As has been true throughout Americas COVID-19 history, every stateand every county thereinhas its own COVID-19 story, driven by local policies and behaviors. The United States as of July 23 had reached610,233 COVID-19-related deaths and nearly 34.3 million COVID-19 cases, according to Johns Hopkins University. Amid the grim numbers come two bright spots: As of Feb. 2,more Americans had been vaccinated for COVID-19 than had been infected; and since then, rolling averages for case counts and deaths have been on the decline.
Stackercompiled a list of the counties with highest COVID-19 vaccination rates in North Carolina using data from theU.S. Department of Health & Human Services. Counties are ranked by the highest vaccination rate as of July 19, 2021. In North Carolina, 47.7% of the total population has been fully vaccinated, compared to 48.8% nationwide. Keep reading to see whether your county ranks among the highest COVID-19 vaccination rates in your state.
1 / 50Ammodramus // Wikimedia Commons
Population that is fully vaccinated: 36.3% (75,932 fully vaccinated) 23.9% lower vaccination rate than North Carolina Population over 65 that is fully vaccinated: 73.3% (20,940 fully vaccinated) 2.1% lower vaccination rate than North Carolina Cumulative deaths per 100k: 114 (239 total deaths) 44.1% less deaths per 100k residents than North Carolina Cumulative cases per 100k: 10,810 (22,629 total cases) 2.2% less cases per 100k residents than North Carolina
2 / 50Travis K. Witt // Wikimedia Commons
Population that is fully vaccinated: 36.5% (66,424 fully vaccinated) 23.5% lower vaccination rate than North Carolina Population over 65 that is fully vaccinated: 73.5% (21,699 fully vaccinated) 1.9% lower vaccination rate than North Carolina Cumulative deaths per 100k: 130 (236 total deaths) 36.3% less deaths per 100k residents than North Carolina Cumulative cases per 100k: 10,690 (19,435 total cases) 3.2% less cases per 100k residents than North Carolina
3 / 50Anya Douglas // Shutterstock
Population that is fully vaccinated: 36.6% (72,423 fully vaccinated) 23.3% lower vaccination rate than North Carolina Population over 65 that is fully vaccinated: 85.2% (16,202 fully vaccinated) 13.8% higher vaccination rate than North Carolina Cumulative deaths per 100k: 78 (154 total deaths) 61.8% less deaths per 100k residents than North Carolina Cumulative cases per 100k: 9,172 (18,155 total cases) 17.0% less cases per 100k residents than North Carolina
4 / 50Ammodramus // Wikimedia Commons
Population that is fully vaccinated: 36.7% (30,060 fully vaccinated) 23.1% lower vaccination rate than North Carolina Population over 65 that is fully vaccinated: 72.1% (11,059 fully vaccinated) 3.7% lower vaccination rate than North Carolina Cumulative deaths per 100k: 221 (181 total deaths) 8.3% more deaths per 100k residents than North Carolina Cumulative cases per 100k: 12,222 (9,998 total cases) 10.6% more cases per 100k residents than North Carolina
5 / 50G Keith Hall // Wikimedia Commons
Population that is fully vaccinated: 36.8% (26,382 fully vaccinated) 22.9% lower vaccination rate than North Carolina Population over 65 that is fully vaccinated: 70.5% (10,549 fully vaccinated) 5.9% lower vaccination rate than North Carolina Cumulative deaths per 100k: 240 (172 total deaths) 17.6% more deaths per 100k residents than North Carolina Cumulative cases per 100k: 11,820 (8,485 total cases) 7.0% more cases per 100k residents than North Carolina
6 / 50Toribio93 // Shutterstock
Population that is fully vaccinated: 36.8% (8,011 fully vaccinated) 22.9% lower vaccination rate than North Carolina Population over 65 that is fully vaccinated: 70.4% (3,542 fully vaccinated) 6.0% lower vaccination rate than North Carolina Cumulative deaths per 100k: 198 (43 total deaths) 2.9% less deaths per 100k residents than North Carolina Cumulative cases per 100k: 7,424 (1,615 total cases) 32.8% less cases per 100k residents than North Carolina
7 / 50aceshot1 // Shutterstock
Population that is fully vaccinated: 36.9% (10,235 fully vaccinated) 22.6% lower vaccination rate than North Carolina Population over 65 that is fully vaccinated: 80.8% (3,675 fully vaccinated) 7.9% higher vaccination rate than North Carolina Cumulative deaths per 100k: 58 (16 total deaths) 71.6% less deaths per 100k residents than North Carolina Cumulative cases per 100k: 5,749 (1,596 total cases) 48.0% less cases per 100k residents than North Carolina
8 / 50Cecouchman // Wikimedia Commons
Population that is fully vaccinated: 36.9% (18,432 fully vaccinated) 22.6% lower vaccination rate than North Carolina Population over 65 that is fully vaccinated: 72.2% (7,723 fully vaccinated) 3.6% lower vaccination rate than North Carolina Cumulative deaths per 100k: 228 (114 total deaths) 11.8% more deaths per 100k residents than North Carolina Cumulative cases per 100k: 11,418 (5,710 total cases) 3.3% more cases per 100k residents than North Carolina
9 / 50Indy beetle // Wikimedia Commons
Population that is fully vaccinated: 37.0% (20,705 fully vaccinated) 22.4% lower vaccination rate than North Carolina Population over 65 that is fully vaccinated: 74.5% (8,417 fully vaccinated) 0.5% lower vaccination rate than North Carolina Cumulative deaths per 100k: 227 (127 total deaths) 11.3% more deaths per 100k residents than North Carolina Cumulative cases per 100k: 11,257 (6,298 total cases) 1.9% more cases per 100k residents than North Carolina
10 / 50Tradewinds // Wikimedia Commons
Population that is fully vaccinated: 37.0% (3,482 fully vaccinated) 22.4% lower vaccination rate than North Carolina Population over 65 that is fully vaccinated: 69.2% (1,561 fully vaccinated) 7.6% lower vaccination rate than North Carolina Cumulative deaths per 100k: 297 (28 total deaths) 45.6% more deaths per 100k residents than North Carolina Cumulative cases per 100k: 9,651 (909 total cases) 12.6% less cases per 100k residents than North Carolina
11 / 50NatalieMaynor from Jackson, Mississippi, USA // Wikimedia Commons
Population that is fully vaccinated: 37.3% (8,424 fully vaccinated) 21.8% lower vaccination rate than North Carolina Population over 65 that is fully vaccinated: 72.4% (3,624 fully vaccinated) 3.3% lower vaccination rate than North Carolina Cumulative deaths per 100k: 133 (30 total deaths) 34.8% less deaths per 100k residents than North Carolina Cumulative cases per 100k: 9,777 (2,210 total cases) 11.5% less cases per 100k residents than North Carolina
12 / 50James R Poston // Shutterstock
Population that is fully vaccinated: 37.5% (10,729 fully vaccinated) 21.4% lower vaccination rate than North Carolina Population over 65 that is fully vaccinated: 70.0% (6,108 fully vaccinated) 6.5% lower vaccination rate than North Carolina Cumulative deaths per 100k: 136 (39 total deaths) 33.3% less deaths per 100k residents than North Carolina Cumulative cases per 100k: 9,353 (2,676 total cases) 15.3% less cases per 100k residents than North Carolina
13 / 50PHHI // Wikimedia Commons
Population that is fully vaccinated: 38.7% (83,727 fully vaccinated) 18.9% lower vaccination rate than North Carolina Population over 65 that is fully vaccinated: 76.2% (22,145 fully vaccinated) 1.7% higher vaccination rate than North Carolina Cumulative deaths per 100k: 122 (264 total deaths) 40.2% less deaths per 100k residents than North Carolina Cumulative cases per 100k: 10,462 (22,645 total cases) 5.3% less cases per 100k residents than North Carolina
14 / 50Nikola Spasic Photography // Shutterstock
Population that is fully vaccinated: 38.7% (69,935 fully vaccinated) 18.9% lower vaccination rate than North Carolina Population over 65 that is fully vaccinated: 76.9% (19,264 fully vaccinated) 2.7% higher vaccination rate than North Carolina Cumulative deaths per 100k: 53 (96 total deaths) 74.0% less deaths per 100k residents than North Carolina Cumulative cases per 100k: 11,473 (20,736 total cases) 3.8% more cases per 100k residents than North Carolina
15 / 50Shapard Wolf // Wikimedia Commons
Population that is fully vaccinated: 38.9% (7,028 fully vaccinated) 18.4% lower vaccination rate than North Carolina Population over 65 that is fully vaccinated: 70.1% (3,326 fully vaccinated) 6.4% lower vaccination rate than North Carolina Cumulative deaths per 100k: 155 (28 total deaths) 24.0% less deaths per 100k residents than North Carolina Cumulative cases per 100k: 9,082 (1,641 total cases) 17.8% less cases per 100k residents than North Carolina
16 / 50Beckycafferylepage // Wikimedia Commons
Population that is fully vaccinated: 39.0% (93,511 fully vaccinated) 18.2% lower vaccination rate than North Carolina Population over 65 that is fully vaccinated: 73.9% (23,089 fully vaccinated) 1.3% lower vaccination rate than North Carolina Cumulative deaths per 100k: 94 (226 total deaths) 53.9% less deaths per 100k residents than North Carolina Cumulative cases per 100k: 10,505 (25,198 total cases) 4.9% less cases per 100k residents than North Carolina
17 / 50Gary Rolband // Shutterstock
Population that is fully vaccinated: 39.1% (10,624 fully vaccinated) 18.0% lower vaccination rate than North Carolina Population over 65 that is fully vaccinated: 58.9% (4,267 fully vaccinated) 21.4% lower vaccination rate than North Carolina Cumulative deaths per 100k: 165 (45 total deaths) 19.1% less deaths per 100k residents than North Carolina Cumulative cases per 100k: 8,315 (2,262 total cases) 24.7% less cases per 100k residents than North Carolina
18 / 50Upstateherd // Wikimedia Commons
Population that is fully vaccinated: 39.4% (24,326 fully vaccinated) 17.4% lower vaccination rate than North Carolina Population over 65 that is fully vaccinated: 79.1% (8,229 fully vaccinated) 5.6% higher vaccination rate than North Carolina Cumulative deaths per 100k: 134 (83 total deaths) 34.3% less deaths per 100k residents than North Carolina Cumulative cases per 100k: 10,058 (6,214 total cases) 9.0% less cases per 100k residents than North Carolina
19 / 50Nolichuckyjake // Shutterstock
Population that is fully vaccinated: 40.2% (64,085 fully vaccinated) 15.7% lower vaccination rate than North Carolina Population over 65 that is fully vaccinated: 80.4% (23,427 fully vaccinated) 7.3% higher vaccination rate than North Carolina Cumulative deaths per 100k: 195 (311 total deaths) 4.4% less deaths per 100k residents than North Carolina Cumulative cases per 100k: 12,507 (19,955 total cases) 13.2% more cases per 100k residents than North Carolina
20 / 50AbeEzekowitz // Wikimedia Commons
Population that is fully vaccinated: 40.3% (17,694 fully vaccinated) 15.5% lower vaccination rate than North Carolina Population over 65 that is fully vaccinated: 69.2% (6,064 fully vaccinated) 7.6% lower vaccination rate than North Carolina Cumulative deaths per 100k: 127 (56 total deaths) 37.7% less deaths per 100k residents than North Carolina Cumulative cases per 100k: 8,362 (3,674 total cases) 24.3% less cases per 100k residents than North Carolina
21 / 50Brian Stansberry // Wikimedia Commons
Population that is fully vaccinated: 40.4% (5,766 fully vaccinated) 15.3% lower vaccination rate than North Carolina Population over 65 that is fully vaccinated: 77.6% (2,176 fully vaccinated) 3.6% higher vaccination rate than North Carolina Cumulative deaths per 100k: 126 (18 total deaths) 38.2% less deaths per 100k residents than North Carolina Cumulative cases per 100k: 8,507 (1,214 total cases) 23.0% less cases per 100k residents than North Carolina
22 / 50Canva
Population that is fully vaccinated: 40.7% (7,147 fully vaccinated) 14.7% lower vaccination rate than North Carolina Population over 65 that is fully vaccinated: 74.0% (2,973 fully vaccinated) 1.2% lower vaccination rate than North Carolina Cumulative deaths per 100k: 120 (21 total deaths) 41.2% less deaths per 100k residents than North Carolina Cumulative cases per 100k: 12,343 (2,167 total cases) 11.7% more cases per 100k residents than North Carolina
23 / 50David Byron Keener // Shutterstock
Population that is fully vaccinated: 40.9% (19,235 fully vaccinated) 14.3% lower vaccination rate than North Carolina Population over 65 that is fully vaccinated: 76.7% (8,851 fully vaccinated) 2.4% higher vaccination rate than North Carolina Cumulative deaths per 100k: 219 (103 total deaths) 7.4% more deaths per 100k residents than North Carolina Cumulative cases per 100k: 10,246 (4,815 total cases) 7.3% less cases per 100k residents than North Carolina
24 / 50Nyttend // Wikimedia Commons
Population that is fully vaccinated: 41.0% (16,172 fully vaccinated) 14.0% lower vaccination rate than North Carolina Population over 65 that is fully vaccinated: 76.7% (6,085 fully vaccinated) 2.4% higher vaccination rate than North Carolina Cumulative deaths per 100k: 180 (71 total deaths) 11.8% less deaths per 100k residents than North Carolina Cumulative cases per 100k: 9,012 (3,559 total cases) 18.4% less cases per 100k residents than North Carolina
25 / 50Ceh2624 // Wikimedia Commons
Population that is fully vaccinated: 41.3% (17,713 fully vaccinated) 13.4% lower vaccination rate than North Carolina Population over 65 that is fully vaccinated: 73.3% (6,801 fully vaccinated) 2.1% lower vaccination rate than North Carolina Cumulative deaths per 100k: 93 (40 total deaths) 54.4% less deaths per 100k residents than North Carolina Cumulative cases per 100k: 9,849 (4,220 total cases) 10.9% less cases per 100k residents than North Carolina
26 / 50BrendaByrneGreene // Wikimedia Commons
Population that is fully vaccinated: 41.5% (39,163 fully vaccinated) 13.0% lower vaccination rate than North Carolina Population over 65 that is fully vaccinated: 78.8% (14,153 fully vaccinated) 5.2% higher vaccination rate than North Carolina Cumulative deaths per 100k: 212 (200 total deaths) 3.9% more deaths per 100k residents than North Carolina Cumulative cases per 100k: 12,472 (11,761 total cases) 12.9% more cases per 100k residents than North Carolina
27 / 50Canva
Population that is fully vaccinated: 42.4% (43,262 fully vaccinated) 11.1% lower vaccination rate than North Carolina Population over 65 that is fully vaccinated: 85.7% (17,238 fully vaccinated) 14.4% higher vaccination rate than North Carolina Cumulative deaths per 100k: 125 (128 total deaths) 38.7% less deaths per 100k residents than North Carolina Cumulative cases per 100k: 9,318 (9,517 total cases) 15.7% less cases per 100k residents than North Carolina
28 / 50Warren LeMay // Wikimedia Commons
Population that is fully vaccinated: 42.6% (72,193 fully vaccinated) 10.7% lower vaccination rate than North Carolina Population over 65 that is fully vaccinated: 78.3% (22,739 fully vaccinated) 4.5% higher vaccination rate than North Carolina Cumulative deaths per 100k: 170 (288 total deaths) 16.7% less deaths per 100k residents than North Carolina Cumulative cases per 100k: 11,297 (19,149 total cases) 2.3% more cases per 100k residents than North Carolina
29 / 50EbonyEaton // Wikimedia Commons
Population that is fully vaccinated: 43.1% (26,072 fully vaccinated) 9.6% lower vaccination rate than North Carolina Population over 65 that is fully vaccinated: 70.2% (7,490 fully vaccinated) 6.3% lower vaccination rate than North Carolina Cumulative deaths per 100k: 137 (83 total deaths) 32.8% less deaths per 100k residents than North Carolina Cumulative cases per 100k: 9,956 (6,018 total cases) 9.9% less cases per 100k residents than North Carolina
30 / 50Canva
Population that is fully vaccinated: 43.5% (4,841 fully vaccinated) 8.8% lower vaccination rate than North Carolina Population over 65 that is fully vaccinated: 71.1% (2,215 fully vaccinated) 5.1% lower vaccination rate than North Carolina Cumulative deaths per 100k: 45 (5 total deaths) 77.9% less deaths per 100k residents than North Carolina Cumulative cases per 100k: 9,904 (1,103 total cases) 10.4% less cases per 100k residents than North Carolina
31 / 50Warren LeMay from Cincinnati, OH, United States // Wikimedia Commons
Population that is fully vaccinated: 43.7% (15,037 fully vaccinated) 8.4% lower vaccination rate than North Carolina Population over 65 that is fully vaccinated: 63.7% (6,885 fully vaccinated) 15.0% lower vaccination rate than North Carolina Cumulative deaths per 100k: 96 (33 total deaths) 52.9% less deaths per 100k residents than North Carolina Cumulative cases per 100k: 6,989 (2,403 total cases) 36.7% less cases per 100k residents than North Carolina
32 / 50G Keith Hall // Wikimedia Commons
Population that is fully vaccinated: 43.7% (24,550 fully vaccinated) 8.4% lower vaccination rate than North Carolina Population over 65 that is fully vaccinated: 71.8% (6,631 fully vaccinated) 4.1% lower vaccination rate than North Carolina Cumulative deaths per 100k: 59 (33 total deaths) 71.1% less deaths per 100k residents than North Carolina Cumulative cases per 100k: 8,957 (5,032 total cases) 18.9% less cases per 100k residents than North Carolina
33 / 50Canva
Population that is fully vaccinated: 43.8% (27,321 fully vaccinated) 8.2% lower vaccination rate than North Carolina Population over 65 that is fully vaccinated: 76.5% (11,918 fully vaccinated) 2.1% higher vaccination rate than North Carolina Cumulative deaths per 100k: 159 (99 total deaths) 22.1% less deaths per 100k residents than North Carolina Cumulative cases per 100k: 7,295 (4,546 total cases) 34.0% less cases per 100k residents than North Carolina
34 / 50Anthony Ricci // Shutterstock
Population that is fully vaccinated: 43.9% (51,513 fully vaccinated) 8.0% lower vaccination rate than North Carolina Population over 65 that is fully vaccinated: 71.8% (22,217 fully vaccinated) 4.1% lower vaccination rate than North Carolina Cumulative deaths per 100k: 141 (165 total deaths) 30.9% less deaths per 100k residents than North Carolina Cumulative cases per 100k: 8,844 (10,384 total cases) 19.9% less cases per 100k residents than North Carolina
35 / 50KAD Photo // Shutterstock
Population that is fully vaccinated: 44.4% (44,828 fully vaccinated) 6.9% lower vaccination rate than North Carolina Population over 65 that is fully vaccinated: 83.3% (20,152 fully vaccinated) 11.2% higher vaccination rate than North Carolina Cumulative deaths per 100k: 193 (195 total deaths) 5.4% less deaths per 100k residents than North Carolina Cumulative cases per 100k: 9,058 (9,138 total cases) 18.0% less cases per 100k residents than North Carolina
36 / 50Sean Pavone // Shutterstock
Population that is fully vaccinated: 44.6% (170,619 fully vaccinated) 6.5% lower vaccination rate than North Carolina Population over 65 that is fully vaccinated: 78.3% (49,097 fully vaccinated) 4.5% higher vaccination rate than North Carolina Cumulative deaths per 100k: 112 (427 total deaths) 45.1% less deaths per 100k residents than North Carolina Cumulative cases per 100k: 9,728 (37,188 total cases) 11.9% less cases per 100k residents than North Carolina
37 / 50Bud Davis, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers // Wikimedia Commons
Population that is fully vaccinated: 44.6% (5,672 fully vaccinated) 6.5% lower vaccination rate than North Carolina Population over 65 that is fully vaccinated: 77.6% (3,001 fully vaccinated) 3.6% higher vaccination rate than North Carolina Cumulative deaths per 100k: 102 (13 total deaths) 50.0% less deaths per 100k residents than North Carolina Cumulative cases per 100k: 8,824 (1,123 total cases) 20.1% less cases per 100k residents than North Carolina
38 / 50digidreamgrafix // Shutterstock
Population that is fully vaccinated: 44.7% (496,331 fully vaccinated) 6.3% lower vaccination rate than North Carolina Population over 65 that is fully vaccinated: 80.2% (102,457 fully vaccinated) 7.1% higher vaccination rate than North Carolina Cumulative deaths per 100k: 88 (982 total deaths) 56.9% less deaths per 100k residents than North Carolina Cumulative cases per 100k: 10,424 (115,741 total cases) 5.6% less cases per 100k residents than North Carolina
39 / 50KAD Photo // Shutterstock
Population that is fully vaccinated: 44.8% (33,396 fully vaccinated) 6.1% lower vaccination rate than North Carolina Population over 65 that is fully vaccinated: 71.9% (13,401 fully vaccinated) 4.0% lower vaccination rate than North Carolina Cumulative deaths per 100k: 120 (89 total deaths) 41.2% less deaths per 100k residents than North Carolina Cumulative cases per 100k: 6,448 (4,802 total cases) 41.6% less cases per 100k residents than North Carolina
40 / 50Canva
Population that is fully vaccinated: 45.0% (151,000 fully vaccinated) 5.7% lower vaccination rate than North Carolina Population over 65 that is fully vaccinated: 82.1% (33,614 fully vaccinated) 9.6% higher vaccination rate than North Carolina Cumulative deaths per 100k: 97 (325 total deaths) 52.5% less deaths per 100k residents than North Carolina Cumulative cases per 100k: 9,231 (30,972 total cases) 16.4% less cases per 100k residents than North Carolina
41 / 50Canva
Population that is fully vaccinated: 45.1% (242,283 fully vaccinated) 5.5% lower vaccination rate than North Carolina Population over 65 that is fully vaccinated: 79.1% (65,983 fully vaccinated) 5.6% higher vaccination rate than North Carolina Cumulative deaths per 100k: 135 (726 total deaths) 33.8% less deaths per 100k residents than North Carolina Cumulative cases per 100k: 9,118 (48,982 total cases) 17.5% less cases per 100k residents than North Carolina
42 / 50PatGallery // Shutterstock
Population that is fully vaccinated: 46.5% (108,946 fully vaccinated) 2.5% lower vaccination rate than North Carolina Population over 65 that is fully vaccinated: 79.3% (34,219 fully vaccinated) 5.9% higher vaccination rate than North Carolina Cumulative deaths per 100k: 75 (176 total deaths) 63.2% less deaths per 100k residents than North Carolina Cumulative cases per 100k: 8,395 (19,683 total cases) 24.0% less cases per 100k residents than North Carolina
43 / 50iofoto // Shutterstock
Population that is fully vaccinated: 47.4% (67,647 fully vaccinated) 0.6% lower vaccination rate than North Carolina Population over 65 that is fully vaccinated: 76.0% (35,401 fully vaccinated) 1.5% higher vaccination rate than North Carolina Cumulative deaths per 100k: 109 (156 total deaths) 46.6% less deaths per 100k residents than North Carolina Cumulative cases per 100k: 6,645 (9,490 total cases) 39.9% less cases per 100k residents than North Carolina
44 / 50Nagel Photography // Shutterstock
Population that is fully vaccinated: 50.7% (132,447 fully vaccinated) 6.3% higher vaccination rate than North Carolina Population over 65 that is fully vaccinated: 76.0% (40,681 fully vaccinated) 1.5% higher vaccination rate than North Carolina Cumulative deaths per 100k: 125 (326 total deaths) 38.7% less deaths per 100k residents than North Carolina Cumulative cases per 100k: 6,990 (18,257 total cases) 36.7% less cases per 100k residents than North Carolina
45 / 50Canva
Population that is fully vaccinated: 51.6% (2,546 fully vaccinated) 8.2% higher vaccination rate than North Carolina Population over 65 that is fully vaccinated: 80.4% (896 fully vaccinated) 7.3% higher vaccination rate than North Carolina Cumulative deaths per 100k: 182 (9 total deaths) 10.8% less deaths per 100k residents than North Carolina Cumulative cases per 100k: 13,571 (670 total cases) 22.8% more cases per 100k residents than North Carolina
46 / 50Sean Pavone // Shutterstock
Population that is fully vaccinated: 52.9% (170,137 fully vaccinated) 10.9% higher vaccination rate than North Carolina Population over 65 that is fully vaccinated: 83.1% (36,358 fully vaccinated) 10.9% higher vaccination rate than North Carolina Cumulative deaths per 100k: 74 (238 total deaths) 63.7% less deaths per 100k residents than North Carolina Cumulative cases per 100k: 8,091 (26,011 total cases) 26.8% less cases per 100k residents than North Carolina
47 / 50Bz3rk // Wikimedia Commons
Population that is fully vaccinated: 54.0% (600,335 fully vaccinated) 13.2% higher vaccination rate than North Carolina Population over 65 that is fully vaccinated: 88.5% (118,441 fully vaccinated) 18.2% higher vaccination rate than North Carolina Cumulative deaths per 100k: 67 (740 total deaths) 67.2% less deaths per 100k residents than North Carolina Cumulative cases per 100k: 8,117 (90,237 total cases) 26.5% less cases per 100k residents than North Carolina
48 / 50MarkVanDykePhotography // Shutterstock
Population that is fully vaccinated: 58.5% (21,645 fully vaccinated) 22.6% higher vaccination rate than North Carolina Population over 65 that is fully vaccinated: 99.9% (8,470 fully vaccinated) 33.4% higher vaccination rate than North Carolina Cumulative deaths per 100k: 27 (10 total deaths) 86.8% less deaths per 100k residents than North Carolina Cumulative cases per 100k: 6,082 (2,251 total cases) 44.9% less cases per 100k residents than North Carolina
49 / 50Bryan Pollard // Shutterstock
Population that is fully vaccinated: 60.0% (89,129 fully vaccinated) 25.8% higher vaccination rate than North Carolina Population over 65 that is fully vaccinated: 92.5% (20,033 fully vaccinated) 23.5% higher vaccination rate than North Carolina Cumulative deaths per 100k: 68 (101 total deaths) 66.7% less deaths per 100k residents than North Carolina Cumulative cases per 100k: 5,838 (8,668 total cases) 47.2% less cases per 100k residents than North Carolina
DALLAS - Williams Chicken teamed up with Oak Cliff native and professional boxer Burley Brooks for a pop-up COVID-19 vaccination event Saturday.
They educated people on the importance of getting shots, and people got to grab a free meal and a dose of the COVID-19 vaccine.
In addition to vaccines and a hot meal, Williams Chicken gave money to those who showed up for gas and for groceries.
Williams Chicken founder Hiawatha Williams said it was the city that allowed him to open his first restaurant 34 years ago, so he feels this is the least he can do to give back to that same community.
"This is my reasonable service. Reasonable. This is my family. These are my customers. I'm a businessman, I need my customers to be healthy. I need them to come back in. I need to open that lobby and have them sit down so we can have that relationship that we had 34 years ago," he said. "This is for my community, so I'd rather be here, supporting and giving back, right here.
They offered Pfizer and Johnson & Johnson vaccines.
RELATED: Dallas County hosting pop-up COVID-19 vaccine sites, going door-to-door to get more people vaccinated
There was also a pop-up vaccination event in Fair Park Saturday. It was the first of two events to be held there.
Doses of the Pfizer vaccine were on hand to anyone who wanted one.
There will be another pop-up event Saturday, July 31, from 10 a.m. to 3 p.m.
People don't have to sign up for an appointment, but signing up is encouraged through the Dallas County website.
IE 11 is not supported. For an optimal experience visit our site on another browser.
COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy, the resulting surge in infections, and businesses barring the unvaccinated to encourage the resistant to voluntary get vaccinated are discussed by Rep. Ted Lieu, Dr. Kavita Patel, and journalist Tim Miller.July 24, 2021
As coronavirus cases rise in unvaccinated populations, Democratic senators are introducing a new bill Thursday that would strip away Facebook and other social media platforms Section 230 liability shield if they amplify harmful public health misinformation.
The Health Misinformation Act, introduced by Sens. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) and Ben Ray Lujn (D-NM) Thursday, would create a carveout in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act opening social media platforms like Facebook up to lawsuits for hosting some dangerous health misinformation. The bill directs the Health and Human Services secretary to issue guidelines on what should be classified as health misinformation.
The carveout would only apply in situations where online misinformation is related to an existing public health emergency like the ongoing coronavirus pandemic, as declared by the HHS secretary. It would only open a platform up to liability if the content is being algorithmically amplified, not through a neutral mechanism, such as through the use of chronological functionality.
For far too long, online platforms have not done enough to protect the health of Americans. These are some of the biggest, richest companies in the world and they must do more to prevent the spread of deadly vaccine misinformation, Klobuchar said in a statement Thursday. The coronavirus pandemic has shown us how lethal misinformation can be and it is our responsibility to take action.
Its not clear that removing Section 230 protections would have the effect lawmakers intend. Section 230 protects platforms from liability for illegal content hosted on their platforms but misinformation is not illegal in itself. As a result, its unclear what a potential lawsuit against Facebook for misinformation would look like, even once the protections of Section 230 are stripped away.
In a statement Thursday, Facebook VP of public policy Kevin Martin voiced optimism about the bill. We have long supported common industry standards and section 230 reform, Martin said. We believe clarification on the difficult and urgent questions about health related misinformation would be helpful and look forward to working with Congress and the industry as we consider options for reform.
The bills introduction comes just a week after the Biden administration issued a new report calling out vaccine misinformation on social media. The report called for an all-of-society push to address coronavirus misinformation, including new policy recommendations for companies like Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube. The report didnt mention Section 230 but suggested that platforms redesign their algorithms to avoid amplifying misinformation and to build more friction into sharing functions to urge users to avoid sharing false information.
Shortly after the reports release, White House officials and President Joe Biden called out Facebook specifically for its role in amplifying vaccine misinformation. Last Friday, Biden told reporters that platforms like Facebook were killing people by platforming false vaccine information. A Facebook spokesperson responded, saying, The facts show that Facebook is helping save lives. Period.
On Monday, Biden walked back that statement, saying that misinformation was killing people, not Facebook itself. Still, White House Communications Director Kate Bedingfield told MSNBC Tuesday that the administration was reviewing Section 230 in order to determine a means of combating COVID-19 misinformation.
Certainly they should be held accountable, Bedingfield said of social media companies Tuesday. It is a big and complicated ecosystem, and everybody bears responsibility to ensure that we are not providing people with bad information about a vaccine that will save their lives.
Updated 7/22/21 at 7:07PM ET: Added a statement from Facebook.
(WHNT) President Joe Biden lauded Governor Kay Iveys most recent remarks regarding COVID-19 vaccinations during a campaign event in Virginia.
According to our news partners at AL.com, Biden stated, You notice a lot of our very conservative friends have finally had an altar call. Theyve seen the Lord.
Thank God the governor of Alabama, at one of the lowest vaccinations in the country is now and Im genuinely complimenting her, the president continued. I know its gotten a bit politicized, but I hope its starting to change. Its not about red states or blue states.
Biden was speaking at a rally in Arlington for former Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe, who is seeking another term in November.
Iveys strong statement on Thursday marked a significant turn in her demeanor towards the low rate of COVID-19 vaccinations in Alabama.
The new cases of COVID are because of unvaccinated folks, Ivey said during an event for Landing in Birmingham. Almost 100% of the new hospitalizations are with unvaccinated folks. And the deaths are certainly occurring with the unvaccinated folks. These folks are choosing a horrible lifestyle of self-inflicted pain.
Folks are supposed to have common sense, Governor Ivey continued. But its time to start blaming the unvaccinated folks, not the vaccinated folks. Its the unvaccinated folks that are letting us down.
According to Alabama Department of Public Healths (ADPH) COVID-19 dashboard, approximately 1.5 million Alabamians have been fully vaccinated. The state of Alabamas most recent population number is estimated to be just over 5 million people.
In the last 14 days, 12,239 people in Alabama have been diagnosed with COVID-19. Just over 11,000 Alabamians have died from the virus since March 2020.
We're making this important information available without a subscription as a public service. But we depend on reader support to do this work. Please consider supporting independent journalism in Alaska, at just $3.69 a week for an online subscription.
After months of declining COVID-19 case counts, a highly contagious variant is responsible for rising cases and hospitalizations over the last few weeks nationwide including in Alaska.
Were continuing to address reader questions about hospital capacity, when you should get tested if youre vaccinated and how local health officials are responding to the latest surge. What do you want to know about COVID-19 in Alaska? Let us know in the form at the bottom of this story.
For the past few weeks, the states hospital status monitoring dashboard has been showing most of Anchorages hospitals labeled full or at capacity but that doesnt tell the whole story, and it doesnt mean that those hospitals arent able to accept patients, health officials say.
The state hospital dashboard has been used primarily by hospitals for years to communicate with one another about bed availability and each facilitys capacity to accept transfers, said Dr. Anne Zink, Alaskas chief medical officer, during a call with reporters this week.
So this (dashboard) is just a tool to make it easier and faster for clinicians on the frontline to be able to know kind of the capacity of different hospitals, she said.
Alaska's hospital status dashboard as of Saturday evening, July 24, 2021. (Screengrab from Alaska Department of Health and Social Services website)
Another consideration is that the hospital monitoring dashboard is not always up to date, said Esther Pitts, the Service Operations Center director at Providence Alaska Medical Center, who helps oversee transfers between hospitals. Thats why the dashboard is seen less as a precise measure and more as a way to take a broad look at hospital capacity, she said.
Its a good starting place, she said. She said she and others are continuing to follow this indicator closely as cases and hospitalizations continue to rise.
Over the last 10 days, as COVID-19 hospitalizations have started to climb again, spokespersons from Providence and the Alaska Native Medical Center said their hospitals have been running close to full capacity. But they also said thats typical for this time of year and the hospitals are managing, and are not yet at a critical point.
Thats because when all the hospitals in Anchorage start to fill up, they take turns accepting patients and are in regular communication with one another to make sure patients have a place to go.
We have what we call surge capacity that we can can turn on, and other things we can do to control the influx, said Dr. Michael Bernstein, Providences chief medical officer. We have these surge plans that we developed last year to open additional spaces in our facilities if we need to.
Hospitals busyness over the past few weeks is relatively typical for this time of year, said Anna Frick, an epidemiologist with the state health department who tracks infectious diseases and emergency room visits across the state.
In summer, our population gets bigger about our hospitals do not grow magically. And so we have more people who are here who need health care, and people outside doing things, getting into kayaking, accidents, et cetera, Frick said.
Hospital staffing problems have also exacerbated the strain hospitals are feeling right now, Zink added.
Alaska has a limited health care infrastructure, she said. And that has become very challenged and stressed during the pandemic for numerous reasons. ... I think this has been exhausting for all of us. And seeing a fourth wave is a little demoralizing, honestly. And I think were seeing a lot of health care workers making decisions on career choice, which is also impacting our capacity.
Regardless of vaccination status, anyone who has symptoms consistent with COVID-19, no matter how mild including a runny nose, low-grade fever or a sore throat should get tested, said Dr. Joe McLaughlin, Alaskas top epidemiologist.
If that result comes back positive, an isolation period of 10 days is recommended. And that includes people who are fully vaccinated, McLaughlin said.
A fully vaccinated person who has been exposed to someone with confirmed or possible COVID-19 doesnt need to test or quarantine as long as they dont have any symptoms, he added.
But if youre not vaccinated, and youve been exposed, you do need to quarantine, he said. Its still a 14-day quarantine. And we recommend getting tested at some point during your quarantine, so usually between about days five and seven after exposure.
In Juneau, city officials have responded to rising case counts by asking residents to mask up indoors, whether or not theyre vaccinated and are even requiring masks in city facilities. In Cordova, a recent outbreak among dozens of seafood workers and community members has resulted in a mask mandate for city workers.
Anchorage likely will not issue any further recommendations around mask-wearing, said David Morgan, the recently appointed director of the Anchorage Health Department. That decision will be left up to the individual, he said during an interview Thursday.
If you want to wear a mask, thats fine. If you dont want to wear a mask, thats fine, he said. Some people wear a tie and a suit to work, like I do, and some dont.
McLaughlin added that state health guidance hasnt changed with respect to what fully vaccinated people can do, despite the rise in cases and the more contagious delta variant now circulating.
It really comes down to the individual in their own risk tolerance, and maybe taking a look at their own underlying medical conditions and their age to help to help decide what is the best course of action for them with respect to masking, social distancing and avoiding crowds, McLaughlin said.
In a tweet, Zink encouraged Alaskans to be careful, noting that she was back to eating at outdoor restaurants only and masking up indoors, even though she is fully vaccinated.
The vaccine protects me well, but it is not 100%, she said.
The vast majority of Alaskas COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations and deaths have been among people who are unvaccinated.
Last Thursday, wildlife care specialists noticed the snow leopard had a cough and nasal discharge, the zoo said in new release. Preliminary tests confirmed the virus that causes Covid-19.The zoo said it doesn't know how the snow leopard got infected. According to the Snow Leopard Trust, there may be only about 4,000 to 6,000 snow leopards left in the world.In January, the zoo started vaccinating its animals with donated recombinant purified spike protein vaccines, which are not intended for human use. The zoo vaccinated several great apes after the zoo's gorillas tested positive for the virus. The gorillas fully recovered.
Veterinary teams at the zoo are focusing on wildlife most at risk of contracting the virus, including leopards, lions, tigers, cheetahs, jaguars, mountain lions and others, according to the zoo's news release.
The snow leopard appears to be doing well and is showing no addition symptoms, the zoo said.
The snow leopard shares his habitat with a female snow leopard and two Amur leopards. Those animals are being quarantined and monitored closely.
Testing at the zoo and at the California Animal Health and Food Safety Laboratory System confirmed the positive test of the San Diego Zoo's snow leopard. Results are still pending from the US Department of Agriculture National Veterinary Services Laboratories.
In late December 2019, the Wuhan Municipal Health Commission reported cases of an unidentified viral pneumonia, which, along with other reports, alerted the World Health Organization (WHO) to a potential new health threat that was identified as a coronavirus in January 2020 and was later named SARS-CoV-2.
But it has become clear that the virus emerged before late December 2019, possibly even months before. A joint WHO study by Chinese and international researchers identified 174 SARS-CoV-2 infections throughout December, with the earliest going back to Dec. 8. Though most researchers think the virus originated sometime during the fall or winter of 2019, an exact time is hard to pinpoint without more data. Finding out when SARS-CoV-2 began spreading among people could help prevent or address future epidemics and pandemics by providing insight into the kind of disease surveillance that would have been necessary to prevent this one, experts say.
By the time the virus was identified, it had already spread significantly and was harder to contain, said Sergei Pond, a professor of biology at Temple University in Philadelphia. "You don't want to wait eight weeks until you have a cluster of cases with unusual pneumonia," Pond said. "You kind of want to have a surveillance system where you pick it up very early."
Related: 7 facts about the origin of the novel coronavirus
The first case of COVID-19 that has been confirmed by a laboratory test was in a man who started to experience symptoms on Dec. 8, 2019, The Washington Post reported. Though there were earlier reports suggesting the first case could be traced back to Dec. 1 or Nov. 17, as Live Science previously reported, those reports were not confirmed by the WHO-China joint study, said Joel Wertheim, an associate professor of medicine at the University of California, San Diego. Wertheim and his colleagues analyzed the virus's genetic information and conducted epidemiological computer simulations, which put the virus's origin date at between mid-October and mid-November 2019, they reported in April in the journal Science.
To draw this conclusion, the researchers analyzed genomes of SARS-CoV-2 from the first wave of the pandemic in China. Because viruses accumulate genetic changes over time, the researchers could identify a fixed rate of genetic mutation and then work backward until they found when the first person with a relatively unaltered form of the virus could have started to spread it among people. The researchers estimated that for SARS-CoV-2, that date was between Nov. 17 and Dec. 20, 2019.
But that's just when the virus likely started spreading among people. Because SARS-CoV-2 originated in an animal and was passed to humans, the animal coronavirus that originally infected the first person could have genetic differences from the current virus. That version might have taken a while to become genetically recognizable as SARS-CoV-2, meaning the virus may have started spreading even earlier, the researchers said.
To see how long it might have taken the virus to accumulate those kinds of changes, the researchers used a computer simulation of the virus's spread. They concluded that the process likely would have taken anywhere from zero to 41 days, although the most common result was eight days. This process, they said, might have pushed back the virus's initial spread to mid-October.
Wertheim emphasized that the goal of the study was to establish how far back the virus could have started to spread, not necessarily how early it did spread. "That's as far as you can make it go, and even then, that's a lot of assumptions to get that far back," he said.
Many researchers, including Pond, would agree with that based on current data, the timeframe that Wertheim and his colleagues proposed in the study is likely, said Pond, who co-authored a separate study examining the early evolutionary history of SARS-CoV-2, published in May in the journal Molecular Biology and Evolution. In that study, Pond and his colleagues used a kind of genetic analysis originally developed to reconstruct the evolution of human cancer cells. They determined that the version of SARS-CoV-2 that spread in December 2019 would take six to eight weeks to evolve from the initial human strain of the virus. Although the method they used was different, that time frame would also push the origin back to around the same time as the other study October 2019.
But Pond said there are also ways of gaining new insight into when the virus emerged. For instance, many thought the virus emerged from an animal at the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market in Wuhan, but later analysis found cases that couldn't be linked to the market, Live Science previously reported. In contrast, Wertheim said the lack of confirmation from the China-WHO joint study for the Dec. 1 and Nov. 17 cases that his study used could affect the estimate. Frozen blood samples from early potential cases or genetic sequence records could also provide further insight, Pond said.
"You can easily imagine a scenario where you get five or 10 more sequences that are early, and they just change everything," he said. Regardless, Pond thinks it's unlikely that the virus emerged earlier than fall 2019 or, at the earliest, late summer 2019, because even events that could lead to the virus circulating undetected that early such as it starting to spread, going extinct and then being reintroduced are very unlikely and become increasingly so the further back you go.
Some research has suggested an origin date earlier than October, but the studies have not been peer-reviewed or published in scientific journals. In one such study, researchers at Harvard University analyzed internet searches in Wuhan, China, from 2019 and found an increase in searches for "diarrhea" in August 2019 that correlated with an increase in traffic in a Wuhan hospital parking lot the same month. Diarrhea is more common with COVID-19 than with the flu, so the researchers suggested the increase could point to the virus spreading in August.
In a commentary in response to that study, however, other researchers pointed out that the authors used an awkward Chinese translation for "diarrhea" and that the search term increased in use all over China, not just in Wuhan. Another study, which was published to the preprint server medRxiv and was not peer-reviewed, found traces of SARS-CoV-2 in wastewater in Barcelona, Spain, in March 2019. However, the findings made little sense without any evidence of patients experiencing symptoms of COVID-19 in Barcelona at the time.
There are inherent problems with trying to find a more precise origin date. Wertheim's analyses showed that early on, case counts were likely to be so low that the virus went undetected. In fact, in the computer simulations from the study that modeled the spread of SARS-CoV-2 from a single human case, the virus went extinct the majority of the time, and when it didn't, sometimes it relied on a single person to spread it more widely again. Of course, in a large, densely-populated city like Wuhan, that scenario doesnt present a problem it would be easy for a single person to transmit the virus to many people. But it does make it likely that early on, few people had the virus. Amid a severe flu season, and since SARS-CoV-2 had a relatively low mortality rate compared with viruses like severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), Wertheim said it's no surprise the virus wasn't detected when it first started to spread.
Wertheim hopes systems that allow for earlier detection could help prevent or mitigate the effects of future pandemics.
"In an ideal world, we would have a sort of systematic and interconnected way to report all unexpected illness in a way that can be seen across borders," he said. "Something like that would have given us a leg up on this pandemic and potentially have been able to stop it in its tracks."
Originally published on Live Science.
The Dutch Olympic team, shown here during the opening ceremony on Friday, has had three athletes test positive for coronavirus at the Games. David J. Phillip/AP hide caption
The Dutch Olympic team, shown here during the opening ceremony on Friday, has had three athletes test positive for coronavirus at the Games.
A Dutch rower has become the first athlete at the Tokyo Olympics to receive a positive coronavirus test after they competed in their event.
Finn Florijn, a 21-year-old vaccinated Dutch rower, tested positive after his Olympic debut in the men's single sculls race. He finished fourth in his heat and was scheduled to row again on Saturday, but now he's out of the competition and isolated for 10 days.
"I wasn't completely satisfied with my race yet. But I was hopeful to improve in the rematch. Now it's over in an instant," the athlete said in a statement.
Florijn is the son of a two-time gold medalist in crew and has said that he aspires to win more medals than his father, Ronald. Those dreams will now need to wait until a future Olympics, if he can qualify again.
Just one day after the official start of the Games, at least 12 athletes who came to Japan for the Olympics have tested positive for coronavirus, including U.S. beach volleyball player Taylor Crabb and U.S. gymnastics alternate Kara Eaker.
Dutch skateboarder Candy Jacobs, who had a positive coronavirus test prior to competition, has been posting on Instagram from isolation.
"I don't even know what to say. It's the weirdest situation I could possibly, possibly be in at the moment," she said. "All my friends being at the Olympic Village. It's so close, but I can't see them."
"I just want to let you know that I'm doing good," Jacobs added. "My heart still hurts, but I'll definitely get through it."
A third Dutch athlete and a staff member of the rowing team have also tested positive. A statement from Team Netherlands officials said they believe the infections may have originated on their flight. The head of the Dutch team expressed devastation in a statement, saying, "We have no words."
The positive tests have raised alarm among other athletes desperate to stay healthy and compete.
In the past week, you may have heard about Olympic athletes who are fully vaccinated getting positive Covid tests or people in Provincetown, Mass., or Texas Democrats or the New York Yankees. These are called breakthrough infections, and theyre causing a lot of anxiety about whether the vaccines hold up against the hyper-transmissible Delta variant.
But how concerning are they? And as cases are surging across the country, how much do they matter as a metric of the pandemic when we have a vaccine to protect against severe disease?
STAT spoke with Cline Gounder, a clinical assistant professor of medicine and infectious disease at NYUs Grossman School of Medicine, host of the EPIDEMIC podcast, member of the Biden-Harris Transition Covid-19 Advisory Board, and a member of the class of people we are calling pandemic celebrities.
advertisement
This interview has been condensed and edited for clarity.
Dr. Gounder, how concerned are you about these instances of breakthrough infections in people who are fully vaccinated?
advertisement
I think we really need to better define what we mean by breakthrough infections. Thats really a catch-all for people who might have an infection with no, or very mild, symptoms, all the way to somebody who might end up in the ICU, or even dead. What concerns me is breakthrough disease people who have significant symptoms, who are struggling to breathe, who are ending up in the hospital, and we really havent seen breakthrough disease with the vaccines.
Weve seen a lot of criticism in recent weeks about the way the CDC is handling the release of data and tracking of these breakthrough infections. Do you think their actions have been sufficient or is there more information that you think we need to have from from federal regulators?
I really think we should be tracking breakthrough infections. And heres why. Those people who are still getting infected despite being vaccinated, they may not get sick, but it is possible that they could transmit the infection on to others. And so thats something we still dont really have a handle on. There is some evidence from the sports leagues, where they do a lot of testing, that some of these people may, in fact, be contagious. And so that is concerning.
The second reason that we really want to be tracking breakthrough infections is for what we call genomic surveillance, which is where we look at new variants that are starting to emerge and what do those look like? Youre more likely to find new emerging variants among people who have breakthrough infections. Were sort of flying blind with respect to that, because were not assessing those breakthrough infections.
All this talk about breakthrough infections or breakthrough disease has also raised the issue of boosters, whether Americans will be required to go back and get reinjected with Covid vaccine. What are your thoughts on that?
First of all, booster is really not the right terminology here. I think the problem with boosters is when people hear that word, theyre like, oh, well, its going to be like a flu shot. Im going to need to get a shot every year. The way I would frame this is much more like, say, a blood pressure medicine that your doctor prescribes you where you start at one dose and they might adjust the dose over time. Just because we are still figuring out the best dosage regimen for the Covid vaccine does not mean that the vaccines dont work, and does not mean youre going to need a yearly Covid shot.
Thats really interesting. Where do you fall on the J&J vaccine and the current information we have about it? Theres so much anxiety because its just one dose. There are people who got J&J who are feeling not fully vaccinated with one shot. What do you think?
So first of all, the CDC is looking at this. In fact, the CDCs ACIP, which is a group of people who advise the CDC on their vaccination guidelines, is meeting today as we speak to evaluate whether additional doses of vaccine should be given, specifically in this case for people who have immunosuppression. But I anticipate they will be looking at other categories of patients as well.
With respect to the J&J vaccine, I think its really important for people to understand that this is a very good vaccine. This is why we thought that one dose would be sufficient. Now, what were learning is that, particularly against some of these new variants, that one dose of J&J may not be enough. And I think what you will see over the next month or two are recommendations, at least for some subsets of people who got J&J, that they do get an additional dose of vaccine. The other thing that were seeing is when you mix and match different types of vaccine, so say J&J, which is very similar to the AstraZeneca vaccine. If you mix and match that with one of the many vaccines like Pfizer or Moderna, you actually get an even better immune response. So I do think youre going to see more mixing and matching in the future as well.
So sort of a separate matter: Weve seen cases on the rise across the United States. And as you mentioned, theres this important differentiation between what might be a positive test versus what might be symptomatic disease or something more serious. And we know that vaccines are effective at limiting severe disease. But at the same time, cases are going up. How should we look at this when we have a relatively high vaccination rate and a lot of available vaccine for anyone who might want it? How should we perceive these rising case counts? How worried should we be, you know, vis-a-vis last year when there were no vaccines?
We are seeing this decoupling between cases and hospitalizations and deaths. So what we mean by decoupling is were seeing the cases shoot up more steeply than we are seeing hospitalizations and deaths shoot up. That said, it remains to be seen whether that decoupling holds because were still early in our own surge with Delta. And unfortunately, there are parts of the country that really have very low vaccination rates. And we dont know how much some of these breakthrough infections among vaccinated people might then be contributing to onward transmission and circulation of the virus among unvaccinated people. So thats really a black box at this time.
It seems like the rise in case counts has also resurrected the whole mask debate and whether we need to be wearing masks. Do we need to think about going back to wearing them?
So this is a really good question. Many local municipalities are looking at this question right now. I was on a call with several New York City public officials yesterday where they were asking for my advice on this question. I think, unfortunately, with the rise of Delta, which is about a thousand times more infectious than the original strains of the virus, we really do need to think about layering protections. And so what are those layers? Vaccination. But some of the other layers that we should consider would be masking indoors when youre outside of your household bubble, optimizing ventilation in the home just opening your window works really well. It works even better than many of those units that you can buy to filter the air. I think people really underestimate the power of opening windows. And finally, socializing outdoors as much as possible to minimize your risk. Those would be the things that I think we do need to be thinking about. At the beginning of the pandemic, the CDC said that a close contact was somebody that youre indoors with unmasked for 15 minutes or more. The equivalent of that with the Delta variant is not 15 minutes, its one second.
Does the indoor/outdoor difference in protection still hold? Lets say, somebody is worried about their unvaccinated child playing in the playground. Is it OK if theyre not wearing a mask?
The way to think about your exposure is dose times time. So your dose is a reflection of how much virus the person is carrying, but its also diluted in the air around them. So if youre indoors, theres not a lot of air dilution unless youre opening up windows and doing that sort of thing. When youre outdoors, its almost infinitely diluted. And so outdoors, your risk is really low. I think the only places that would concern me outdoors is if youre packed in together with people, say, at an outdoor concert or in an outdoor sports sporting event. But in general, outdoors is really pretty safe.
That is reassuring. How are you looking at where the pandemic goes from here? There were a lot of stories a couple of months ago thinking about how does this pandemic end. But were in a fourth surge now. And of course, many countries dont have access to the vaccine yet. How much longer is this going to go on?
Well, remember, pandemic means around the world, so across multiple continents. So if youre asking, you know, when is the pandemic going to be over? Its going to be years before this is over. I think what really worries me as somebody who, for the better part of my career, worked in HIV and tuberculosis, those are pandemics. Youre looking at about 3 million or so people dying from TB a year. A similar number of people dying from HIV per year. And thats something thats been going on for decades. And so I think this is going to become another disease of the poor and marginalized as the pandemic continues to evolve.
To listen to the full interview, check out the latest episode of The Readout LOUD podcast.
