This page is no longer being updated. The tables and graphs below show data from Feb.27, 2022.
Health Canada announced the approval of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine on Dec.9, 2020. On Dec. 23, it approved a second vaccine, from Moderna.
On Feb. 26, 2021, Health Canada approved the AstraZeneca-OxfordCOVID-19 vaccine.
On March 5, 2021,Johnson & Johnson's COVID-19 vaccine became the first single-dose vaccineapproved for use in Canada.
Health Canada authorized the use of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine for children 12-15 years old on May 5, 2021. The Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine was then approved for children ages five to 11 on Nov.19, 2021.
Notes:
Jan. 28:Booster doses were added to the vaccination charts for Canada.
Nov. 19: Vaccination rates for the eligible population were updated to include those five and up.
June 22: A table was added and the Canada map updated to show the percentage of eligible people, 12 and up, who have received at least one dose or been fully vaccinated.
May 20:The Canada map was updated to show firstand second dose numbers for the provinces and territories. Quebec's second dose vaccine numbers were added. The chart on vaccinedoses distributed now also includes the percentage of doses usedand the storytext was updated to include additional information on Canada's vaccine rollout.
March 26: The page was updated to include the percentage of people in Canada given at least one dose. A map and table showing global vaccinations was also added.
Jan.28: Officials in Ontario announced an error in their previous reporting of completed vaccinations. This resulted in the number of people completely vaccinated in the province decreasing by about half.
Jan.14: Separate totals of the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccine doses distributed to each province were removed. This data is currently only available weekly, with many provinces and territories not providing breakdowns in their updates. This caused the numbers to not align with the combined totals distributed to the provinces and territories, which are updated more frequently.
COVID-19 Vaccine and Sudden Hearing Loss: Is There a Potential Link? Neurology Advisor
(ST. JOSEPH, Mo.) Missouri Western State University and Heart to Heart International are holding another COVID-19 vaccine clinic next week.
The event will be held on Thursday, March 31 from 12 p.m. to 6 p.m. in Room 101 of Remington Hall.
COVID adult and pediatric vaccines will be available.
The clinic is free and open to the public. First, second or booster doses will be available.
Walk-ins are welcome you can register by CLICKING HERE.
If youre hoping to get pregnant, you may have heard rumors that getting the COVID-19 vaccine can cause infertility. Lets debunk that myth right up front: No credible scientific evidence shows the COVID-19 vaccine has a negative impact on fertility.
Cleveland Clinic is a non-profit academic medical center. Advertising on our site helps support our mission. We do not endorse non-Cleveland Clinic products or services.Policy
COVID-19 vaccination does not decrease female fertility, confirms Ob/Gyn and reproductive infectious disease specialistOluwatosin Goje, MD. What can impact your fertility, though, is getting COVID-19 which means theres just one more reason to get your vaccine.
Dr. Goje talks about where the vaccine rumors came from, what the science really says about it and what having COVID-19 can do to your fertility.
In December 2020, a German scientist teamed up with a former Pfizer employee to share a hypothesis about the COVID-19 vaccine and infertility. It caught traction among vaccine skeptics and has persisted even though it has since been disproved by researchers.
The myth is based on an assumption that the vaccine could cause your body to attack syncytin-1, a protein in your placenta that shares a small piece of genetic code with the spike protein of the coronavirus.
Even though this misinformation was proved incorrect, the rumor still took on a life of its own, as it was shared and reshared throughout the internet.
Most of the data coming out agrees with initial information that vaccines do not affect fertility, Dr. Goje says. She shares some of the science debunking this myth and explains the COVID-19 vaccines safety for people who are pregnant and want to become pregnant.
A January 2022 study published in the American Journal of Epidemiology looked at 2,000 couples trying to conceive without fertility treatment. Data shows no differences in the likelihood of conception between vaccinated and unvaccinated couples.
Researchers found no association between the COVID-19 vaccine and lower fertility rates, Dr. Goje says.
A fetus cant survive without the placenta, which connects to your uterus during pregnancy. If the vaccine actually attacked the placenta, Dr. Goje explains, wed be seeing a rise in miscarriages among vaccinated people which isnt the case.
The thought that the vaccine would attack the placenta has been debunked because there has been no increase in miscarriages among vaccinated women, she says.
Researchers havent found any evidence of the vaccine having a negative impact on sperm. Two studies in couples undergoing fertility treatment found no appreciable difference in semen volume, sperm concentration or motility measured before and after vaccination, Dr. Goje adds.
Getting the COVID-19 vaccine wont impact your fertility, but catching the virus could. Dr. Goje breaks down some of the science about the effect that COVID-19 infection can have on people who are pregnant or trying to become pregnant.
Though the myth says the vaccine could negatively impact the placenta, it seems that its the virus that actually does so. The vaccine has been shown to be safe for people who are pregnant, while studies show that pregnant people who contract COVID-19 have higher rates of:
This shows that the relationship to the placenta is actually a concern for pregnant people who get infected, not for pregnant people who get vaccinated, Dr. Goje says.
The January 2022 study found that in couples in trying to get pregnant, conception was down 18% in the three months after the male partner (or partner assigned male at birth [ABAB]) was infected with COVID-19.
Dr. Goje says doctors arent yet sure why this is, but researchers continue to study COVID-19s impact on the body, and studies have reported on a few possibilities:
Within a few months of having COVID-19, male fertility seems to go back to normal. But if youre trying to get pregnant, its important to know how your partners infection could temporarily impact your ability to conceive.
By now, we know that COVID-19 can trigger a variety of health concerns. Studies show that one of those concerns is subacute thyroiditis, an inflammation of the thyroid gland that can happen when your body is fighting off a virus. This leads to over- or under-production of thyroid hormone, which can, in turn, impact your ability to get pregnant.
Thyroid disorders affect menstrual cycles and fertility, so its possible that dysregulation of the thyroid due to COVID-19 can indirectly affect fertility, Dr. Goje explains.
Whether youre trying to get pregnant or just trying to stay healthy, all of the science points in the same direction: Getting your COVID-19 vaccine is the best way to fend off the viruss most severe impacts. If youre hoping to conceive, you can get vaccinated with confidence, knowing that its one of the best ways to protect your health and your fertility.
Health centers have administered more than 20 million doses of COVID-19 vaccine.
Today, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) recognized the one-year anniversary of the Health Resources and Services Administrations (HRSA) Health Center COVID-19 Vaccine Program, which received funding from President Bidens American Rescue Plan and has provided COVID-19 vaccines directly to thousands of HRSA-supported health center sites nationwide. To date, health centers have administered more than 20 million vaccines in underserved communities across the country through the HRSA program and partnerships with states.
Health centers are not only cornerstones of our communities but they have been critical to our nation's COVID-19 response, said HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra. Because of the tireless efforts of health centers over the past year, especially through the Health Center COVID-19 Vaccine Program, anyone who wanted a COVID-19 vaccine was able to get one free of charge no matter where they lived, including those in underserved communities. We are indebted to the frontline workers and staff at health centers across the country for saving lives, keeping our families healthy and ensuring our pandemic response was more equitable.
Since the launch of this program, health centers have held nearly 60,000 community-based vaccination events in partnership with local community-based organizations, including schools, community centers, faith-based organizations, and have used mobile vans to bring vaccines to the community. These efforts were supported, in whole or in part, by the American Rescue Plans historic $7.6 billion investment in health centers to prevent, mitigate, and respond to COVID-19, as well as retain essential health care providers, maintain and expand services, and improve health care facilities and equipment. This will better protect communities from future pandemics and other health threats.
Across the country, health centers have made equitable access to COVID-19 vaccination a reality for communities most in need while continuing to provide other critically needed health services, said HRSA Administrator Carole Johnson. These health center efforts have narrowed racial and ethnic disparities in COVID-19 care and services yet the nations work on vaccination, testing and treatment remains at risk without additional funding.
The Health Center COVID-19 Vaccine Program was developed to further ensure the equitable distribution of vaccines in the nations underserved communities and those disproportionately affected by COVID-19. The majority of doses administered by health centers have been provided to individuals from racial and ethnic minority populations.
Building on the successful implementation of the Health Center COVID-19 Vaccine Program, HRSA launched the HRSA COVID-19 Testing Supply Program, the HRSA Health Center COVID-19 Therapeutics Program, and the HRSA Health Center COVID-19 N95 Mask Program. Together, these COVID-19 Response Programs ensure people in some of the hardest hit communities have access to tools that can mitigate the spread and impact of the virus. These programs have also served to strengthen partnerships and coordination efforts between health centers and states, localities, and other jurisdictions nationwide.
HRSA-supported health centers include HRSA-funded health centers and Health Center Program look-alikes that provide comprehensive, culturally competent, quality primary health care services consistent with Health Center Program requirements. Health centers are community-based and patient-directed organizations that deliver affordable, accessible, high-quality, and cost-effective primary health care to nearly 29 million patients each year. The more than 1,400 health centers in our country serve as a national source of primary care for underserved communities. More than 90 percent of health center patients are individuals or families living at or below 200 percent of the Federal Poverty Guidelines (about $46,000 per year for a family of three in most states) and approximately 62 percent are racial/ethnic minorities.
To view health center COVID-19 vaccination data, visit: https://data.hrsa.gov/topics/health-centers/covid-vaccination.
To see more data about health centers role in combatting COVID-19, visit: https://bphc.hrsa.gov/emergency-response/coronavirus-health-center-data.
To locate a HRSA-funded health center, visit: https://findahealthcenter.hrsa.gov.
The current coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, which is caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has resulted in a significant impact on global health. In most individuals, SARS-CoV-2 infection only causes mild disease; however, in a small minority of patients, COVID-19 can lead to severe respiratory failure and death.
Study: Severe Acute Respiratory Coronavirus-2 Antibody and T cell response after a third vaccine dose in hemodialysis patients compared with healthy controls. Image Credit: ainata / Shutterstock.com
Severe disease and increased risk of death associated with COVID-19 are observed in patients undergoing hemodialysis (HD). As a result, HD patients are among those prioritized to receive COVID-19 vaccinations.
Previous research has highlighted that HD patients elicit a diminished immune response after two doses of a COVID-19 vaccine. Although some research has tried to expand the understanding on this area, the T-cell interferon- (IFF-) response in HD patients following immunization has not been fully described. Due to the reduction of vaccine-induced antibodies and the rise of COVID-19 cases in Austria, the third dose of COVID-19 vaccines has been advised.
In a recent study published on the medRxiv*preprint server, researchers compare the impact of a third messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) COVID-19 vaccine in HD patients to healthy controls by measuring antibody levels and IFN- responses six to eight weeks after these individuals had received their third dose. Using this information, the authors were interested in establishing differences between the groups and determining whether further safeguards are required to appropriately protect this vulnerable population.
Patient flowchart. This flowchart is a graphical representation of the study design. The time axis on the left shows various significant time points in the study for easy orientation. The column beside the time points lists the events that occurred at this time point. Entries in this column are explained in the box at the bottom right of the flowchart.
The current prospective cohort study evaluated the antibody and IFN- response to two doses of the Pfizer/BioNTech BNT-162b2 mRNA vaccine followed by a booster mRNA vaccine dose. The eligibility criteria for HD patients included dialysis treatment for at least three months and receipt of a Comirnaty vaccine. The healthy control group consisted of volunteer healthcare workers who had received the same vaccinations as the HD patients.
Initially, 81 dialysis patients were invited to receive a third booster vaccine dose. Four of these individuals became infected with SARS-CoV-2, two were unable to be vaccinated due to high C-reactive protein (CRP) levels, three obtained a transplant, and 12 died. Finally, a total of 60 HD patients were included in the study to receive their third vaccine dose.
Comparatively, a total of 65 healthy people were included as controls in the current study.
Antibody titers against the SARS-CoV-2 receptor-binding domain (RBD) in 65 healthcare workers and 60 HD patients were assessed. Six to eight weeks after receiving a third COVID-19 vaccine dose, 100% of the control group had neutralizing antibody titers exceeding 15 BAU/ml. After the third vaccine dose, 97% of HD patients seroconverted.
No significant difference was observed in the SARS-CoV-2 RBD-specific antibody titers when the control group was compared to the HD patient group six to eight weeks following the third dose. However, HD patients with low initial antibody titers or who were considered non-responders had considerably lower antibody titers after receiving their third vaccine dose than the control and HD patient responder groups.
IFN- titers that were greater than the cut-off level were observed in 96% of the healthcare workers and 76% of the HD patients. Thus, the distribution of IFN- secretion differs between the three groups. The only significant difference was observed in median IFN- quantile regression analysis of the control group as compared to previously low/non-responder HD patients.
Reports of adverse events (AE) between the two groups were evaluated and compared descriptively, with all data obtained through self-reported questionnaires. To this end, no participants in either of the groups reported AEs that required hospitalization or a visit to an emergency department. In comparison to HD patients, the control group reported more local and systemic AEs after receiving their third vaccine dose.
Systemic adverse events (AEs) after the third vaccination. All numbers represent the percentages of dialysis (n = 36) and control (n = 61) patients. The AEs were recorded using a standardized questionnaire and graded by the patients (Grade 1: mild, does not interfere with activity; Grade 2: moderate, interferes with activity; Grade 3: severe, prevents daily activity). No Grade 4 events (emergency department visits or hospitalization) were reported. HD patients, patients on hemodialysis; GI, gastrointestinal AEs (diarrhea, nausea and vomiting).
Taken together, the current study findings indicate that the third dose of a COVID-19 vaccine is a viable method for improving immune responses in most HD patients to levels comparable to healthy controls. To prevent HD patients from severe SARS-CoV-2 infection, more research on alternate immunization techniques should be conducted in the future.
bioRxiv publishes preliminary scientific reports that are not peer-reviewed and, therefore, should not be regarded as conclusive, guide clinical practice/health-related behavior, or treated as established information
Verifying employees' COVID-19 vaccination status raises unique confidentiality and privacy concerns for employers. Documentation regarding an individual's vaccination status is confidential medical information under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and some state privacy laws.
However, the federal requirement to treat COVID-19 vaccination status as confidential information does not bar employers from inquiring about it. Here are some recommendations for your family business when collecting an employee's vaccination certificates or tracking their vaccination status.
While employers can ask for an employee's status or proof of COVID-19 vaccination under federal and most state laws, they must be careful about obtaining additional employee health information. For example, simply asking the employee to provide proof of a COVID-19 vaccination is allowed under the ADA because it does not require the employee to disclose disability-related information.
If your business asks employees to provide vaccination proof from a healthcare provider, you should tell the employees that they should not submit any additional medical information outside of proof of vaccination in order to avoid potentially violating the ADA.
There is no standard proof of vaccination status, given the interplay of frequently changing federal, state, and local vaccine-related guidance. Proof of vaccination status depends on the applicable laws in your jurisdiction. For example, self-attestation is appropriate proof of vaccination status under California's Ca/OSHA Emergency Temporary Standards. On the other hand, self-attestation is insufficient proof of vaccination under many federal vaccine mandates.
We recommend that you only ask the employees to provide the bare minimum of supporting documentation, such as a vaccination card or survey response if it is deemed an acceptable form of proof under applicable mandates. You should further inform the employee how their refusal to provide any proof of vaccination will be treated.
Several state and federal laws apply when employers handle employees' medical information. For example, you might be required to provide a collection notice to the employee under state privacy laws.
Additionally, access to confidential information must be limited by ensuring that it is safely stored. The information regarding an employee's vaccination status should be stored separately from the employee's personnel file.
Many state laws prevent employers from disclosing the vaccination status of an employee to third parties without the employee's prior consent. You should have a policy in place that notifies employees of the measures you have taken to protect their confidential information.
The policy should be updated in light of any new COVID-19-related rules and guidelines. Additionally, make sure that you are complying with applicable federal and state laws before reprimanding an employee for refusing to disclose their vaccination status.
[View source.]
European Medicines Agency is expected to approveAstraZeneca Plc'sAZN antibody-based COVID-19 vaccine for preventing COVID-19 infections,Reuters reportedciting two people familiar with the review.
The treatment is meant for adults whose immune system is too weak to respond to vaccines.
The expected recommendation by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) is set to be confirmed swiftly by the European Commission. According to an agenda posted on the EMA's website, an EMA expert panel on drug assessment is due to discuss AstraZeneca's COVID-9 treatment, Evusheld, this week.
Related:AstraZeneca Mulls Ditching US Approval For Its COVID-19 Vaccine: FT.
The EMA, which started its real-time review of Evusheld last October, said if the panel concluded this week, it would communicate its opinion towards the end of this week. The review would conclude within weeks and that AstraZeneca's data was robust.
Related:AstraZeneca's COVID-19 Antibody Neutralizes Omicron Sub-variants, Lab Study Shows.
According to one of the sources, EMA's ongoing review of Lagevrio (molnupiravir)Merck & Co IncMRK, andRidgeback Biotherapeutics'COVID-19 oral treatment was unlikely to be concluded before the end of April.
Last week, the EMA said it was difficult to predict how long that review would take.
Price Action:AZN shares are up 0.91% at $64.24 during the market session on the last check Wednesday.
Photo by Paul McManus from Pixabay
International travelers checking in at the Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport in December, after the airport joined a coronavirus surveillance program for travelers arriving from abroad.Credit...Nicole Craine for The New York Times
An airport-based coronavirus surveillance program in the United States for travelers arriving from abroad detected the first known U.S. case of the highly contagious Omicron subvariant BA.2 in December, according to a new study.
The results, which have not yet been published in a peer-reviewed journal, suggest that pooled testing of international travelers may be an effective and efficient way to keep tabs on new variants and pathogens.
Travelers are really an important population when tracking new and emerging infectious diseases because theyre mobile, they have the potential for exposure to disease during travel and they can spread disease from one place to another, said Dr. Cindy R. Friedman, chief of the Travelers Health Branch at Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the studys lead investigator.
The program actually detected the first known U.S. cases of two Omicron subvariants, BA.2 and BA.3, which are similar to, but genetically distinct from, BA.1 and B.1.1, the versions of Omicron that drove a winter surge in U.S. cases.
The voluntary program, which screened more than 16,000 travelers this fall and winter, was conducted by the C.D.C. and two commercial partners: the XpresSpa Group, which offers testing in airports, and Ginkgo Bioworks, a biotech company with a testing initiative and a network of laboratories across the country. The program combined nasal samples from multiple people arriving from the same country or on the same flight an approach, known as pooled testing, that allows scientists to search for the virus in multiple people at once.
The program was not the first to catch every version of Omicron; BA.1, the subvariant that was initially most prevalent worldwide, did not show up in one of the airport samples until Dec. 1, the same day that officials announced that another team of researchers had found the first U.S. Omicron case.
The researchers hope to expand the traveler surveillance program and are also preparing to launch a pilot study that will search for signs of the virus in the wastewater from airplane bathrooms, Dr. Friedman said.
The program began in late September, focusing on travelers on selected flights from India to three major U.S. airports: John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York, Newark Liberty International Airport in New Jersey and San Francisco International Airport in California. In late November, after Omicron emerged, the program was expanded to Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport and to people arriving from South Africa, Nigeria, Britain, France, Germany and Brazil.
(Omicron prompted the Biden administration to tighten travel rules. It temporarily banned travelers from eight African countries the restrictions did not apply to U.S. citizens or permanent residents and required international passengers to present evidence that they had tested negative for the virus within a day before departure. Previously, travelers could test within three days of departure. As of Nov. 8, only vaccinated foreign travelers were allowed into the country.)
Eligible travelers could volunteer to provide a self-collected nasal swab at the airport. Swabs from five to 25 travelers from the same flight or country were added to a single tube and then tested for the virus using P.C.R. testing. Positive samples were then sequenced to determine which version of the virus was present.
Between Sept. 29 and Jan. 23, 10 percent of 161,000 eligible travelers enrolled in the study, and 1,454 sample pools were tested for the virus. Despite the preflight testing requirement, more than 15 percent of the pools were positive.
This relatively high positivity rate may indicate that travelers were early in the course of their infections and thus had viral loads too low for some tests to detect when they took their predeparture tests, or that they contracted the virus in the time between being tested and landing in the United States, the researchers say. People may also have submitted fraudulent test results.
Before Nov. 28, nearly all of the positive sample pools contained the Delta variant, the researchers found. (The only exception was a positive sample whose exact genetic lineage could not be determined.)
After that, however, Omicron quickly came to dominate; from Nov. 28 to Jan. 23, two-thirds of the positive samples were Omicron. Most of the Omicron samples were the BA.1 subvariant, which was initially the most prevalent version worldwide. BA.1 remains the most common lineage in the United States, though BA.2 has been gaining ground and now accounts for 35 percent of infections, according to C.D.C. estimates.
But the researchers found the BA.3 subvariant in a pool of samples collected from travelers arriving from South Africa on Dec. 3. They reported the finding in GISAID, an international repository of viral genomes, on Dec. 22. It was the first reported case of BA.3 in the United States; it would be more than a month before the next was reported.
The airport program also detected the first known U.S. case of BA.2, in samples collected from South African travelers on Dec. 14. The researchers reported the finding a week before the next U.S. case of BA.2 was reported.
This is a new tool in the C.D.C. tool kit that works, and weve shown its effective and it can be layered with all of our other mitigation measures, Dr. Friedman said.
Jen Psaki, the White House press secretary, tested positive for the coronavirus on Tuesday for the second time in five months, one day before she was scheduled to join President Biden on a diplomatic trip to Europe.
Ms. Psaki took a test for the virus on Tuesday morning and it came back positive, she said in a statement, adding that she would not join Mr. Biden and top officials at a NATO summit where the president will press allies to use more economic sanctions to punish Russia for its invasion of Ukraine.
Ms. Psaki said that she had two meetings with Mr. Biden on Monday that were socially distanced, and that she and the president were not considered to have been in close contact based on guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The C.D.C. defines close contact as being less than six feet away from an infected person for a total of 15 minutes or more in a 24-hour period.
Mr. Biden tested negative for the virus on Tuesday, Ms. Psaki said in her statement.
Thanks to the vaccine, I have only experienced mild symptoms, she said. In alignment with White House Covid-19 protocols, I will work from home and plan to return to work in person at the conclusion of a five-day isolation period and a negative test.
Ms. Psakis positive case comes as the White House is grappling with the toll of an enduring two-year-old pandemic while also resuming the usual routine of the presidency, including overseas travel.
The administration has faced a series of positive cases in recent days. Last week, Doug Emhoff, the husband of Vice President Kamala Harris, tested positive. Ms. Harris stood alongside Mr. Biden during a bill signing that same day. The vice president tested negative on Sunday, a spokeswoman for her, Sabrina Singh, said on Tuesday.
Mr. Biden also had to cancel face-to-face meetings with Prime Minister Micheal Martin of Ireland last week after the prime minister received a positive result. The president was with Mr. Martin at a gala the night before but was not in close contact with him, according to White House officials.
Congress has seen a flurry of recent cases as well. Senator Bob Casey, Democrat of Pennsylvania, said on Tuesday that he had tested positive.
Hillary Clinton also announced a positive test result on Tuesday, writing on Twitter that she had some mild cold symptoms but was feeling fine. She said former President Bill Clinton had tested negative but was quarantining.
Movie recommendations appreciated! she wrote.
While virus cases in the United States have been on the decline, a highly transmissible Omicron subvariant known as BA.2 is spreading rapidly in parts of China and Europe. The spike in cases in Europe was caused in part because government officials relaxed precautions too quickly, a senior World Health Organization official in the region, Dr. Hans Kluge, said on Tuesday.
Still, White House officials have said they are focused on returning the United States to a place of prepandemic normalcy, and the White House has not reimposed mask-wearing mandates or capacity restrictions meant to mitigate the spread of the virus.
The C.D.C. issued guidelines last month that suggested that most Americans could stop wearing masks, and even before that, governors across the country had moved on their own to roll back pandemic restrictions.
The announcement of Ms. Psakis positive test came minutes after she was scheduled to deliver the daily press briefing with Jake Sullivan, the national security adviser. She and Mr. Sullivan were not considered to have been in close contact on Tuesday, White House officials said.
Ms. Psaki did not meet with Mr. Biden on Tuesday, the officials said.
Chris Meagher, a deputy White House press secretary, filled in for Ms. Psaki at the briefing. He said that no members of the news media were considered to have been in close contact with Ms. Psaki during the daily press briefing on Monday.
The White House said Karine Jean-Pierre, the principal deputy press secretary, would travel to Europe with Mr. Biden.
Ms. Psakis last positive test, in October, also came as the White House was preparing for international travel. She dropped out of a trip to Europe after learning that members of her family had contracted the virus. Her own positive test came days later.
Emily Cochrane contributed reporting.
