Category Archives: Covid-19

A testing clinic at the Sydney airport in December.Credit...Jenny Evans/Getty Images

Nearly two years after Australia slammed its borders shut to almost all noncitizens, the country will reopen this month to international tourists who have been fully vaccinated against the coronavirus, Prime Minister Scott Morrison announced on Monday.

If youre double vaccinated, we look forward to welcoming you back to Australia, Mr. Morrison said at a news conference.

Vaccinated tourists, business travelers and all other visa holders can enter Australia starting on Feb. 21, Karen Andrews, the countrys home affairs minister, said on Monday. Visa holders who are not fully vaccinated will face quarantine requirements and need a travel exemption, she added.

The decision will not open all of Australia to foreign visitors, as individual states control their own borders, and can impose flight caps or require quarantines.

Australias two most populous states, New South Wales and Victoria, have no quarantine requirement for incoming vaccinated travelers. But Western Australia, which has experienced fewer cases of the virus than any other Australian state, will continue to tightly control who can enter, including from elsewhere in Australia.

Australia has moved from a Covid Zero approach, in which it attempted to contact-trace and stamp out any outbreak of the virus, to one in which the country is living with the virus. The more contagious Omicron variant has swept across New South Wales, Queensland and Victoria in the past two months, resulting in an explosion in case numbers, but the wave has been subsiding.

Source: Center for Systems Science and Engineering (CSSE) at Johns Hopkins University. The daily average is calculated with data that was reported in the last seven days.

In March 2020, Australia announced that it would close its borders to all noncitizens and nonresidents and prevent citizens already inside the country from leaving. Australians abroad who sought to go home faced a mandatory two-week hotel quarantine on arrival. For many, limited hotel spaces and frequent flight cancellations made it all but impossible to return.

Since late last year, the country has been steadily reopening its borders, with citizens permitted to enter New South Wales and Victoria without undergoing hotel quarantine. Australia is now allowing students and some laborers to enter, and travel corridors with countries like New Zealand, Singapore and Japan all of which, like Australia, have high vaccination rates have allowed in a trickle of tourists and others.

The countrys border policies were in the spotlight in January when the tennis player Novak Djokovic, who was not vaccinated against the coronavirus, had his visa canceled by the Australian government.

Speaking about the vaccination requirement at his news conference, Mr. Morrison appeared to refer to the tennis star: Events earlier in the year should have sent a very clear message to everyone around the world that that is the requirement to enter into Australia, he said.

More:

Covid-19 and Travel News: Live Updates - The New York Times

Confirmed cases of COVID-19 have passed 395 million globally, according to Johns Hopkins University. The number of confirmed deaths has now passed 5.74 million. More than 10.2 billion vaccination doses have been administered globally, according to Our World in Data.

Indonesia has banned foreign tourists from entering the country through Jakarta's airport, in a bid to slow a spike in COVID-19 infections.

The South African health regulator registered the Sinopharm COVID-19 vaccine, clearing the way for its use in the country.

The seven-day rate for COVID-19 cases and deaths has fallen in the UK, with infections down 5% and deaths 7%.

Malaysia reported 9,117 new confirmed COVID-19 infections on Saturday, the highest daily figure in four months.

The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has signed off the Food and Drug Administration's full approval of Moderna's COVID-19 vaccine in those aged 18 and over. It becomes the second fully approved COVID-19 vaccine in the United States.

More than 17 million Vietnamese students are due to return to school today for the first time in around a year after the COVID-19 pandemic saw learning move online.

New Zealand reported a record 243 new COVID-19 community cases on Saturday.

Singapore has also reported a record number of COVID-19 cases, with 13,046 local infections reported on Friday.

Thailand reported 10,490 new confirmed COVID-19 cases on Saturday, the highest in more than three months.

Daily new confirmed COVID-19 cases per million people in selected countries.

Image: Our World in Data

Each of our Top 50 social enterprise last mile responders and multi-stakeholder initiatives is working across four priority areas of need: Prevention and protection; COVID-19 treatment and relief; inclusive vaccine access; and securing livelihoods. The list was curated jointly with regional hosts Catalyst 2030s NASE and Aavishkaar Group. Their profiles can be found on http://www.wef.ch/lastmiletop50india.

Top Last Mile Partnership Initiatives to collaborate with:

Confirmed COVID-19 deaths in the United States passed 900,000 on Friday, according to data collected by Reuters.

The latest tally marks an increase of more than 100,000 U.S. COVID-19 fatalities since 12 December, coinciding with a surge of infections and hospitalizations driven by the highly contagious Omicron variant of the virus. However, the US COVID-19 death rate does appear to be slowing.

The US has reported more COVID-19 deaths than any other nation, according to Johns Hopkins University.

South Korea has passed 1 million cumulative confirmed COVID-19 cases since the pandemic began, as health officials reported a daily record of 38,691 new infections on Sunday.

South Korea saw its first confirmed COVID-19 case on January 20, 2020, and soon became the first country outside China to battle a major outbreak.

An aggressive strategy of tracking, tracing, masking and quarantining helped South Korea to blunt that initial wave and keep overall cases and deaths low without widespread lockdowns.

Deaths have remained low in the highly vaccinated country, however, with 15 new deaths reported as of midnight Saturday, according to the Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency.

Written by

Joe Myers, Writer, Formative Content

The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone and not the World Economic Forum.

See more here:

COVID-19: Top news stories about the pandemic on 7 February | World Economic Forum - World Economic Forum

People who are fully vaccinated against COVID-19 can still test positive for the virus. Health officials have come to refer to that as a breakthrough case of the disease.

But some health experts say the term can be misleading and misconstrued, especially as new variants have emerged and vaccination rates across the country have slowed.

I think it was setting the vaccine up for an impossible standard that vaccines cant possibly meet, said Jennifer Nuzzo, a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security and the lead epidemiologist for the Johns Hopkins COVID-19 Testing Insights Initiative.

COVID-19 vaccines were first approved in mid-December of 2021 and are now available to children 5 and older. Two of the vaccines, one manufactured by Pfizer-BioNTech and the other by Moderna, have since been granted full approval by the Food and Drug Administration.

Researchers have established that all available COVID-19 shots offer significant protection against severe illness and death. According to data from the state health department, unvaccinated Texans are 16 times more likely to die from a COVID-19-related illness compared to fully vaccinated individuals.

The state health department doesnt include breakthrough cases on its COVID-19 dashboard. In Dallas County, 27,943 breakthrough infections have been reported out of 549,239 total COVID-19 cases as of Feb. 3. Thats only about 5% of all cases.

Nuzzo, who spoke last month at a webinar, said the term breakthrough may give people a false impression about the function of the shot.

Theyre not forcefields, she said. They dont repel the virus from your body.

Heres what health experts said you need to know about the term breakthrough case and COVID-19 shots.

The scientific definition of infection means that a person must encounter a disease for a vaccine to respond, Nuzzo said.

What vaccines do is train your immune system to recognize the virus and then to react quickly, hopefully before you have any symptomatic disease, but certainly before too many of your cells become infected by the virus, she said. And how does your body know that the virus is there?

Usually its when the virus invades your cells, which is the technical definition of infection.

Ultimately, a successful vaccine shouldnt be viewed as one that eliminates infection, but one that significantly reduces hospitalizations and death, Nuzzo said.

I view any infection [in a vaccinated person] that doesnt send somebody to the hospital as a success, Nuzzo said. If this virus could never put people in the hospital or kill them, most people would have never heard of it. Losing sight of that is fueling a level of anxiety that I think is just unhelpful but also underselling the vaccines.

Dr. Hana El Sahly, a professor of molecular virology and microbiology and infectious diseases at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, said its important to remember the standard that was initially set by the World Health Organization for what a successful COVID-19 vaccine would look like.

What we would have called a successful vaccine is if it prevented 50% of documented infections, as long as it had a role in preventing severe disease, she said. Once these vaccines rolled into the communities the vaccines maintained real high efficacy against death and against ICU admissions and the need for being on ventilators.

As vaccination rates have slowed over the course of the pandemic, some health experts are concerned that the impression that some people may get from the term breakthrough case plays into skepticism and anti-vaccination ideals.

Health experts say people should remember that breakthrough cases, or getting infected with a disease that you are vaccinated against, are common and expected with any shot.

Theres not a single vaccine thats a hundred percent, said Dr. Grant Fowler, family medicine department chair at TCU School of Medicine in Fort Worth and chairman of the family medicine department at JPS Health Network. But our whole goal is to [minimize] it in the population and protect the vulnerable.

Nuzzo said its also important to remember that widespread testing for COVID-19 also means a larger share of breakthrough cases are being detected.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has noted that if there are more COVID-19 cases occurring, like during the recent omicron surge, more breakthrough cases will naturally be detected.

We often hold up the measles vaccine as the standard of the best vaccine, Nuzzo said. But if we had a lot of measles circulating, and if we did a lot of testing, we would see a lot more breakthrough infections that we just dont notice because the symptoms are so mild.

While the impression a person gets from the term breakthrough case is in the eye of the beholder, Sahly said, its probably better for health care professionals to use a different term or phrasing when talking to patients.

In the mind of the common person, it may be wise to stop using the word breakthrough because it comes with the implication that something wrong has happened, when nothing wrong really has happened, she said.

Sahly says she tries to use different language when not speaking with someone in the scientific community.

If Im talking to the lay person, I try to use the word have gotten two doses of vaccine and an infection, or two doses of vaccine and COVID, depending on the situation, Sahly said.

Free N95 mask distribution starts this week at select North Texas pharmacies

Do I have omicron? These are the symptoms you might have

Here are the symptoms to expect from omicron based on your vaccination status

N95s offer the most protection against COVID-19. Heres how to strengthen your other face masks

Taking an at-home COVID test? Heres how to swab your nose

We asked 3 health experts: When should you use a rapid test to detect COVID-19?

You tested positive for COVID-19 on an at-home test kit. Do you need to report the result?

The North Texas omicron surge could peak in the next week or so; heres how to protect yourself

Read the original post:

Why some experts say the term 'breakthrough' COVID-19 can be misleading - The Dallas Morning News

To our knowledge, our study was the first to assess the perceptions of and adherence to COVID-19 measures in Belgium at multiple times, on a large total sample of nearly 4000 respondents representative of the adult population in terms of gender, age, region and socio-economic status,. The results of the surveys revealed that both reported understanding of the preventive measures and their perceived usefulness were higher at the second survey in April/May 2021 than at the first one in September 2020. This was particularly the case for measures that were implemented at both survey periods, namely wearing a face mask in public spaces and shopping with maximum one other person. At the time of the second survey, these measures had been in place for a long time, which may explain the fact that they were better understood and that citizens were more likely to consider them as useful. However, it is important to note that most measures differed between the two periods. The better understanding and perceived usefulness of the preventive measures at the time of the second survey could therefore also be due to other factors, such as a clearer and less ambiguous formulation or overall better communication about the reasons for the measures.

In contrast, both past adherence to the measures and (intended) future adherence were lower at the second survey period, compared to the first. For the two recurring measures, the decrease of the score for future adherence was rather small, especially with regard to shopping with maximum one other person. Since at the time of the second survey all measures had been in place for more than 6 months, it is likely that this caused a certain level of fatigue amongst citizens. This may especially apply to the measures involving a reduction of social contacts, which were the ones that received the lowest scores in the second survey. This is in line with reports from other Belgian studies, showing a lower motivation to adhere to COVID-19 measures in April and May 2021 than in September 2020 [27], and also indicating that people had more contacts outside their household in April/May 2021 than in September 2020 [28]. Being confined also had a negative impact on mental health of affected populations [29], particularly among women and younger age groups [7]. A study in the US showed a negative relationship between having mental health problems such as a social distance burn-out and depressive symptoms on the one hand, and adherence to COVID-19 measures on the other hand [30]. A survey from the National Institute of Health in Belgium showed high levels of anxiety and depression among the general population since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, especially among people aged 1829 [26]. Since in our study mental health was not assessed, we were not able to investigate the relationship between individual mental health and adherence.

Between the first and the second survey, there was a strong increase in the proportion of respondents that had experienced a confirmed COVID-19 infection. This is an expected finding, since, like most European countries, Belgium was confronted with an increasing number of cases between the two study periods [24]. Yet, while there was no difference in the perceived health consequences of COVID-19 for those who had had an infection, the expected health consequences reported by those who had not yet been infected at the time of the second survey was significantly higher than for the first survey. This may be related to the fact that at the second survey period, more people knew someone who had been infected: almost twice as many respondents knew someone who had been hospitalised with COVID-19, an important indicator of infection severity.

On the other hand, the respondents perceived risk of getting infected with COVID-19 was lower in the second survey than in the first, which may be explained by the fact that in April/May 2021 nearly a third (30%) of them had been vaccinated at least once. An unexpected finding however, is that the expected risk of older family members (parents and grandparents) being infected was higher in the second than in the first survey, especially since mainly older people had been vaccinated in Belgium at that time. Possibly, the fact that a larger proportion of respondents knew someone close who had been infected, sometimes with severe illness, might have made them more concerned about their own (vulnerable) relatives. However, this cannot be substantiated on the data from this study.

A difference was also observed in the support for the COVID-19 measures between the two study periods. The lower percentage of respondents who agreed with the statement that the government should recommend, but not oblige the COVID-19 measures and the higher agreement with the statement that the government should control the COVID-19 measures in the second survey suggests that citizens find it increasingly important to have clarity on what is expected from them, and that it should not be left up to the individual to decide this. Since COVID-19 had been part of peoples lives for more than a year in April/May 2021, less importance was given to reminders or nudges for preventive action compared to September 2020. Arguably, this may be because these actions became habits that were integrated in everyday life, so that nudges became less necessary.

Our study identified several characteristics associated with lower levels of adherence in both surveys. The finding that men adhere less than women, and younger age groups less than older ones, are similar to those of studies in other countries that studied characteristics of lower adherence [7, 8, 16, 17]. Yet while previous research in Belgium also identified disadvantaged or lower socio-economic background as a risk factor for low adherence [8, 19], educational level and annual income were not found to be significant contributors for past or (intended) future adherence in our study. In terms of occupational status, the only group that differed significantly from the reference group of workers were those who were incapacitated, and their adherence levels were actually higher. Since those who are incapacitated to work have likely underlying health problems, they might feel more vulnerable to becoming infected with COVID-19, and as such adhere stricter to the measures in order to protect themselves. On the other hand, French-speaking citizens were less adherent and intent on future adherence than Dutch speakers, and inhabitants of Wallonia less than inhabitants of Flanders or the Brussels Capital region. These findings are highly correlated, as Wallonia is a French-speaking region of Belgium, Flanders is Dutch-speaking, and Brussels is both French- and Dutch-speaking. The reasons for these findings are not clear, but since almost 40% of Belgians have French as their native language [31], this important difference warrants further investigation. It does suggest, however, that adherence to measures against COVID-19 does not only depend on what is being decided on a national level, but that cultural and linguistic differences within the population have an impact as well.

The last group that had lower adherence levels consisted of those with a symptomatic, confirmed COVID-19 infection. We see three potential explanations for this: either this group feels protected against COVID-19 due to their previous infection, and therefore feels that they do not have to adhere to the rules; or this group consists of individuals that are less likely to adhere (because of lack of motivation or faced with environmental barriers that make measures more difficult to adhere to), and are therefore more prone to an infection; or this group has perceived milder symptoms, and the perceived severity of a COVID-19 infection is therefore lower for them. A qualitative study among those who have been previously infected could potentially provide more insight into this.

Of all the measures that were investigated in the second survey, the two measures related to social contact (having one close contact and limiting close contact to one per household) were seen as the most difficult to adhere to, both in the past and in terms of (intended) future adherence. These two measures are arguably the ones that are most restrictive for peoples daily lives. Since these measures had already been in force for over 6 months at the time of the second survey, the difficulty to adhere to them is not surprising. This is also in line with the result of a multi-country study that showed potential pandemic fatigue, and as a result lower adherence, over time for high-cost measures such as social distancing [23]. In contrast, a measure that received overall high scores in terms of understanding, perceived usefulness, ease to adhere and past and future adherence is the use of a face mask in public spaces. In fact, the scores for this measure even became more positive compared to the first survey, implying that this measure has been well implemented in Belgian society. The same is also observed for testing and quarantining for those who have symptoms, indicating the perceived importance of this measure by citizens.

The second survey also allowed to investigate the perceptions regarding vaccination. High scores were given in support of the statements that COVID-19 vaccines are important to protect yourself and others and it is important that everyone is vaccinated against COVID-19, indicating that most people accept vaccines as an important protective measure. Nonetheless, scores for the statements COVID-19 vaccines are safe and COVID-19 vaccines are effective in preventing infection were much lower. Since the perceived safety of vaccines has been identified as an important predictor of vaccination intention [32], effective risk communication on vaccine safety is a crucial issue to improve actual uptake.

Our study had some limitations. First, while the samples from both surveys matched the predefined targets well in terms of gender, age, region and socio-economic group, there was a slight underrepresentation of respondents from the lowest socio-economic group. Obtaining an equal number of respondents from this group is often problematic, as they are less likely to participate in surveys. Secondly, citizens of Belgium who do not speak French or Dutch could not participate, since the survey questionnaire was only available in those two languages. However, this represents not more than 5% of the countrys population [31]. Thirdly, due to the anonymity of our questionnaire, we could not ascertain whether certain individuals participated in both surveys, which would have required a correction in the analytical approach. However, due to the methodology used by the market research and opinion poll company, this probably concerns only a marginal number of respondents, if any. Fourthly, although we obtained information on vaccination status, we could not include this as a potential predictor for adherence in the multivariate models. This is partly due to the fact that vaccination status was only relevant during the second survey (vaccines were not administered yet in Belgium during September 2020), and partly because only selected populations had been invited to get vaccinated at the time of the second survey (mainly elderly, healthcare professionals and chronically ill). As such, it is unlikely that vaccination status measured at that time would serve as a predictor for adherence. It is possible, however, that it would become a factor at a later stage, after everyone older than twelve years has received an invitation to get vaccinated.

Excerpt from:

COVID-19 measures in Belgium: how perception and adherence of the general population differ between time periods - BMC Public Health - BMC Public...

Visit the News Hub

Cardiovascular care essential part of post-infection care

An analysis of federal health data indicates that people who have had COVID-19 are at increased risk of developing cardiovascular complications within the first month to a year after infection, according to researchers at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis and the Veterans Affairs St. Louis Health Care System.

An in-depth analysis of federal health data indicates that people who have had COVID-19 are at increased risk of developing cardiovascular complications within the first month to a year after infection. Such complications include disruptive heart rhythms, inflammation of the heart, blood clots, stroke, coronary artery disease, heart attack, heart failure or even death.

Such problems occur even among previously healthy individuals and those who have had mild COVID-19 infections, according to the study, from researchers at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis and the Veterans Affairs St. Louis Health Care System.

The research is published Feb. 7 in Nature Medicine.

We wanted to build upon our past research on COVIDs long-term effects by taking a closer look at whats happening in peoples hearts, said senior author Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, an assistant professor of medicine at Washington University. What were seeing isnt good. COVID-19 can lead to serious cardiovascular complications and death. The heart does not regenerate or easily mend after heart damage. These are diseases that will affect people for a lifetime.

More than 380 million people globally have been infected with the virus since the pandemic started.

Consequently, COVID-19 infections have, thus far, contributed to 15 million new cases of heart disease worldwide, said Al-Aly, who treats patients within the VA St. Louis Health Care System. This is quite significant. For anyone who has had an infection, it is essential that heart health be an integral part of post-acute COVID care.

Cardiovascular disease an umbrella term that refers to various heart conditions, thrombosis and stroke is the leading cause of death in the United States and the world. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates that one out of every four Americans dies of heart disease each year.

Additionally, heart disease comes with a hefty price tag, according to the CDC, costing the U.S. about $363 billion each year in health-care services, medications and productivity lost to death.

For people who were clearly at risk for a heart condition before becoming infected with SARS-CoV-2, the findings suggest that COVID-19 may amplify the risk, said Al-Aly, who is also director of the Clinical Epidemiology Center and chief of the Research and Education Service at the Veterans Affairs St. Louis Health Care System.

But most remarkably, people who have never had any heart problems and were considered low risk are also developing heart problems after COVID-19, he added. Our data showed an increased risk of heart damage for young people and old people; males and females; Blacks, whites and all races; people with obesity and people without; people with diabetes and those without; people with prior heart disease and no prior heart disease; people with mild COVID infections and those with more severe COVID who needed to be hospitalized for it.

The researchers analyzed de-identified medical records in a database maintained by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, the nations largest integrated health-care delivery system. The researchers created a controlled dataset that included health information of 153,760 people who had tested positive for COVID-19 sometime from March 1, 2020, through Jan. 15, 2021, and who had survived the first 30 days of the disease. Very few of the people in the study were vaccinated prior to developing COVID-19, as vaccines were not yet widely available at the time of enrollment.

Statistical modeling was used to compare cardiovascular outcomes in the COVID-19 dataset with two other groups of people not infected with the virus: a control group of more than 5.6 million patients who did not have COVID-19 during the same time frame; and a control group of more than 5.8 million people who were patients from March 2018 through January 2019, well before the virus spread and the pandemic settled in.

The study does not include data involving the viruss delta and omicron variants, which began spreading rapidly in the latter half of 2021.

The COVID-19 patients in the study were mostly older, white men; however, the researchers also analyzed data that included women and adults of all ages and races.

The researchers analyzed heart health over a year-long period. Heart disease, including heart failure and death, occurred in 4% more people than those who had not been infected with COVID-19.

Some people may think 4% is a small number, but its not, given the magnitude of the pandemic, Al-Aly said. That translates to roughly 3 million people in the U.S. who have suffered cardiovascular complications due to COVID-19.

Compared with those in the control groups without any infections, people who contracted COVID-19 were 72% more likely to suffer from coronary artery disease, 63% more likely to have a heart attack and 52% more likely to experience a stroke.

Overall, those infected with the virus were 55% more likely than those without COVID-19 to suffer a major adverse cardiovascular event, which includes heart attack, stroke and death.

Our findings highlight the serious long-term cardiovascular consequences of having a COVID-19 infection and emphasize the importance of getting vaccinated against COVID-19 as a way to prevent heart damage; this also underscores the importance of increasing accessibility to the vaccines in countries with limited resources, Al-Aly said.

Governments and health systems around the world should be prepared to deal with the likely significant contribution of the COVID-19 pandemic to a rise in the burden of cardiovascular diseases, he said. Because of the chronic nature of these conditions, they will likely have long-lasting consequences for patients and health systems, and also have broad implications on economic productivity and life expectancy. Addressing the challenges posed by long-COVID will require a much needed, but so far lacking, urgent and coordinated long-term global response strategy.

Xie Y, Xu E, Bowe B, Al-Aly Z. Long-term Cardiovascular Outcomes of COVID-19. Nature Medicine. Feb. 7, 2022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-022-01689-3

This research was funded by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. The data that support the findings of this study are available from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. VA data are made freely available to researchers behind the VA firewall with an approved VA study protocol.

Washington University School of Medicines 1,700 faculty physicians also are the medical staff of Barnes-Jewish and St. Louis Childrens hospitals. The School of Medicine is a leader in medical research, teaching and patient care, and currently is No. 4 in research funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Through its affiliations with Barnes-Jewish and St. Louis Childrens hospitals, the School of Medicine is linked to BJC HealthCare.

Excerpt from:

COVID-19 infections increase risk of heart conditions up to a year later Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis - Washington...

by: Braley Dodson, Nexstar Media Wire

Posted: Feb 6, 2022 / 06:00 AM MST

Updated: Feb 4, 2022 / 06:25 AM MST

COLUMBIA, S.C. (WBTW) Can you throw your at-home, rapid COVID-19 test in the trash, or is it considered hazardous biological waste?

Unlike at hospitals, at-home tests can be thrown in the normal trash, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention told the Miami Herald in January. However, some states have taken different stances.

In Delaware, schools should treat the kits as infectious waste, according to the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control. Schools have been directed to place used test materials in red bags, mark the bags with the biohazard symbol and tie them closed. The bags must be stored away from people and be protected from the weather, rodents and insects. The state must then remove the bags, and schools must keep a copy of the manifests for at least three years.

As for South Carolina, the Department of Health and Environmental Control said that residents should follow the instructions on the at-home tests they use.

Were not aware of any stipulations preventing an individual organization, business, school, or provider from developing their own disposal policies, but we encourage them to follow practical safety and health protocols when doing so, the agency said.

Lucira at-home COVID-19 test kits include a plastic bag for the test to be placed in and disposed of in the trash. Instructions for the QuickVue, BinaxNOW and IHealth at-home tests also say the used tests can be placed in the trash.

In California, disposal of BinaxNow test cards depends on whether or not the result was positive. For negative results, the test cards can go in the trash, while positive tests along with used swabs and other test components must be disposed of in a biohazard container according to regulated medical waste guidelines.

The CDC says tests from labs and testing sites should be treated as biohazardous waste. Rules on how to dispose of the waste vary by state, contact your local health department or COVID task force with any questions.

Go here to see the original:

Can your at-home COVID-19 test go in the trash? - KRQE News 13

Background

This study examines the rates of depression associated with the COVID-19 pandemic along with mitigation measures such as lockdown and quarantine in the population of the Jazan region in Saudi Arabia. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) began mitigation measures before the first case appeared on March 2, 2020, disrupting daily life in a culture that is centered on family life. We sought to assess the psychological impacts of the pandemic on this culturally unique region to see if it affected as many as other reported places in the world.

A self-reporting online questionnaire in Arabic was distributed through social media applications and a convenience sample of 942 participants 18 years of age living in the Jazan region was selected. The questionnaire included socio-demographics, economic status, chronic medical conditions, focus on and knowledge of COVID-19, and the patient health questionnaire-9 scale (PHQ-9) for depression metrics.

The data in this study were analyzed using descriptive analysis of participant characteristics, followed by Chi-square testing to compare reported depression related to each variable. Finally, to control for confounding factors, we applied multivariate logistic regression to find an adjusted odds ratio (AOR) with a 95% CI.

In the Jazan region, the rate of depression during the COVID-19 pandemic was nearly 26%. There are several significant determinants associated with higher rates of depression in descending order: those with chronic diseases were 160% higher than those without; those with a history of mental illness were 150% higher; participants who focused excessively on the pandemic 3 hours daily were 130% higher; participants who were divorced or widowed were 120% higher than singles; females were 87% higher; those under age 40 were 57% higher; students were 50% higher; those reporting low incomes were 40% higher than those with moderate incomes and 60% higher than those with high incomes.

Strategies need to be devised to protect vulnerable groups of participants from mental health effects, including depression during the COVID-19 pandemic. This will require the collaboration of various institutions, such as schools and others, to provide support for education and mental health. Future research should be aimed at determining the reasons for this higher vulnerability of some groups.

In January 2020, a novel coronavirus identified as SARS-CoV 2 spread rapidly around the world from its initial discovery in Wuhan, China, and the pandemic disease it causes, COVID-19, has continued for nearly two years [1]. The first case occurring in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) was reported on March 2, 2020, after the KSA had begun mitigation measures [2,3]. Mitigation measures were implemented in stages by the KSA and included requirements that radically changed the Saudi culture, which has close social daily interaction with family. Some examples of the stressful restrictions put in place were the closing of domestic travel, including to the holy cities of Mecca and Medina, as well as curfews that were imposed to prevent citizens from leaving their homes except during certain hours with a limit of only one person per household permitted to go out to obtain food and necessary supplies for the household [4,5]. The suspension of school and work, along with the enforcement of shelter at home policies, presented both a psychological and economic burden on Saudi daily life. While the physical medical care of acute COVID-19 is necessary, as one of the top 25 global illnesses of concern, depressive disorder is costly for individual wellbeing as well as society and the economy, and is a significant factor in suicide, as revealed by a review by Santomauro [6]. Symptoms of mental health disorders such as depression, anxiety, OCD, suicide, neurological, cognitive, and others have been increasing worldwide during the COVID-19 pandemic as the medical, economic, and psychological burdens continued [7-10]. These effects have proven to be long-lasting in previous pandemics such as MERS and SARS [9]. Therefore, this study is critical to assess their prevalence in the Jazan region and formulate plans for strengthening mental health along with medical conditions caused by COVID-19.

Many international studies have reported increased depression rates during the COVID-19 pandemic. Two U.S. studies comparing COVID-19-related depression to pre-covid rates on 18- to 30-year-olds observed an increase in depression following the COVID-19 shutdown of three-sevenfold, with the main factors being fewer socio-economic resources, the sudden high rate of unemployment, loneliness, and uncertainty about the course of the pandemic, while family support was very important in protecting participants from depression [7,8]. A study in Italy of the mental health of COVID-19 survivors revealed high levels of depression, possibly related to immune responses to the disease, along with some long-lasting disabilities [11]. A large systematic review and meta-analysis encompassing more than 33,000 subjects from 12 Chinese studies and one from Singapore on healthcare workers was conducted by scholars in the UK and Greece, revealing an overall depression rate of 22.8%, with the highest rates among females and nurses [12]. Investigators in Turkey examined depression, anxiety, and health anxiety during the COVID-19 period and found the rate of depression to be slightly more than 23%, with the strongest correlating factor being the female gender [13]. Chinese scholars examined depression and anxiety using an online questionnaire distributed nationally to adults who did not have a previous history of mental health conditions and reported a 20.4% rate of depression and/or anxiety or both, with a relationship to time spent focusing on COVID-19 news [14].

There are several Saudi studies of depression rates in the KSA related to COVID-19. As with international studies, multiple authors found similar factors contributing to symptoms of depression, such as being female, being younger than 30 years old, spending a lot of time focused on COVID-19 news, and having someone with COVID-19 within their circle of acquaintances [15-18]. Studies conducted on healthcare workers in the KSA and Egypt and university students in the KSA revealed depression rates of 69% and nearly 49%, respectively, with additional related factors of lack of emotional support and the presence of pre-existing medical or mental conditions [15,18]. Other studies cited other factors that are associated with increased rates of depression, such as being non-Saudi, unemployment, low income, being over 50 years old, being divorced, being retired, being single, and smoking [19,20]. Among the studies of the general population, depression rates were observed to range from 9.4% to 65%, but none of these studies concentrated on a single region, such as the Jazan region [16,17,19].

The aim of this study was to examine COVID-19-related depression rates and associated factors for the Jazan region of the KSA in order to provide background for planning purposes. Any pandemic will have an impact on the economic conditionsand psychological health as well as the physical health of a population. Therefore, it is prudent to assess the experience of the COVID-19 pandemic to provide awareness of the importance that mental health plays in the resilience of society. This study provides guidance to both address the current status of psychological health in the population of the Jazan region as well as prepare for future traumatic events with the goal of prevention of the worst effects.

An electronic questionnaire was created in Arabic using the Google Survey tool (Google LLC, Mountain View, California, USA) to conduct a cross-sectionally designed study to assess depression levels related to the COVID-19 pandemic and quarantine in the Jazan region of the KSA. The survey was then distributed via the social media platforms Twitter and WhatsApp and users were invited to participate if they met the inclusion criteria during the four-day period of May 28, 2020 through May 31, 2020. A convenience sample was selected from the eligible respondents. This self-reporting survey included sections on demographics, socioeconomic characteristics, pre-existing medical and mental health conditions, and the patient health questionnaire-9 scale (PHQ-9), an Arabic version whose validity has been established by Cronbachs = 0.857, with questions about depressive symptoms [21]. An online survey was necessary during the period of the COVID-19 pandemic lockdown since it was not possible to conduct in-person surveys. This method is in widespread use by researchers around the world [8,17-20]. The survey, titled "Psychological Impact(s) in Southern Saudi Arabia" was accessible via a link that explained the following inclusion criteria: participants had to be 18 years of age, residents of the Jazan region of the KSA, able to read and understand Arabic, and physically, mentally, and emotionally able to complete the form. Exclusion criteria included being <18 years of age, not being a resident of the Jazan region, being a non-Arabic speaker, and being mentally, emotionally, or physically unable to answer questions. The survey cover page explained the purpose of the questionnaire and the consent.

Data were collected for 942 participants who voluntarily filled out an electronic questionnaire distributed on May 28, 2020 through May 31,2020 on either Twitter or WhatsApp. Participant inclusion criteria were 18 years old, currently living in the Jazan region of the KSA, Arabic speakers, physically capable of filling out the form, and mentally and emotionally able to fill out the form. Exclusion criteria were <18 years old, not currently living in the Jazan region of the KSA, non-Arabic speakers, and not physically, mentally, or emotionally able to fill out the form. Informed consent was included on the questionnaire, and the privacy of the participants was maintained throughout the data collection. The questionnaire was composed of four sections of questions on socioeconomics, demographics, focus on and knowledge of COVID-19, and mental health symptoms.

The Epi InfoTM7 (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA) was employed to determine a statistically sufficient sample size. The minimum required sample size calculated through this method was 511 in order to provide no more than a 5% margin of error with a 99% confidence interval (CI). Therefore, our sample size of 942 increased the power of our statistical model [22]. We anticipated that nearly doubling the sample size would avoid sampling bias with the use of an online questionnaire [22].

Data were collected for 942 participants who voluntarily filled out an electronic questionnaire distributed on May 28, 2020 through May 31,2020 on either Twitter or WhatsApp. Participant inclusion criteria were 18 years old, currently living in the Jazan region of the KSA, Arabic speakers, physically capable of filling out the form, and mentally and emotionally able to fill out the form. Exclusion criteria were <18 years old, not currently living in the Jazan region of the KSA, non-Arabic speakers, and not physically, mentally, or emotionally able to fill out the form. Informed consent was included on the questionnaire, and the privacy of the participants was maintained throughout the data collection. The questionnaire was composed of four sections of questions on socioeconomics, demographics, focus on and knowledge of COVID-19, and mental health symptoms.

The Epi InfoTM7 (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA) was employed to determine a statistically sufficient sample size. The minimum required sample size calculated through this method was 511 in order to provide no more than a 5% margin of error with a 99% confidence interval (CI). Therefore, our sample size of 942 increased the power of our statistical model [22]. We anticipated that nearly doubling the sample size would avoid sampling bias with the use of an online questionnaire [23].

The Statistical Package for Stata 2014 version (StataCorp LLC, Texas, USA) was used to analyze all the data, with a p-value of 0.05 considered statistically significant. The data in this study were analyzed in a stepwise process. The first step was to perform a descriptive analysis of participant characteristics. The second step was to use Chi-square testing to compare reported depression related to each variable. In the third step to control for confounding factors, we applied multivariate logistic regression to find an adjusted odds ratio (AOR) with a 95% CI.

Table 1 presents a description of the characteristics of the participants grouped into those reporting and those not reporting depressive symptoms (DS). The following characteristics showed statistically significant differences: 86% of the overall sample was aged <40, and those under 40 accounted for more than double the number reporting DS. Females made up three-fourths of the total sample, and they accounted for one-and-a-half times as many among those reporting DS. Married participants represented only 40% of the sample and also had only one-fifth of those with reported DS, while divorced or widowed participants had double the reported DS. Of the total participants, less than one-fifth had chronic diseases, but they accounted for 60% more of the reported DS. Only 3% of the total sample reported previous mental illnesses, but they accounted for almost double the number of those reporting DS. Students reported one and a half times the rate of DS as those working and unemployed or retired, representing approximately 20% higher reported DS. In regards to the standard of living (SOL), those who reported a limited SOL and those with a high SOL each represented approximately 20% of the total sample. However, those with a limited SOL reported more than double the DS as those with a high SOL, while those reporting a moderate SOL fell between the two extremes. While 98% of participants reside with others, those participants reported five times the rate of DS. The final characteristic that showed statistical significance was time spent focusing on COVID-19, in which increasing time is directly related to reported DS, such that those spending 3 hours per day reported DS at a rate nearly double that of those who focused on it <1 hour per day. All other characteristics did not show statistically significant differences among those reporting DS. These include nationality, a diagnosis of COVID-19, BMI, smoking status, education level, working in the healthcare field, financial responsibility, and knowledge of COVID-19.

Table 2 shows the multi-logistic regression with several statistically significant factors that were associated with reported depression during the COVID-19 pandemic as follows: females 87% more compared to males, aged less than 40 are 57% more than participants aged more than 40, being divorced or widowed is 120% more than being single, participants with chronic diseases including chest diseases (160%), participants with previous mental illnesses are 150% more, being a student is 50% more than being a worker or retired, low income is 40% more and 60% more than moderate and high income, respectively, and time spent focusing on the COVID-19 is less than one hour daily.

This study assessed the association of depression rates with the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic and the risk factors in the Jazan Region, KSA. Depression is one of the top 25 illnesses of global concern and is associated with increases in other diseases and suicide, making it crucial to address for policymakers [6]. Our study observed that the depression rate of participants was nearly 26%, which is in the mid-range of a previous systematic review of the association of the pandemic with depression rates, which reported rates as low as 14.6% to as high as 32.7% in countries as diverse as Denmark, the U.S., China, Nepal, Spain, Italy, and Iran [24]. Several other international studies reported rates of 14-18% in China, 18.7% in Spain, 32.7% in Italy, 23.6% in Turkey, and 25.4% in Denmark [11,13,25-29].

Our data revealed a statistically significant relationship between some factors and the increasing frequency of depressive symptoms among the participants. Compared to participants with no pre-existing conditions, those with chronic diseases had a 160% higher incidence of depressive symptoms. This finding is consistent with several international studies of the association of the COVID-19 pandemic with depression, reporting that patients with chronic diseases or multiple comorbidities are at an increased risk of psychological symptoms, including depression, possibly due to awareness of the severity of COVID-19 for this group [30-33]. Compared to those with no history of mental illness, participants with a history of diagnosed mental illness had a 150% higher incidence. This finding is also consistent with international studies that do have some mixed findings, as reported by Bell et al., in which one case-controlled study in the Netherlands found that although a history of mental illness predisposes individuals to a higher risk of depression, the rates did not increase in response to the pandemic [34,35]. However, the preponderance of studies reported results consistent with this study or higher rates of depression among those with a history of mental illness [36-40]. Increasing focus on the pandemic increased depression, whereby compared to those who focused on it less than one hour daily, those who focused on it three hours or more daily had a 130% higher incidence of depressive symptoms. This finding aligns with other international studies that have examined the association of consuming a lot of media coverage of the pandemic with the participants' mental state [41,42].

With media coverage now expanded to innumerable sources, there is a constant flow of information, much of which may be exaggerated or misleading, but nevertheless will have an impact on the mental health of those who consume large quantities of it [43-45]. While excessive focus on the pandemic is correlated with negative mental health effects, social media platforms represent a dual-edged sword. Chinese studies have shown that 80% of the population utilizes social media for news and in India, more than 90% obtain their medical information via the internet [9]. On one hand, the barrage of misinformation, conspiracy theories, and negative personal posts leads to increased frustration when trying to discriminate between sources [46]. On the other hand, the connectivity provided with the outside world during enforced quarantine can lessen the sense of isolation [46]. Additionally, during this pandemic, legitimate health authorities placed accurate information on these sites and users also created their own information networks to inform their contacts of resources, such as in India when there were shortages of oxygen and ventilators, while communication was made possible between family members and hospitalized COVID patients [46]. Finally, many studies, such as this one, have relied on social media platforms to conduct primary research.

Compared to single participants, those who were either divorced or widowed had a 120% higher incidence. Compared to males, female participants had an 87% higher incidence, while compared to those over 40, those under 40 had a 57% higher incidence. Other studies have also shown that females have demonstrated higher rates of depressive symptoms in response to COVID-19 [13,47-49], but the reasons for this are still speculative, such as the increased burden of care borne by females, hormonal influences, and brain reactivity that results in higher fear responses [50-52]. Many other studies have similarly documented that younger people have had higher rates of depressive symptoms, possibly due to their higher exposure to social media with its attendant constant coverage of the pandemic, and this group may be more impacted by lockdowns and social isolation [48,53-55]. Economic factors also played a role in that, compared to participants who were either working or retired, students had a 50% higher incidence of depressive symptoms, which is consistent with many other studies. A study from the Netherlands measured mood homeostasis before and during a stringent lockdown on college students and reported a decrease in the mood-elevating activities after the lockdown compared to before [56]. Multiple studies have confirmed the association of increased depressive symptoms and the COVID-19 pandemic among students for reasons of isolation, lack of social support, worry about missing school, and others [53,57-60]. Finally, our finding that income levels represent a risk since, compared to participants with a moderate or high income, those with a low income had a 40% and 60% higher incidence, respectively, is supported by other international studies [54,55].

The KSA had prepared for a pandemic after the MERS outbreak of 2012 and thus handled the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 relatively well. However, the mental health aspects were not anticipated. In view of the increase in depressive symptoms accompanying the COVID-19 pandemic, it is wise to take this opportunity to plan mitigation measures both for the current as well as any future pandemics. High-risk groups included those with comorbidities, a history of mental illness, a habit of focusing on the pandemic, females, young people, students, and low-income participants. Strategies to address the needs of these groups should be sought from multiple sectors of society, especially institutions such as schools. The medical establishment should address mental health issues so that they are part of risk management along with the medical consequences of pandemics. Ozamiz-Etxebarria has suggested that academic support be enhanced to help alleviate some of the psychological effects on students and the young [31]. The provision of a central source of accurate information may alleviate some of the fear and depression that are fueled by sensationalist news and misinformation from the public media. Further research is needed to find the source of depressive symptoms in the higher risk groups and to measure the mental health impacts of the pandemic over the long term in the Jazan Region.

Although this first study of depression associated with the COVID-19 pandemic is very rigorous, we must mention its limitations. First, this study should not be generalized to the entire population of the KSA as it is specific to the Jazan region, which may differ from the population as a whole. Second, the necessity of conducting this original research through an online survey automatically excludes those who do not participate in the applications through which it was distributed. Third, the use of a convenience sample may have inadvertently led to sampling bias, although we followed standard protocol to avoid such bias. Finally, the survey instrument cannot assign cause and effect to this cross-sectional study.

In the Jazan region, the rate of depression during the COVID-19 pandemic was nearly 26%. In addition, there are several significant determinants associated with higher rates of depression, in descending order: history of chronic diseases, history of mental illness, excessive focus on the pandemic, being divorced or widowed, female gender, being under age 40, being a student, having a low income. This study clearly demonstrates a relationship between the COVID-19 pandemic and depression in the Jazan region. We suggest prioritizing mental health prior to the next pandemic, encouraging the medical establishment to plan to integrate mental health into the care provided to vulnerable populations, and a public information system to provide accurate information in the event of such a health crisis. We recommend further research into more detailed causal effects of depression and also longer-term studies to capture the changing mental health landscape. Additional suggestions are noted in the discussion in this paper.

View post:

The Prevalence of Depression and Related Factors During the COVID-19 Pandemic Among the General Population of the Jazan Region of Saudi Arabia -...

Earlier this month Montana Gov. Greg Gianforte announced the state had ordered 650,000 rapid COVID-19 tests.

Those test kits are now rolling in, and counties like Missoula are starting to announce distribution locations and times.

The kits are arriving just as Montanas COVID-19 hospitalizations have jumped nearly 90% over the past two weeks.

Missoula County officials will distribute their allotment of nearly 26,000 free rapid test kits starting at 10:00 Sunday morning at Fort Missoula Regional Park.

County Office of Emergency Management Director Adriane Beck says early detection not only identifies individuals who are positive so they can self-isolate,

But also as new therapeutics come online, being able to start those therapeutics early on, knowing when youre positive has much better outcomes.

Free kits will also be distributed Sunday at local fire stations in Frenchtown, Clinton and Seeley Lake. Each contains two tests and initially will be limited to one per household.

Tests are rolling out, or will soon be available across the state. For information visit hometest.mt.gov. That website will be regularly updated as more information on distribution is made available by local public health departments.

Excerpt from:

Thousands of free rapid COVID-19 tests are arriving in Montana - MTPR

The next coronavirus variant could be more contagious than the omicron variant, experts said Tuesday. The main question, though, is whether or not it will be more deadly.

The news: World Health Organization officials said Tuesday that the new major COVID-19 variant will have the ability to spread quickly because it will work to overtake omicron, according to CNBC.

Why it matters: With omicron cases on the downturn, theres been an ongoing theory that the pandemic might have reached its endgame. But this isnt the case, according to experts.

Warnings: Kerkhove warned against the ongoing theory that the coronavirus will morph into more mild variants.

The bigger picture: For Dr. Anthony Fauci, a variant that evades the COVID-19 vaccine would be the worst-case scenario for what happens next in the pandemic, as I reported for the Deseret News.

See the original post here:

What is the next COVID variant? Experts already have predictions - Deseret News

The percentage of Americans who follow COVID-19 news very closely has increased slightly since March 2021, the last time this question was asked, according to a Pew Research Center survey conducted Jan. 10-17, 2022. The survey also found that large partisan gaps remain in attention to and views about the pandemic.

Overall, 37% of U.S. adults say they are following news about the coronavirus outbreak very closely. That is up from 31% in March 2021 and back to the level of interest seen in fall and winter of 2020 a time whencases were increasing, businesses faced closures and many schools returned to virtual learning.

In late March 2020, during the early stages of the outbreak, over half of all Americans (57%) were following news about the coronavirus very closely, a percentage that marked the high point in public attention. Earlier in the month, 51% of U.S. adults said the same.

Over the past two years, Pew Research Center has tracked Americans views on the COVID-19 pandemic. This survey sought to measure how much attention the public has paid to it over time, their assessment of how it was handled and whether they believe it was made into a bigger deal or smaller deal than it really is.

For this recent survey, 5,128 U.S. adults were surveyed from Jan. 10-17, 2022. Everyone who took part is a member of the Centers American Trends Panel (ATP), an online survey panel that is recruited through national, random sampling of residential addresses. This way nearly all U.S. adults have a chance of selection. The survey is weighted to be representative of the U.S. adult population by gender, race, ethnicity, partisan affiliation, education and other categories. Read more about the ATPs methodology.

Here are the questions used for the report, along with responses, and its methodology.

This is the latest report in Pew Research Centers ongoing investigation of the state of news, information and journalism in the digital age, a research program funded by The Pew Charitable Trusts, with generous support from the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation.

One finding that has remained fairly steady since late 2020 is that Democrats and those who lean toward the Democratic Party are much more likely than Republicans and Republican leaners to say they follow news about the outbreak very closely. According to the new survey, 45% of Democrats are paying very close attention to news of the outbreak compared with 30% of Republicans, both slight increases from March 2021. That party divide was not seen early in the pandemic, but it emerged in the summer of 2020 and has been the case since.

One key COVID-19 issue that has produced a strong partisan divide is whether the United States has or has not controlled the coronavirus outbreak as much as it could have.

Since the question was first asked in September 2020, Republicans have been far more likely than Democrats to say it has been controlled as much as it could have. While that is still the case, the gap between the two has narrowed, with Republicans becoming less likely to hold this view and Democrats more likely.

As of January, 41% of the public overall says the outbreak has been controlled as much as possible, about equal with the 42% who held this view last March. Within those numbers, though, are large shifts on both sides of the political aisle. Currently, 56% of Republicans say the U.S. has controlled the outbreak as much as it could have. While still a majority, this is down from 70% in March 2021. Democrats, on the other hand, have become more likely to hold this view: 30% now feel this way, up from 19% in March.

There was less partisan movement on the question of whether the coronavirus outbreak has been made into a bigger deal or smaller deal than it really is, or if attention to it was about right. Roughly four-in-ten U.S. adults (39%) now say the pandemic has received about the right amount of attention. About the same portion (38%) say it has been made into a bigger deal, and 22% say it has been made into a smaller deal numbers that have remained fairly steady since September 2020.

The large partisan differences on this question have also shifted very little. Four times as many Republicans (64%) as Democrats (16%) now say the pandemic has been exaggerated. At the same time, Democrats are almost four times as likely as Republicans (33% vs. 9%) to say it has been downplayed.

Finally, Democrats remain more likely than Republicans to discuss the COVID-19 outbreak with others. A sizable portion of Democrats (45%) say they discuss the outbreak with others almost all or most of the time, versus 28% of Republicans. Conversely, Republicans are about twice as likely as Democrats to say they hardly ever or never discuss it (21% vs. 11%). The remaining 51% of Republicans and 44% of Democrats say they sometimes discuss the outbreak with others.

Followers of both parties are less likely now than in April 2020 to say they discuss the pandemic almost all or some of the time. The share of Democrats who say this fell 5 percentage points from 50% in 2020 to 45% in the new survey, while the share of Republicans dropped 11 points, from 39% to 28%.

Note: Here are the questions used for the report, along with responses, and its methodology.

More here:

Small increase in attention to COVID-19 news; fewer Republicans now say US controlled pandemic well enough - Pew Research Center