designed to “piss off” people who’ve not been vaccinated. Even Britain’s Boris Johnson has changed tack, tearinginto what he called the “nonsense” that anti-vaxxers spout online. In Canada, Quebec residents will need a vaccine passport to buy marijuana or alcohol. But the highest-profile casualty, in what may have been a ploy to avoid inoculation, appears to be tennis star Novak Djokovic, who’s paying the price for trying to bypass Australia’s strict quarantine rules.
 

missy

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jun 8, 2008
Messages
54,132

Lessons from India’s missteps​

The sense of déjà vu is palpable. Politicians across India’s major parties, including Prime Minister Narendra Modi, have hit the campaign trail and are drawing enormous crowds ahead of a set of state elections just as a third Covid-19 wave, most likely powered by the omicron variant, mushrooms across the country.
Rewind almost a year earlier and Modi and his rivals were fiercely contesting polls in West Bengal, despite repeated internal sirens in early 2021 that a new and virulent coronavirus variant—later termed delta—had surfaced within its borders.
Specifically, it was brewing in Amravati, a central Indian cotton-growing district more than 400 miles (644 kilometers) east of Mumbai, as the rest of India enjoyed a relative lull. My colleague Dhwani and I visited Amravati just weeks ago for our investigation into how delta’s spread was enabled by error and inaction on the part of Indian authorities.
What we uncovered is that small but crucial decisions—like nationalistic import restrictions of vital components needed for genome-sequencing machines—allowed delta to launch into the world with little notice.
mail

Narendra Modi
Photographer: Robert Perry/EPA
In contrast, South Africa acted swiftly in November to decode omicron and publicize its existence. But India’s experience perhaps better reflects the reality faced by most developing countries – and the risks they potentially pose.
To be sure, India has modestly upped its sequencing efforts, though it did drop its aspiration to map 5% of all infections after it was overwhelmed in last year’s viral surge. The hope now is that omicron indeed turns out to be less deadly, as several studies suggest.
That, coupled with India’s increased vaccine coverage since the second wave and an increase in health-care capacity, along with high levels of previous exposure, means health experts expect that the third wave won’t leave a scar as deep as delta did.—Chris Kay

Track the virus​

Hong Kong Faces Worst of Both Worlds

The once-vibrant gateway to China sacrificed its status as an international hub to “Covid Zero,” the strategy to eliminate the virus through isolation. It worked for a while. Now Hong Kong is living with the worst of both worlds after a couple of imported infections caused by the omicron variant started spreading in the under-vaccinated city. Read the full story here.
mail

A closed bar in the Lan Kwai Fong nightlife area in Hong Kong.
Photographer: Paul Yeung/Bloomberg
 

missy

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jun 8, 2008
Messages
54,132
JAMA
January 7, 2022

False-Positive Results in Rapid Antigen Tests for SARS-CoV-2​

Joshua S. Gans, PhD1; Avi Goldfarb, PhD1; Ajay K. Agrawal, PhD1; et alSonia Sennik, MBA2; Janice Stein, PhD1; Laura Rosella, PhD1
Author Affiliations Article Information
JAMA. Published online January 7, 2022. doi:10.1001/jama.2021.24355
COVID-19 Resource Center
related articles icon
Related
Articles


Concerns have been raised whether rapid antigen tests for SARS-CoV-2 can result in false-positive test results1,2 and undermine pandemic management for COVID-19. This study investigated the incidence of false-positive results in a large sample of rapid antigen tests used to serially screen asymptomatic workers throughout Canada.

Methods
Rapid antigen tests for SARS-CoV-2 were implemented as an extra layer of protection to control transmission in workplaces throughout Canada by the Creative Destruction Lab Rapid Screening Consortium (CDL RSC). Asymptomatic employees were screened twice weekly. Workplace participation was voluntary. From January 11 to October 13, 2021, tests were conducted by employees, with some workplaces providing at-home screening and others on-site screening programs. Over this period, Canada experienced 2 significant Delta variant–driven waves from March to June and August to October. Screening results were recorded, including a deidentified record identifier, the place of employment, the test, and (optionally) the lot number. If a test result was positive, the patient was immediately referred for a confirmatory polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test to be completed within 24 hours. Initial data validation was completed at the point of collection. All data collected before June 26 and presumptive positive screen results and PCR test results reported before September 15 were externally verified through an audit process by participant organizations. False-positive results were matched to lot number and test manufacturer. A false-positive result was defined as a positive screen on a rapid antigen test and a subsequent negative confirmatory PCR.
The data from the CDL RSC were collected to inform the operational requirements of deploying rapid antigen screens in workplaces. All participants provided written consent to participate in the screening program and to share their deidentified data with the CDL RSC, including for publication, and with public health authorities. This study was approved by the University of Toronto Research Ethics Board.
Results
There were 903 408 rapid antigen tests conducted over 537 workplaces, with 1322 positive results (0.15%), of which 1103 had PCR information. Approximately two-thirds of screens were trackable with a lot number. The number of false-positive results was 462 (0.05% of screens and 42% of positive test results with PCR information). Of these, 278 false-positive results (60%) occurred in 2 workplaces 675 km apart run by different companies between September 25 and October 8, 2021. All of the false-positive test results from these 2 workplaces were drawn from a single batch of Abbott’s Panbio COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test Device.
Discussion
The overall rate of false-positive results among the total rapid antigen test screens for SARS-CoV-2 was very low, consistent with other, smaller studies.3 The cluster of false-positive results from 1 batch was likely the result of manufacturing issues rather than implementation. These results inform the discussion of whether rapid antigen tests will result in too many false-positives that could overwhelm PCR testing capacity in other settings.1,2Also, the results demonstrate the importance of having a comprehensive data system to quickly identify potential issues. With the ability to identify batch issues within 24 hours, workers could return to work, problematic test batches could be discarded, and the public health authorities and manufacturer could be informed. Aside from issues with the batch, false-positives are possible due to the timing of the test (ie, too early or too late in the infectious stage) or quality issues in how the self-test was completed.
Limitations of the study include the convenience sample of workplaces and that reporting of PCR confirmatory results and identification of lot number was not compulsory. In addition, these results reflect the epidemiology experienced in Canada and may not generalize to other countries experiencing different COVID-19 incidence.
Section Editors: Jody W. Zylke, MD, Deputy Editor; Kristin Walter, MD, Associate Editor.
Back to top
Article Information
Accepted for Publication: December 20, 2021.
Published Online: January 7, 2022. doi:10.1001/jama.2021.24355
Corresponding Author: Joshua S. Gans, PhD, Rotman School of Management, University of Toronto, 105 St George St, Toronto, ON M5S3E6, Canada ([email protected]).
Author Contributions: Drs Goldfarb and Rosella had full access to all of the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.
 

missy

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jun 8, 2008
Messages
54,132
Viewpoint
January 6, 2022

A National Strategy for the “New Normal” of Life With COVID​

Ezekiel J. Emanuel, MD, PhD1; Michael Osterholm, PhD, MPH2; Celine R. Gounder, MD, ScM3
Author Affiliations Article Information
JAMA. Published online January 6, 2022. doi:10.1001/jama.2021.24282
COVID-19 Resource Center
related articles icon
Related
Articles


As the Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2 demonstrates, COVID-19 is here to stay. In January 2021, President Biden issued the “National Strategy for the COVID-19 Response and Pandemic Preparedness.” As the US moves from crisis to control, this national strategy needs to be updated. Policy makers need to specify the goals and strategies for the “new normal” of life with COVID-19 and communicate them clearly to the public.
SARS-CoV-2 continues to persist, evolve, and surprise. In July 2021, with vaccinations apace and infection rates plummeting, Biden proclaimed that “we’ve gained the upper hand against this virus,” and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) relaxed its guidance for mask wearing and socializing.1 By September 2021, the Delta variant proved these steps to be premature, and by late November, the Omicron variant created concern about a perpetual state of emergency.
In delineating a national strategy, humility is essential. The precise duration of immunity to SARS-CoV-2 from vaccination or prior infection is unknown. Also unknown is whether SARS-CoV-2 will become a seasonal infection; whether antiviral therapies will prevent long COVID; or whether even more transmissible, immune-evading, or virulent variants will arise after Omicron.
Another part of this humility is recognizing that predictions are necessary but educated guesses, not mathematical certainty. The virus, host response, and data will evolve. Biomedical and public health tools will expand, along with better understanding of their limitations. The incidence of SARS-CoV-2, vaccination rates, hospital capacity, tolerance for risk, and willingness to implement different interventions will vary geographically, and national recommendations will need to be adapted locally.
It is imperative for public health, economic, and social functioning that US leaders establish and communicate specific goals for COVID-19 management, benchmarks for the imposition or relaxation of public health restrictions, investments and reforms needed to prepare for future SARS-CoV-2 variants and other novel viruses, and clear strategies to accomplish all of this.

Redefining the Appropriate National Risk Level
The goal for the “new normal” with COVID-19 does not include eradication or elimination, eg, the “zero COVID” strategy.2 Neither COVID-19 vaccination nor infection appear to confer lifelong immunity. Current vaccines do not offer sterilizing immunity against SARS-CoV-2 infection. Infectious diseases cannot be eradicated when there is limited long-term immunity following infection or vaccination or nonhuman reservoirs of infection. The majority of SARS-CoV-2 infections are asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic, and the SARS-CoV-2 incubation period is short, preventing the use of targeted strategies like “ring vaccination.” Even “fully” vaccinated individuals are at risk for breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infection. Consequently, a “new normal with COVID” in January 2022 is not living without COVID-19.
The “new normal” requires recognizing that SARS-CoV-2 is but one of several circulating respiratory viruses that include influenza, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), and more. COVID-19 must now be considered among the risks posed by all respiratory viral illnesses combined. Many of the measures to reduce transmission of SARS-CoV-2 (eg, ventilation) will also reduce transmission of other respiratory viruses. Thus, policy makers should retire previous public health categorizations, including deaths from pneumonia and influenza or pneumonia, influenza, and COVID-19, and focus on a new category: the aggregate risk of all respiratory virus infections.
What should be the peak risk level for cumulative viral respiratory illnesses for a “normal” week? Even though seasonal influenza, RSV, and other respiratory viruses circulating before SARS-CoV-2 were harmful, the US has not considered them a sufficient threat to impose emergency measures in over a century. People have lived normally with the threats of these viruses, even though more could have been done to reduce their risks.
The appropriate risk threshold should reflect peak weekly deaths, hospitalizations, and community prevalence of viral respiratory illnesses during high-severity years, such as 2017-2018.3 That year had approximately 41 million symptomatic cases of influenza, 710 000 hospitalizations and 52 000 deaths.4 In addition, the CDC estimates that each year RSV leads to more than 235 000 hospitalizations and 15 000 deaths in the US.3 This would translate into a risk threshold of approximately 35 000 hospitalizations and 3000 deaths (<1 death/100 000 population) in the worst week.
Today, the US is far from these thresholds. For the week of December 13, 2021, the CDC reported the US experienced more than 900 000 COVID-19 cases, more than 50 000 new hospitalizations for COVID-19, and more than 7000 deaths.5,6 The tolerance for disease, hospitalization, and death varies widely among individuals and communities. What constitutes appropriate thresholds for hospitalizations and death, at what cost, and with what trade-offs remains undetermined.
This peak week risk threshold serves at least 2 fundamental functions. This risk threshold triggers policy recommendations for emergency implementation of mitigation and other measures. In addition, health systems could rely on this threshold for planning on the bed and workforce capacity they need normally, and when to institute surge measures.
Rebuilding Public Health
To cope with pandemic, and eventually, endemic SARS-CoV-2 and to respond to future public health threats requires deploying real-time information systems, a public health implementation workforce, flexible health systems, trust in government and public health institutions, and belief in the value of collective action for public good.7,8
First, the US needs a comprehensive, digital, real-time, integrated data infrastructure for public health. As Omicron has reemphasized, the US is operating with imprecise estimates of disease spread, limited genomic surveillance, projections based on select reporting sites, and data from other countries that may not be generalizable. These shortcomings are threatening lives and societal function.
The US must establish a modern data infrastructure that includes real-time electronic collection of comprehensive information on respiratory viral infections, hospitalizations, deaths, disease-specific outcomes, and immunizations merged with sociodemographic and other relevant variables. The public health data infrastructure should integrate data from local, state, and national public health units, health care systems, public and commercial laboratories, and academic and research institutions. Using modern technology and analytics, it is also essential to merge nontraditional environmental (air, wastewater) surveillance data, including genomic data, with traditional clinical and epidemiological data to track outbreaks and target containment.
Second, the US needs a permanent public health implementation workforce that has the flexibility and surge capacity to manage persistent problems while simultaneously responding to emergencies. Data collection, analysis, and technical support are necessary, but it takes people to respond to crises. This implementation workforce should include a public health agency–based community health worker system and expanded school nurse system.
A system of community public health workers could augment the health care system by testing and vaccinating for SARS-CoV-2 and other respiratory infections; ensuring adherence to ongoing treatment for tuberculosis, HIV, diabetes, and other chronic conditions; providing health screening and support to pregnant individuals and new parents and their newborns; and delivering various other public health services to vulnerable or homebound populations.
School nurses need to be empowered to address the large unmet public health needs of children and adolescents. As polio vaccination campaigns showed, school health programs are an efficient and effective way to care for children, including preventing and treating mild asthma exacerbations (often caused by viral respiratory infections), ensuring vaccination as a condition for attendance, and addressing adolescents’ mental and sexual health needs. School clinics must be adequately staffed and funded as an essential component of the nation’s public health infrastructure.
Third, because respiratory infections ebb and flow, institutionalizing telemedicine waivers, licensure to practice and enable billing across state lines, and other measures that allow the flow of medical services to severely affected regions should be a priority.
Fourth, it is essential to rebuild trust in public health institutions and a belief in collective action in service of public health.7 Communities with higher levels of trust and reciprocity, such as Denmark, have experienced lower rates of hospitalization and death from COVID-19.7 Improving public health data systems and delivering a diverse public health workforce that can respond in real time in communities will be important steps toward building that trust more widely.
Conclusions
After previous infectious disease threats, the US quickly forgot and failed to institute necessary reforms. That pattern must change with the COVID-19 pandemic. Without a strategic plan for the “new normal” with endemic COVID-19, more people in the US will unnecessarily experience morbidity and mortality, health inequities will widen, and trillions will be lost from the US economy. This time, the nation must learn and prepare effectively for the future.
The resources necessary to build and sustain an effective public health infrastructure will be substantial. Policy makers should weigh not only the costs but also the benefits, including fewer deaths and lost productivity from COVID-19 and all viral respiratory illnesses. Indeed, after more than 800 000 deaths from COVID-19, and a projected loss of $8 trillion in gross domestic product through 2030,8 these interventions will be immensely valuable.
Back to top
Article Information
Corresponding Author: Ezekiel J. Emanuel, MD, PhD, Medical Ethics and Health Policy, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, 423 Guardian Dr, Blockley Hall, Philadelphia, PA 19104 ([email protected]).
Published Online: January 6, 2022. doi:10.1001/jama.2021.24282
Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Emanuel reported personal fees, nonfinancial support, or both from companies, organizations, and professional health care meetings and being a venture partner at Oak HC/FT; a partner at Embedded Healthcare LLC, ReCovery Partners LLC, and COVID-19 Recovery Consulting; and an unpaid board member of Village MD and Oncology Analytics. Dr Emanuel owns no stock in pharmaceutical, medical device companies, or health insurers. No other disclosures were reported.
Additional Information: Drs Emanuel, Osterholm, and Gounder were members of the Biden-Harris Transition COVID-19 Advisory Board from November 2020 to January 2021.
 
Be a part of the community Get 3 HCA Results
Top