Skip to content

It's becoming a little tougher to rely on pandemic data now. Reporting from most, if not all, US jurisdictions is infrequent plus misses most of the home test results; we know individuals generally aren't going to report their home rapid test results. Furthermore, testing around the globe is likely worse, driven additionally by lack of testing resources.

So, to satisfy my craving for data I've had to turn to a bit of a jigsaw puzzle strategy to assemble data pieces into a big picture.

Friends Across the Pond, Plus Some CDC Data

Europe, though with different pandemic epidemiologic drivers, has helped to foreshadow events in the US. I turned to England's poop patrol first. The image below is one of many from the UK's excellent reporting system; focus on the blue line depicting England's viral concentration in wastewater through early March.

What you see are viral levels, mostly representing the BA.2 omicron subvariant, coming down to what was seen at the low point last October. I find this particularly encouraging because this downtrend is happening without British healthcare system overload. Furthermore, R value (reproductive number) in the UK also is heading down. (This last link is only for hardcore pandemic geeks, at the website you then need to download a spreadsheet and study the data.)

In the US, it's hard to find much about the pandemic in the lay press, probably a combination of other important news, less data, and overall pandemic fatigue. The screenshot below is from the CDC's variant tracker; note the striking and rapid appearance of BA.2.

Again, what is a hopeful sign is that we have seen BA.2 virtually take over most of the country, but without a rapid rise in healthcare resource strain. The fully assembled puzzle may be showing us that while BA.2 rapidly became the predominant strain, it did not result in a major illness surge. The next few weeks in the US will reveal a clearer picture.

But Wait, There's More

I was super-excited to see the FDA's new industry guidance for COVID-19 vaccination, the first update in about a year. Other than the vaccine industry, I may be the only other person to be thrilled to see this guidance. The press and even most of my healthcare alerts seem to have ignored it. It's pretty dense, boring reading, but the meat is in Appendix 2 on page 21 where the approach to vaccines for new variants is discussed. Although the FDA always has a disclaimer that these are all nonbinding recommendations, you can bet Pfizer, Moderna, and the other vaccine players will be paying close attention to this roadmap for future trials, likely later this year.

I deliberately chose the term "omen" at the top of this post, feeling like I may as well be reading tea leaves or using similar methods to divine the future. Nonetheless, my puzzle work today reminds me to look forward to my summer vacation with our 1000-piece jigsaw puzzle, this one with a bunch of trees that all look alike. If our plans stay intact, we'll have (and need) the whole family working on this one.

The CDC appears to have answered my question in last week's post, at least partially. While we are by no means in the clear, the new transmission prevention guidelines signal a more logical approach to NPIs (non-pharmaceutical interventions) that fits the current stage of the pandemic. On the other hand, we did see some controversy about whether the CDC is purposely withholding data from the public.

Is the New Guidance Too Confusing?

The guidance for specific areas depends on both disease activity and healthcare capacity for that region which makes a lot of sense because we know we won't reach herd immunity. Prevention of severe disease, death, and healthcare rationing are primary goals. We've seen healthcare taxed beyond capacity trying to care for both COVID-19 patients as well as all the other population health needs. CDC has set up a site that gives a specific answer for a community's level of risk (high, medium, or low) and corresponding advice. Just look at the color of your area of interest in their map and you will have the quick answer.

Getting to the underlying data for the categorization is a little harder but not terribly imposing. For example, if you wanted to know what's going on in Montgomery County, MD, you'd see that as of February 27, 2022, community transmission is "substantial" with the case rate at 66/100,000 and percent of positive tests at 1.83%. 4.43% of inpatient beds and 8.42% of staffed ICU beds are occupied by COVID-19 positive patients. What this all means, going back to the main site link, is that Montgomery County is in the Low community risk level.

I am most interested to see what happens in those jurisdictions where states have made pre-emptive rulings about NPIs that may contradict CDC's guidance. How many of them will toe the new line? Also, will citizens comply when their community experiences an increase in risk and should increase precautions?

Transparency is Essential

I don't have a problem with CDC or other agencies not releasing data that could be inaccurate, but I do have a problem with withholding information because someone might misinterpret the data. Just as with any scientific study, the investigators are obligated to discuss what the results mean and the limitations of the study.

Let's look at the example of wastewater testing and compare the US to the UK. Wastewater testing can be extremely valuable for tracking disease hotspots and also for tracking variants. CDC reports 15-day data on their website. You can see trends and activity in different parts of the country, though I couldn't find any information about variant tracking.

The UK, on the other hand, offers much more extensive information about wastewater tracking in monthly reports, including variant percentages across the country. The country coverage is much more extensive than in the US, though I didn't see any data from Wales.

Here is a screenshot of sites covered by wastewater tracking in the US. Large swaths of the country are not represented:

Dots represent data collection sites, with colors showing percent change. Red is bad, dark blue good, other shades in between, and gray with no recent data.

In general I wouldn't worry as much about misinterpretation of CDC data as I would about deliberate misuse of data. An example of the latter has been an ongoing problem with use of the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) data during the pandemic. Virtually every pediatric healthcare provider knew well before the pandemic that VAERS could not provide information about causation - anyone can report any type of event as being associated with a vaccine, and the reports are publicly available. That didn't stop many bad actors from using the data to falsely support claims of harm from COVID-19 vaccines.