Babies born to mothers who suffered COVID-19 disease during pregnancy seem to exhibit differences in neurodevelopmental outcomes at 6 weeks, according to a preliminary analysis presented in the 30th European Congress of Psychiatry.
Project Leader Dr Rosa Ayesa Arriola said: "Not all babies born to mothers infected with COVID show neurodevelopmental differences, but our data shows that their risk is increased in comparison to those not exposed to COVID in the womb. We need a bigger study to confirm the exact extent of the difference".
Researchers found that babies born to mothers who had been infected show greater difficulties in relaxing and adapting their bodies when they are being held, when compared to infants from non-infected mothers, especially when infection took place in late pregnancy. Moreover, infants born from infected mothers tend to show greater difficulty in controlling head and shoulder movement. These alterations suggest a possible COVID-19 effect on motor function (movement control).
The results come from an initial evaluation of the Spanish COGESTCOV-19 project, which followed the course of pregnancy and baby development in mothers infected with COVID-19. The researchers are presenting the data on pregnancy and post-natal assessment at 6 weeks after birth, but the project will continue to see if there are longer-term effects. The group will monitor infant language and motor development between 18 and 42 months old.
The initial evaluation compared babies born to 21 COVID-positive pregnant women and their babies, with 21 healthy controls attending the Marqus de Valdecilla University Hospital in Santander, Spain. The mothers underwent a series of tests during and after pregnancy. These included hormonal and other biochemical tests (measuring such things as cortisol levels, immunological response, etc.) salivary tests, movement responses, and psychological questionnaires. All analyses were adjusted for infant age, sex, and other factors.
The post-natal tests included the Neonatal Behavioral Assessment Scale (NBAS), which measures the baby's movement and behavior.
Researcher Ms. gueda Castro Quintas (University of Barcelona, Network Centre for Biomedical Research in Mental Health), said:
"We found that certain elements of the NBAS measurement were changed in 6-week-old infants who had been exposed to the SARS-COV-2 virus. Effectively they react slightly differently to being held, or cuddled".
We have been especially sensitive in how we have conducted these tests. Each mother and baby was closely examined by clinicians with expert training in the field and in the tests.
We need to note that these are preliminary result, but this is part of a project following a larger sample of 100 mothers and their babies. They have also been monitored during pregnancy, and after birth. We also plan to compare these mothers and babies with data from another similar project (the epi-project) which looks at the effect of stress and genetics on a child's neurodevelopment".
gueda Castro Quintas continued:
"This is an ongoing project, and we are at an early stage. We found that babies whose mothers had been exposed to COVID did show neurological effects at 6 weeks, but we don't know if these effects will result in any longer-term issues, longer term observation may help us understand this.
Co-researcher Nerea San Martn Gonzlez, added:
"Of course, in babies who are so young there are several things we just can't measure, such as language skills or cognition. We also need to be aware that this is a comparatively small sample, so we are repeating the work, and we will follow this up over a longer period. We need a bigger sample to determine the role of infection on offspring's neurodevelopmental alterations and the contribution of other environmental factors In the meantime, we need to stress the importance of medical monitoring to facilitate a healthy pregnancy, discussing any concerns with your doctor wherever necessary".
Commenting, Project Leader Dr Rosa Ayesa Arriola said:
"This is the right moment to establish international collaborations that would permit us to assess long-term neurodevelopment in children born during the COVID-19 pandemic. Research in this field is vital in understanding and preventing possible neurological problems and mental health vulnerabilities in those children in the coming years".
In an independent comment, Dr Livio Provenzi (University of Pavia, Italy) said:
"There is a great need to study both direct and indirect effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the health and well-being of parents and infants. Pregnancy is a period of life which shapes much of our subsequent development, and exposure to adversity in pregnancy can leave long-lasting biological footprints. These findings from Dr Rosa Ayesa Arriola's group reinforces evidence of epigenetic alterations in in infants born from mothers exposed to pandemic-related stress during pregnancy. It shows we need more large scale, international research to allow us to understand the developmental effects of this health emergency, and to deliver better quality of care to parents and infants".
Dr Provenzi was not involved in this work.
The U.S. responded to the COVID-19 recession with massive and unprecedented support for businesses. The business sector overall fared much better than had been expected at the outset. Is this evidence that the business aid had strong economic benefits? Why should policymakers think twice before redeploying the same toolkit during future recessions? Ben Iverson, associate professor of finance at Brigham Young University, and Gabe Chodorow-Reich, associate professor of economics at Harvard University, join host David Wessel to discuss lessons learned about support for businesses.
Wednesday, April 27, 2022
Recession Remedies podcast is part of the Brookings Podcast Network. Subscribe and listen onApple,Spotify, Google, or wherever you listen to podcasts. Send feedback email to podcasts@brookings.edu, and follow and tweet at@policypodcasts on Twitter.
Many of those infections came from individuals who were considered fully vaccinated, according to the VDH.
NORFOLK, Va. Data from the Virginia Department of Health shows how many times COVID-19 evaded our vaccines in 2022.
In late May, VDH closed its "Cases by Vaccination Status" and archived its dataset on the Virginia Open Data Portal. However, a public information officer with VDH said more than 100,000 COVID infections were considered a breakthrough between January 2022 and May when the dashboard was retired.
The following are the exact numbers:
"Vaccine breakthroughs are expected when vaccine-induced immunity levels, those antibody levels, decrease over time," Dr. Lisa Thanjan, a VDH epidemiologist, said.
While state-level tracking isn't monitored as closely anymore, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention tracks cases by vaccination status across many U.S. jurisdictions.
According to COVID-19 case rates tracked across 31 U.S. jurisdictions, the country saw its highest level of breakthrough infections in mid-January during the Omicron variant surge, with almost 1,500 cases per every 100,000 people who received at least a "primary series" of a vaccine.
As time goes on, and new variants continue to emerge, Dr. Thanjan said there runs an increased likelihood that new variants that have higher transmission rates-- combined with waning efficacy-- are more likely to bypass existing vaccine formulas.
She added that the Food and Drug Administration will meet at the end of June to figure out if our current COVID vaccines need to be altered to help fight new variants.
For more information on COVID-19 in Virginia, click here.
Despite increase stressors during the COVID-19 pandemic, a new study did not find a higher incidence of postpartum depression among women who gave birth during the pandemic. There was an increased prevalence of mood disorders among individuals delivering infants during the pandemic, according to the study published in the peer-reviewed Journal of Women's Health.
Malika Waschmann, from the School of Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, and coauthors, compared the incidence of postpartum depression in mothers giving birth during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic to those giving birth during the year preceding the pandemic.
Postpartum depression is a common complication of pregnancy affecting 10-15% of individuals.
The investigators found that pre-childbirth prevalence of anxiety and depression increased substantially during the pandemic. However, the results indicated that 'the incidence proportion of PPD symptomatology remained stable as we entered the COVID-19 pandemic despite an increase in underlying, pre-childbirth mood disorders."
In an accompanying editorial, Michael Silverman, PhD and Holly Loudon, MD, MPH, from the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, The Mount Sinai Hospital, state the following: "Given that the COVID-19 pandemic represents a uniquely stressful time for most, and the overwhelming belief that the pandemic would significantly increase perinatal mood dysregulation and possibly disrupt infant bonding, these findings appear strikingly counterintuitive. Waschmann et al. hypothesize that despite the increased emotional disruption attributable to the COVID-19 pandemic globally, social restrictions may have improved certain aspects of adjustment associated with the early maternal period. Indeed, an increasing body of work is beginning to reveal that those who stood to benefit most from an improved work-family-childcare balance also reported improved postpartum mood during the height of the pandemic restrictions as well as other aspects of health and wellness."
Source:
Journal reference:
Waschmann, M., et al. (2022) Evaluating the Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Postpartum Depression. Journal of Women's Health. doi.org/10.1089/jwh.2021.0428.
Country
United States of AmericaUS Virgin IslandsUnited States Minor Outlying IslandsCanadaMexico, United Mexican StatesBahamas, Commonwealth of theCuba, Republic ofDominican RepublicHaiti, Republic ofJamaicaAfghanistanAlbania, People's Socialist Republic ofAlgeria, People's Democratic Republic ofAmerican SamoaAndorra, Principality ofAngola, Republic ofAnguillaAntarctica (the territory South of 60 deg S)Antigua and BarbudaArgentina, Argentine RepublicArmeniaArubaAustralia, Commonwealth ofAustria, Republic ofAzerbaijan, Republic ofBahrain, Kingdom ofBangladesh, People's Republic ofBarbadosBelarusBelgium, Kingdom ofBelizeBenin, People's Republic ofBermudaBhutan, Kingdom ofBolivia, Republic ofBosnia and HerzegovinaBotswana, Republic ofBouvet Island (Bouvetoya)Brazil, Federative Republic ofBritish Indian Ocean Territory (Chagos Archipelago)British Virgin IslandsBrunei DarussalamBulgaria, People's Republic ofBurkina FasoBurundi, Republic ofCambodia, Kingdom ofCameroon, United Republic ofCape Verde, Republic ofCayman IslandsCentral African RepublicChad, Republic ofChile, Republic ofChina, People's Republic ofChristmas IslandCocos (Keeling) IslandsColombia, Republic ofComoros, Union of theCongo, Democratic Republic ofCongo, People's Republic ofCook IslandsCosta Rica, Republic ofCote D'Ivoire, Ivory Coast, Republic of theCyprus, Republic ofCzech RepublicDenmark, Kingdom ofDjibouti, Republic ofDominica, Commonwealth ofEcuador, Republic ofEgypt, Arab Republic ofEl Salvador, Republic ofEquatorial Guinea, Republic ofEritreaEstoniaEthiopiaFaeroe IslandsFalkland Islands (Malvinas)Fiji, Republic of the Fiji IslandsFinland, Republic ofFrance, French RepublicFrench GuianaFrench PolynesiaFrench Southern TerritoriesGabon, Gabonese RepublicGambia, Republic of theGeorgiaGermanyGhana, Republic ofGibraltarGreece, Hellenic RepublicGreenlandGrenadaGuadaloupeGuamGuatemala, Republic ofGuinea, RevolutionaryPeople's Rep'c ofGuinea-Bissau, Republic ofGuyana, Republic ofHeard and McDonald IslandsHoly See (Vatican City State)Honduras, Republic ofHong Kong, Special Administrative Region of ChinaHrvatska (Croatia)Hungary, Hungarian People's RepublicIceland, Republic ofIndia, Republic ofIndonesia, Republic ofIran, Islamic Republic ofIraq, Republic ofIrelandIsrael, State ofItaly, Italian RepublicJapanJordan, Hashemite Kingdom ofKazakhstan, Republic ofKenya, Republic ofKiribati, Republic ofKorea, Democratic People's Republic ofKorea, Republic ofKuwait, State ofKyrgyz RepublicLao People's Democratic RepublicLatviaLebanon, Lebanese RepublicLesotho, Kingdom ofLiberia, Republic ofLibyan Arab JamahiriyaLiechtenstein, Principality ofLithuaniaLuxembourg, Grand Duchy ofMacao, Special Administrative Region of ChinaMacedonia, the former Yugoslav Republic ofMadagascar, Republic ofMalawi, Republic ofMalaysiaMaldives, Republic ofMali, Republic ofMalta, Republic ofMarshall IslandsMartiniqueMauritania, Islamic Republic ofMauritiusMayotteMicronesia, Federated States ofMoldova, Republic ofMonaco, Principality ofMongolia, Mongolian People's RepublicMontserratMorocco, Kingdom ofMozambique, People's Republic ofMyanmarNamibiaNauru, Republic ofNepal, Kingdom ofNetherlands AntillesNetherlands, Kingdom of theNew CaledoniaNew ZealandNicaragua, Republic ofNiger, Republic of theNigeria, Federal Republic ofNiue, Republic ofNorfolk IslandNorthern Mariana IslandsNorway, Kingdom ofOman, Sultanate ofPakistan, Islamic Republic ofPalauPalestinian Territory, OccupiedPanama, Republic ofPapua New GuineaParaguay, Republic ofPeru, Republic ofPhilippines, Republic of thePitcairn IslandPoland, Polish People's RepublicPortugal, Portuguese RepublicPuerto RicoQatar, State ofReunionRomania, Socialist Republic ofRussian FederationRwanda, Rwandese RepublicSamoa, Independent State ofSan Marino, Republic ofSao Tome and Principe, Democratic Republic ofSaudi Arabia, Kingdom ofSenegal, Republic ofSerbia and MontenegroSeychelles, Republic ofSierra Leone, Republic ofSingapore, Republic ofSlovakia (Slovak Republic)SloveniaSolomon IslandsSomalia, Somali RepublicSouth Africa, Republic ofSouth Georgia and the South Sandwich IslandsSpain, Spanish StateSri Lanka, Democratic Socialist Republic ofSt. HelenaSt. Kitts and NevisSt. LuciaSt. Pierre and MiquelonSt. Vincent and the GrenadinesSudan, Democratic Republic of theSuriname, Republic ofSvalbard & Jan Mayen IslandsSwaziland, Kingdom ofSweden, Kingdom ofSwitzerland, Swiss ConfederationSyrian Arab RepublicTaiwan, Province of ChinaTajikistanTanzania, United Republic ofThailand, Kingdom ofTimor-Leste, Democratic Republic ofTogo, Togolese RepublicTokelau (Tokelau Islands)Tonga, Kingdom ofTrinidad and Tobago, Republic ofTunisia, Republic ofTurkey, Republic ofTurkmenistanTurks and Caicos IslandsTuvaluUganda, Republic ofUkraineUnited Arab EmiratesUnited Kingdom of Great Britain & N. IrelandUruguay, Eastern Republic ofUzbekistanVanuatuVenezuela, Bolivarian Republic ofViet Nam, Socialist Republic ofWallis and Futuna IslandsWestern SaharaYemenZambia, Republic ofZimbabwe
I am an epidemiologist who is home sick with COVID-19. Upon a positive self-test, I contacted my primary care physician to ask about treatment and report my case. As my symptoms worsened and more of my family members tested positive on a self-test, I turned to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to find out how to report our cases. CDC guidance suggests that I tell my health care provider that I have tested positive, but the health care system has no means of reporting self-tests for COVID-19 surveillance. I cannot report the cases of COVID-19 in my family and we, like so many Americans suffering during this current wave, will go uncounted.
U.S. policy dictates that COVID-19 surveillance is solely reliant on laboratory testing. This surveillance system is no longer functioning as a tool to mitigate the spread of SARS-CoV2 with the ubiquitous availability and use of self-testing. With the availability of tests in pharmacies and every household able to obtain eight free tests, the surveillance system must adapt to the way most people are finding out whether or not they have contracted SARS-CoV2. The current surveillance system was designed for earlier waves of the pandemic when most cases were being detected by PCR in a clinical setting or a mass testing site. Monitoring laboratory tests alone does not give us an accurate and early detection of when cases are rising. Monitoring hospitalized cases will not allow us to plan for current wave leaving health care systems vulnerable to staff shortages.
The more than 100, cases reported in the New York Times this week, vastly undercount the number of Americans who are sick with COVID-19, including me. If we, as a country, can develop the first and most effective vaccines to prevent COVID-19-related hospitalizations and death, why is there no political will to develop a surveillance system that can quickly and accurately record new cases of COVID-19? We are in the midst of another wave without an accurate count of how many people currently have COVID-19 and where cases are increasing.
An ideal surveillance tool would contain both active components, like universal testing the national wastewater surveillance system for SARS-CoV-2, and passive reporting of cases from self-testing, in addition to reporting through laboratory testing. Those who test positive on a self-test should be able to easily and conveniently report their positive test, recording data that is comparable to the data that is reported with a positive laboratory test. All results could be integrated into a single national surveillance system to allow for a clear and current snapshot of the burden of COVID-19 by geographic region. Data on the frequency of cases by date and geographic location from this surveillance system should be readily accessible to the public as well as policy makers and added to our public health armament.
Relying on surveillance tools that were developed during outdated testing paradigms will not be sufficient for individuals to weigh the risks and benefits given the current burden of SARS-CoV-2 in their community or for health care systems to prepare for future waves. Our surveillance systems can and must adapt to the current realities of the COVID-19 pandemic. I am an epidemiologist with COVID-19 and want to be counted.
Dr. Mara McAdams-DeMarco is an epidemiologist with 20 years of experience in public health and is studying how COVID-19 mitigation strategies have impacted vulnerable populations. She is an associate professor of surgery and population health and the associate vice chair of research in the Department of Surgery at New York University Grossman School of Medicine. Follow her on Twitter: @McAdamsDeMarco
In recent weeks, a new version of the Covid-19 virusnamed BA.2.12.1became the dominant variety in the U.S., according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The variants rapid spread, coupled with growing case counts, raised concern among health officials, who last month strengthened their recommendations for Covid-19 boosters.
BA.2.12.1 is a version of the Omicron variant that was first detected in southern Africa last fall. Omicron quickly spread throughout the world, supplanting the once-dominant Delta and spawning a succession of increasingly infectious subvariants.
School Reopening And COVID-19 In The Community: Evidence From A Natural Experiment In Ontario, Canada healthaffairs.org
A positive result on a home COVID test. If you catch it once, can you catch it again? Turns out the answer is: Yes. Jakub Porzycki/NurPhoto via Getty Images hide caption
A positive result on a home COVID test. If you catch it once, can you catch it again? Turns out the answer is: Yes.
We regularly answer frequently asked questions about life during the coronavirus crisis. If you have a question you'd like us to consider for a future post, email us at goatsandsoda@npr.org with the subject line: "Weekly Coronavirus Questions." See an archive of our FAQs here.
You got sick with COVID back in January, so you figured you were done with the virus for a while. But then you began feeling a scratchy throat and a runny nose, took a home test just in case and that second line blazed red once again.
You might well be wondering: How this can happen? Is it possible to get COVID again just a few months or even weeks after recovering from a case?
We asked four specialists to answer frequently asked questions about reinfection.
I thought I was immune at least for a while after having COVID. Is that not the case?
If you caught a previous variant before the arrival of omicron that meant you had an 84% lower risk of infection, significantly lowering your risk of getting COVID again, especially in the months right after you were sick.
But the omicron variants changed that.
A study published in March found the risk of reinfection "increased substantially" witah the emergence of omicron in November, says Juliet Pulliam, lead author of the study and director of the South African Centre for Epidemiological Modelling and Analysis.
There are several omicron variants now circulating around the world, and they are very transmissible and very good at overcoming immunity, whether it's from vaccination, prior infection or both.
These omicron variants don't just evade protection you might have gained from a non-omicron version of SARS-CoV-2; you can catch the newer variants of omicron even if you had the original omicron variant before.
And any protection from infection wanes over time, so if it's been a few months since your last COVID shot or since you recovered from a case, you're more likely to be susceptible to reinfection.
But there's some slightly good news: For now, the newest omicron variants don't seem better at overcoming immunity than the original omicron.
The most recent resurgence in South Africa is now being driven by omicron sub-lineages BA.4 and BA.5. With these variants, "the risk of reinfection seems to be about the same as it was for BA.1 so higher than for previous [non-omicron] variants but not any higher than the initially circulating omicron sub-lineage," Pulliam tells NPR in an email.
How soon could I get reinfected?
That's something experts are still trying to figure out. But 60% of reinfections from non-omicron variants between March 2020 and March 2021 in Denmark occurred less than two months after the first infection, researchers found in a preprint study, which has not been peer-reviewed or published.
That means you may have a shorter time of maximum protection than you thought after an infection.
Keep in mind: The Danish researchers only looked at 15 confirmed reinfections among 593 suspected cases. The number is low for a few reasons: for one thing, reinfections weren't as common then.
Because the newer variants are much better at overcoming prior immunity, our specialists say that if you recovered from a case of COVID fairly recently and then begin showing COVID-like symptoms, you should get tested to see if you have it again.
Is a reinfection more likely to be mild or could it be severe?
Research from South Africa suggests that prior infection does protect against severe outcomes, including hospitalization and death.
With reinfection, hospitalization and death "does seem to happen occasionally but both natural infection and vaccination seem to provide good protection against severe outcomes in most individuals," Pulliam says.
Another study from Qatar found that previous infection was about 87% protective against severe or fatal COVID-19.
But keep in mind that certain conditions such as having had an organ transplant, ongoing cancer treatments or heart or lung disease make you more vulnerable to bad outcomes, even if you've encountered the virus before through vaccination or infection.
"In immunocompromised patients," the intensity of illness "depends on the patient and it depends on how impaired their immune system is," says Jacob Lemieux, an infectious disease doctor at Massachusetts General Hospital. "We can't precisely say what the effect would be."
But the intensity of your illness also depends on how long it's been since your last vaccination or previous bout with COVID, since such protection wanes over time so staying current on your vaccine schedule is a good idea.
I took Paxlovid, and a few days later I tested positive again. Is this a reinfection?
According to Robert Wachter, a professor and chair of the department of medicine at University of California, San Francisco, this is probably not an example of reinfection but something different, known as "rebound," when some patients begin experiencing symptoms and test positive again 2 to 8 days after taking the medication.
That's what happened to Wachter's wife. After taking Paxlovid, her symptoms improved markedly and she started testing negative on rapid tests. But four days later, she developed new symptoms for the first round, she had a sore throat, fatigue, and a headache, and when it came back, it felt like a really bad cold with congestion and she tested positive again.
The potential for rebound made him rethink the use of Paxlovid among younger people who aren't as at risk of severe outcomes, he says. But if he were to get sick, because of his own potential risk factors, he'd still take Paxlovid.
That's because in the clinical trials, Paxlovid lowered the rate of hospitalization by 89% among high-risk people, so those who have factors putting them at risk, like being immunosuppressed or over the age of 65, see a major benefit from taking the antiviral. That protection is true for both vaccinated and unvaccinated people who are at high risk, according to a new study.
"That's real," Wachter says. "How meaningful that is for you really depends utterly on your rate of hospitalization and how much risk you have for a bad case that would make you very sick and potentially put you in the hospital or potentially kill you."
Do vaccines help prevent reinfection?
Getting vaccinated can help prevent infection and reinfection, so it's a good idea to get the shots even if you've had COVID before and thought you were protected.
"For those who are vaccinated and those who have been infected, they are much better protected," says Peter Palese, a professor and chair of the department of microbiology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai.
Especially if you had a serious case before, getting up-to-date on your COVID shots now means you will likely have a less-severe case if you're reinfected, Palese says.
"Vaccination vaccination vaccination. Because yes, it will not protect you against the emergence of mild disease, but they will protect you from having a ventilator, being the ICU" or dying, he says.
But the immunity offered by vaccines, especially against infection, begins to wane after a few months, so getting a booster (or a second booster if you're eligible) is a very good idea.
If you were hospitalized before with COVID and then received two mRNA vaccines, that blend of protection was 35% effective in preventing subsequent hospitalizations during the first omicron wave. If you got a booster, that number rose to 68% effective against hospitalization.
And no vaccine is perfect, so continuing to take precautions wearing a mask, getting tested if you have symptoms or are exposed to COVID, improving ventilation, and more is still recommended, especially during surges like the one the U.S. is currently seeing.
Can getting COVID multiple times have long-term effects?
Long-term damage from repeat reinfections, like organ damage, is "the big question, and I haven't seen any data yet that can address it," Pulliam says.
And experts believe each COVID case could lead to long COVID, even if you were fine last time.
One in five adults experience continuing health issues after acute cases of COVID, including "persistent symptoms or organ dysfunction," according to a study published by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
"There does seem to be a risk of long COVID or symptoms after resolution of the acute infection in a subset of people, and we don't really know how common that is yet or how long it lasts," says Lemieux.
How am I supposed to cope with the emerging and changing information about reinfection risks?
"It's a really frustrating situation, because I think everyone wants to be done with this virus, but we're just not. And we live in an era where we just want complete information at our fingertips, but we don't have it," Lemieux says.
That means we need to stay alert to the ways each new variant is changing, and how we respond to it especially in the age of reinfection.
The same precautions used to prevent infection masks, distancing, vaccinations, and more work just as well for avoiding reinfection.
Another other point to keep in mind is that reinfections aren't that unusual for coronaviruses. "I don't think it's surprising the reinfection happens, because that's a feature of coronavirus biology," says Lemieux. "It's actually surprising, if anything, that it didn't happen more often with the initial variants."
Melody Schreiber (@m_scribe) is a journalist and the editor of What We Didn't Expect: Personal Stories About Premature Birth.
Oregon posted an 11% weekly drop in identified coronavirus cases Monday, marking the second week of declining case counts.
The Oregon Health Authority recorded 9,800 confirmed or presumed infections in the past week, or 1,400 a day, down from 1,579 daily cases last week.
The significance of the drop is difficult to precisely measure but may indicate fewer infections spreading across Oregon.
Unlike earlier in the pandemic, publicly reported cases now represent an even smaller fraction of true infections, with many Oregonians opting for at-home testing that doesnt show up in the states official numbers. Test positivity rates among publicly reported tests remain high, at 12.3% for the past three days, although down from the previous weekend.
Meanwhile, Oregon on Monday reported 320 patients are hospitalized with a positive coronavirus test result. Thats already above projections by Oregon Health & Science University, which forecast a peak of 313 on June 14.
About half the people hospitalized test positive upon admission and arent seeking care for coronavirus, according to OHSUs estimates. Hospitalizations remain far below the earlier peaks from delta and omicron surges, which neared 1,200, and deaths also remain comparatively low.
Since it began: Oregon has reported 774,426 confirmed or presumed infections and 7,659 deaths.
Hospitalizations: 320 people with confirmed coronavirus infections are hospitalized, up 34 from Monday, May 30.
Vaccinations: As of May 31, the state has reported fully vaccinating 2,916,487 people (68.3% of the population), partially vaccinating 288,544 people (6.8%) and boosting 1,650,029 (38.7%).
New deaths: Since May 31, the Oregon Health Authority has reported 24 deaths connected to COVID-19.
-- Brad Schmidt; bschmidt@oregonian.com; 503-294-7628; @_brad_schmidt
