What you need to know about the COVID-19 vaccine

https://www.gatesnotes.com/Health/What-you-need-to-know-about-the-COVID-19-vaccine?WT.mc_id=20200430164943_COVID-19-vaccine_BG-FB&WT.tsrc=BGFB&linkId=87665504&fbclid=IwAR0SsBGe1GTcy-fOIXz86kImkScsdCGlRVgmDcPOgXMcaU7kdO39SyNpRSs

What you need to know about the COVID-19 vaccine | Bill Gates

Humankind has never had a more urgent task than creating broad immunity for coronavirus.

One of the questions I get asked the most these days is when the world will be able to go back to the way things were in December before the coronavirus pandemic. My answer is always the same: when we have an almost perfect drug to treat COVID-19, or when almost every person on the planet has been vaccinated against coronavirus.

The former is unlikely to happen anytime soon. We’d need a miracle treatment that was at least 95 percent effective to stop the outbreak. Most of the drug candidates right now are nowhere near that powerful. They could save a lot of lives, but they aren’t enough to get us back to normal.

Which leaves us with a vaccine.

Humankind has never had a more urgent task than creating broad immunity for coronavirus. Realistically, if we’re going to return to normal, we need to develop a safe, effective vaccine. We need to make billions of doses, we need to get them out to every part of the world, and we need all of this happen as quickly as possible.

That sounds daunting, because it is. Our foundation is the biggest funder of vaccines in the world, and this effort dwarfs anything we’ve ever worked on before. It’s going to require a global cooperative effort like the world has never seen. But I know it’ll get done. There’s simply no alternative.

Here’s what you need to know about the race to create a COVID-19 vaccine.

The world is creating this vaccine on a historically fast timeline.

Dr. Anthony Fauci has said he thinks it’ll take around eighteen months to develop a coronavirus vaccine. I agree with him, though it could be as little as 9 months or as long as two years.

Although eighteen months might sound like a long time, this would be the fastest scientists have created a new vaccine. Development usually takes around five years. Once you pick a disease to target, you have to create the vaccine and test it on animals. Then you begin testing for safety and efficacy in humans.

Safety and efficacy are the two most important goals for every vaccineSafety is exactly what it sounds like: is the vaccine safe to give to people? Some minor side effects (like a mild fever or injection site pain) can be acceptable, but you don’t want to inoculate people with something that makes them sick.

Efficacy measures how well the vaccine protects you from getting sick. Although you’d ideally want a vaccine to have 100 percent efficacy, many don’t. For example, this year’s flu vaccine is around 45 percent effective.

To test for safety and efficacy, every vaccine goes through three phases of trials:

  • Phase one is the safety trial. A small group of healthy volunteers gets the vaccine candidate. You try out different dosages to create the strongest immune response at the lowest effective dose without serious side effects.
  • Once you’ve settled on a formula, you move onto phase two, which tells you how well the vaccine works in the people who are intended to get it. This time, hundreds of people get the vaccine. This cohort should include people of different ages and health statuses.
  • Then, in phase three, you give it to thousands of people. This is usually the longest phase, because it occurs in what’s called “natural disease conditions.” You introduce it to a large group of people who are likely already at the risk of infection by the target pathogen, and then wait and see if the vaccine reduces how many people get sick.

After the vaccine passes all three trial phases, you start building the factories to manufacture it, and it gets submitted to the WHO and various government agencies for approval.

This process works well for most vaccines, but the normal development timeline isn’t good enough right now. Every day we can cut from this process will make a huge difference to the world in terms of saving lives and reducing trillions of dollars in economic damage.

So, to speed up the process, vaccine developers are compressing the timeline. This graphic shows how:

In the traditional process, the steps are sequential to address key questions and unknowns. This can help mitigate financial risk, since creating a new vaccine is expensive. Many candidates fail, which is why companies wait to invest in the next step until they know the previous step was successful.

For COVID-19, financing development is not an issue. Governments and other organizations (including our foundation and an amazing alliance called the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations) have made it clear they will support whatever it takes to find a vaccine. So, scientists are able to save time by doing several of the development steps at once. For example, the private sector, governments, and our foundation are going to start identifying facilities to manufacture different potential vaccines. If some of those facilities end up going unused, that’s okay. It’s a small price to pay for getting ahead on production.

Fortunately, compressing the trial timeline isn’t the only way to take a process that usually takes five years and get it done in 18 months. Another way we’re going to do that is by testing lots of different approaches at the same time.

There are dozens of candidates in the pipeline.

As of April 9, there are 115 different COVID-19 vaccine candidates in the development pipeline. I think that eight to ten of those look particularly promising. (Our foundation is going to keep an eye on all the others to see if we missed any that have some positive characteristics, though.)

The most promising candidates take a variety of approaches to protecting the body against COVID-19. To understand what exactly that means, it’s helpful to remember how the human immune system works.

When a disease pathogen gets into your system, your immune system responds by producing antibodies. These antibodies attach themselves to substances called antigens on the surface of the microbe, which sends a signal to your body to attack. Your immune system keeps a record of every microbe it has ever defeated, so that it can quickly recognize and destroy invaders before they make you ill.

Vaccines circumvent this whole process by teaching your body how to defeat a pathogen without ever getting sick. The two most common types—and the ones you’re probably most familiar with—are inactivated and live vaccines. Inactivated vaccines contain pathogens that have been killed. Live vaccines, on the other hand, are made of living pathogens that have been weakened (or “attenuated”). They’re highly effective but more prone to side effects than their inactivated counterparts.

Inactivated and live vaccines are what we consider “traditional” approaches. There are a number of COVID-19 vaccine candidates of both types, and for good reason: they’re well-established. We know how to test and manufacture them.

The downside is that they’re time-consuming to make. There’s a ton of material in each dose of a vaccine. Most of that material is biological, which means you have to grow it. That takes time, unfortunately.

That’s why I’m particularly excited by two new approaches that some of the candidates are taking: RNA and DNA vaccines. If one of these new approaches pans out, we’ll likely be able to get vaccines out to the whole world much faster. (For the sake of simplicity, I’m only going to explain RNA vaccines. DNA vaccines are similar, just with a different type of genetic material and method of administration.)

Our foundation—both through our own funding and through CEPI—has been supporting the development of an RNA vaccine platform for nearly a decade. We were planning to use it to make vaccines for diseases that affect the poor like malaria, but now it’s looking like one of the most promising options for COVID. The first candidate to start human trials was an RNA vaccine created by a company called Moderna.

Here’s how an RNA vaccine works: rather than injecting a pathogen’s antigen into your body, you instead give the body the genetic code needed to produce that antigen itself. When the antigens appear on the outside of your cells, your immune system attacks them—and learns how to defeat future intruders in the process. You essentially turn your body into its own vaccine manufacturing unit.

Because RNA vaccines let your body do most of the work, they don’t require much material. That makes them much faster to manufacture. There’s a catch, though: we don’t know for sure yet if RNA is a viable platform for vaccines. Since COVID would be the first RNA vaccine out of the gate, we have to prove both that the platform itself works and that it creates immunity. It’s a bit like building your computer system and your first piece of software at the same time.

Even if an RNA vaccine continues to show promise, we still must continue pursuing the other options. We don’t know yet what the COVID-19 vaccine will look like. Until we do, we have to go full steam ahead on as many approaches as possible.

It might not be a perfect vaccine yet—and that’s okay.

The smallpox vaccine is the only vaccine that’s wiped an entire disease off the face of the earth, but it’s also pretty brutal to receive. It left a scar on the arm of anyone who got it. One out of every three people had side effects bad enough to keep them home from school or work. A small—but not insignificant—number developed more serious reactions.

The smallpox vaccine was far from perfect, but it got the job done. The COVID-19 vaccine might be similar.

If we were designing the perfect vaccine, we’d want it to be completely safe and 100 percent effective. It should be a single dose that gives you lifelong protection, and it should be easy to store and transport. I hope the COVID-19 vaccine has all of those qualities, but given the timeline we’re on, it may not.

The two priorities, as I mentioned earlier, are safety and efficacy. Since we might not have time to do multi-year studies, we will have to conduct robust phase 1 safety trials and make sure we have good real-world evidence that the vaccine is completely safe to use.

We have a bit more wiggle room with efficacy. I suspect a vaccine that is at least 70 percent effective will be enough to stop the outbreak. A 60 percent effective vaccine is useable, but we might still see some localized outbreaks. Anything under 60 percent is unlikely to create enough herd immunity to stop the virus.

The big challenge will be making sure the vaccine works well in older people. The older you are, the less effective vaccines are. Your immune system—like the rest of your body—ages and is slower to recognize and attack invaders. That’s a big issue for a COVID-19 vaccine, since older people are the most vulnerable. We need to make sure they’re protected.

The shingles vaccine—which is also targeted to older people—combats this by amping up the strength of the vaccine. It’s possible we do something similar for COVID, although it might come with more side effects. Health authorities could also ask people over a certain age to get an additional dose.

Beyond safety and efficacy, there are a couple other factors to consider:

  • How many doses will it be? A vaccine you only get once is easier and quicker to deliver. But we may need a multi-dose vaccine to get enough efficacy.
  • How long does it last? Ideally, the vaccine will give you long-lasting protection. But we might end up with one that only stops you from getting sick for a couple months (like the seasonal flu vaccine, which protects you for about six months). If that happens, the short-term vaccine might be used while we work on a more durable one.
  • How do you store it? Many common vaccines are kept at 4 degrees C. That’s around the temperature of your average refrigerator, so storage and transportation is easy. But RNA vaccines need to be stored at much colder temperature—as low as -80 degrees C—which will make reaching certain parts of the world more difficult.

My hope is that the vaccine we have 18 months from now is as close to “perfect” as possible. Even if it isn’t, we will continue working to improve it. After that happens, I suspect the COVID-19 vaccine will become part of the routine newborn immunization schedule.

Once we have a vaccine, though, we still have huge problems to solve. That’s because…

We need to manufacture and distribute at least 7 billion doses of the vaccine.

In order to stop the pandemic, we need to make the vaccine available to almost every person on the planet. We’ve never delivered something to every corner of the world before. And, as I mentioned earlier, vaccines are particularly difficult to make and store.

There’s a lot we can’t figure out about manufacturing and distributing the vaccine until we know what exactly we’re working with. For example, will we be able to use existing vaccine factories to make the COVID-19 vaccine?

What we can do now is build different kinds of vaccine factories to prepare. Each vaccine type requires a different kind of factory. We need to be ready with facilities that can make each type, so that we can start manufacturing the final vaccine (or vaccines) as soon as we can. This will cost billions of dollars. Governments need to quickly find a mechanism for making the funding for this available. Our foundation is currently working with CEPI, the WHO, and governments to figure out the financing.

Part of those discussions center on who will get the vaccine when. The reality is that not everyone will be able to get the vaccine at the same time. It’ll take months—or even years—to create 7 billion doses (or possibly 14 billion, if it’s a multi-dose vaccine), and we should start distributing them as soon as the first batch is ready to go.

Most people agree that health workers should get the vaccine first. But who gets it next? Older people? Teachers? Workers in essential jobs?

I think that low-income countries should be some of the first to receive it, because people will be at a much higher risk of dying in those places. COVID-19 will spread much quicker in poor countries because measures like physical distancing are harder to enact. More people have poor underlying health that makes them more vulnerable to complications, and weak health systems will make it harder for them to receive the care they need. Getting the vaccine out in low-income countries could save millions of lives. The good news is we already have an organization with expertise about how to do this in Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance.

With most vaccines, manufacturers sign a deal with the country where their factories are located, so that country gets first crack at the vaccines. It’s unclear if that’s what will happen here. I hope we find a way to get it out on an equitable basis to the whole world. The WHO and national health authorities will need to develop a distribution plan once we have a better understanding of what we’re working with.

Eventually, though, we’re going to scale this thing up so that the vaccine is available to everyone. And then, we’ll be able to get back to normal—and to hopefully make decisions that prevent us from being in this situation ever again.

It might be a bit hard to see right now, but there is a light at the end of the tunnel. We’re doing the right things to get a vaccine as quickly as possible. In the meantime, I urge you to continue following the guidelines set by your local authorities. Our ability to get through this outbreak will depend on everyone doing their part to keep each other safe.

 

 

 

Contact tracing is the next big hurdle in the push to re-open cities

https://www.axios.com/contact-tracing-is-the-next-big-hurdle-in-the-push-to-re-open-cities-358eff5e-aaa6-448f-9273-c29e281de410.html

Contact tracing is the next big hurdle in the push to re-open ...

As some states take steps to partially re-open their economies, public health officials and local governments are trying to aggressively ramp up contact tracing to track the spread of COVID-19 in their communities.

Why it matters: If we are indeed in the midst of a war against an invisible enemy, a contact-tracing offensive — launched by both an army of human tracers and an arsenal of technological tools — will be a big part of the key to winning.

  • Identifying who has come in contact with people infected with the disease is critical to isolating the coronavirus while also allowing some semblance of daily life to resume.

Between the lines: State and city budgets are being hammered by the economic fallout of COVID-19, making it harder to find the resources to hire and train people to contact trace or acquire needed technologies.

  • Some governments are recruiting volunteers, retirees and students to do the work. But the sheer number of people needed — at least 100,000 across the U.S., per Johns Hopkins — and the open-ended duration of the work makes that a very daunting task.
  • “We haven’t seen a big push coming from the federal government in either traditional contact tracing or these technology-based approaches,” said Josh Michaud, associate director for Global Health Policy at the Kaiser Family Foundation. “That leaves most of the legwork and decision-making to the states and local authorities.”

State and county public health officials are ramping up tracing efforts now that testing availability is improving — since tracing only works with widespread testing.

  • Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker allotted $44 million to an ambitious contact tracing program, which is training 1,000 tracers to staff a virtual call center to track people who came in close contact with those who’ve tested positive for the virus, starting from 48 hours before the symptoms emerged, per the Boston Globe.
  • Texas’ Harris County — the nation’s third-most populous county with 4.7 million people, including the city of Houston — this week approved the hire of 300 contact tracers.

For every case, we have an average of about 20 people to contact. … So if you have 100 cases, you’ve got 2,000 contacts you’ve got to handle for that day because you know the next day you’ll have maybe another 100–150 cases.”

— Umair Shah, executive director of Harris County Public Health

What’s happening: Other countries are relying on tech to varying degrees to augment contact tracing.

  • In March, Singapore launched TraceTogether, an app that uses Bluetooth signals to help users learn whether they’ve been in contact with someone who tests positive. More than 1 million people have downloaded it, and Singapore has made it available to other countries.
  • Australia said more than a million people downloaded its Bluetooth contact tracing app, based on Singapore’s version, within hours of the government making it available.
  • South Korea used phone GPS records, credit card transactions and closed-circuit television to augment patient interviews for its contact tracing effort.
  • Iceland claims a 93% success rate of voluntary contact tracing through a smartphone app.

In the U.S., the most likely scenario for widespread, tech-enabled contact tracing lies with work done by Google and Apple.

  • The two companies are sharing an early version of what they’re calling COVID-19 exposure notification technology with certain developers working with public health authorities. Apple and Google want to release the first phase of the project, which will enable users to opt-in to Bluetooth-based contact tracing, by mid-May.
  • MIT researchers, who launched a project to perform private automated contact tracing, are using their expertise with radar to help figure out how Bluetooth can show the distance between users.
  • Marc Zissman, associate head of the Cyber Security and Information Sciences Division at MIT’s Lincoln Laboratory, said Google and Apple’s effort appears to be incorporating the privacy principles researchers have called for, including sending randomized data that is not personally identifiable.
  • “Our best guess is that when Google and Apple release this, this is going to be what it is,” Zissman said. “There was Betamax and VHS. Everybody was using Betamax. And then every company but Sony went with VHS, and that was it. And then Betamax just stopped being used. That’s kind of like what’s going to happen here I think in the United States.”

The success of the effort will depend on widespread adoption of the technology so people will be notified when they come in contact with someone who tests positive.

What to watch: Zissman said MIT researchers will reverse engineer the Google/Apple programs to ensure they are following the privacy protocols, and also expect pilot testing in limited settings like hospitals or universities before states begin implementing.

  • It may also take a public service campaign featuring trusted voices to encourage Americans to opt in.
  • “There’s a lot of doubts, one, that people’s privacy concerns can be addressed sufficiently and, two, that enough people would download the app to make it helpful and actually provide the service it’s supposed to provide,” Michaud said.

 

 

 

Employers split from health care industry

https://www.axios.com/newsletters/axios-vitals-d589549c-1967-44b1-af0b-528fb345c48b.html?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter_axiosvitals&stream=top

Employers split from health care industry over coronavirus demands ...

Several large employer groups this week refused to sign on to funding requests they consider a “handout” for hospitals and insurers, according to three people close to the process.

The big picture: Coronavirus spending bills are sharpening tensions between the employers that fund a significant portion of the country’s health care system and the hospitals, doctors and insurers that operate it, Bob reports.

Driving the news: The industry’s most recent request — written primarily by the large hospital and health insurance lobbying groups — focused on a few items for the next coronavirus legislation:

  • Providing subsidies to maintain employer-sponsored insurance, which already receives a large tax break, as well as providing subsidies for COBRA for people who have lost their jobs.
  • Increasing subsidies for Affordable Care Act plans and creating a special ACA enrollment window.
  • Opposing the use of the industry’s bailout funds to pay for uninsured COVID-19 patients at Medicare rates.

Between the lines: Employers know they get charged a lot more for health care services compared with public insurers, but many weren’t keen about urging Congress to “set up a government program to pay commercial reimbursements,” said an executive at a trade group that represents large corporations.

The other side: Several health care groups that signed the letter dismissed the idea of any disagreement with employers.

 

 

 

How the Trump administration accidentally insured over 200,000 through Obamacare

https://theconversation.com/how-the-trump-administration-accidentally-insured-over-200-000-through-obamacare-132312?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Latest%20from%20The%20Conversation%20for%20April%2030%202020%20-%201608715418&utm_content=Latest%20from%20The%20Conversation%20for%20April%2030%202020%20-%201608715418+Version+A+CID_88784a86a2c2fddb8969eaf6f2cd84b8&utm_source=campaign_monitor_us&utm_term=How%20the%20Trump%20administration%20accidentally%20insured%20over%20200000%20through%20Obamacare

Silver-Loading Means 28% Uninsured Can Get $0 Premium Bronze Plan

With an eye on replacing the Affordable Care Act, the Trump administration took one particularly critical action in October 2017. It discontinued cost-sharing reduction subsidy payments to health insurers participating in the ACA marketplaces.

But the response to those cuts was likely not what President Trump expected. State insurance commissioners and insurers used them to make marketplace health plans more affordable.

Premium decreases were large – so large that 4.2 million potential enrollees had the option to purchase a marketplace plan for free in 2019.

These changes made us wonder: Did President Trump’s effort to sabotage the Affordable Care Act backfire? I’m a health economist at the University of Pittsburgh. Along with my colleague David Anderson, a policy expert on the Affordable Care Act, we tried to answer that question shortly after the payment cuts. We discovered that more than 200,000 people, using the Healthcare.gov platform in 2019, gained insurance in 37 states due to the Trump administration’s actions. This finding may even be more important now as massive unemployment from the coronavirus pandemic leads to huge losses of employer-based insurance coverage – and ultimately more people enrolling in the marketplaces.

Subsidies and silver loading

People who sign up for a plan in the Health Insurance Marketplaces may qualify for two types of subsidies. The first type is the advanced premium tax credit, which reduces the premium paid by the enrollee; lower-income enrollees receive larger premium tax credits. The second type is the cost-sharing reduction subsidy, which decrease deductibles and co-pays.

Premium tax credits may be applied to any marketplace plan, though they’re based on silver plan premiums, which cover 70% of an average enrollee’s health care expenses. Cost-sharing reduction subsidies can only be applied to silver plans; that means qualifying enrollees in less generous bronze plans and more generous gold plans don’t benefit from reduced deductibles and co-pays provided by these subsidies.

When Trump ended those payments, marketplace insurers were suddenly in a bind. They are legally required to provide cost-sharing reduction subsidies to enrollees whether or not the federal government was paying. The expectation: marketplace insurers, forced to make up the lost revenue, would either increase premiums or exit the marketplaces altogether. And Obamacare would implode.

But that’s not what happened. Why did the plans become more affordable? Insurers increased only the premiums of their silver plans. That approach – known as silver loading – did two things. First, the cost of silver plan premiums rose drastically. Second, premium tax credits increased along with premiums. So those enrollees receiving premium tax credits saw no increase in the premiums of their silver plans.

At the same time, non-silver plans became cheaper. Many bronze plans, already costing less, became so cheap they were free after applying premium tax credit subsidies. Lower-income enrollees benefited the most.

The silver lining in silver loading

In 2019, 4.2 million enrollees could enter the marketplace for free through a zero-dollar bronze plan, largely due to silver loading. Without those zero-premium plans, our analysis showed more than 200,000 lower-income marketplace enrollees would have gone uninsured.

Another 60,000 would have gained insurance had California and New Jersey eliminated regulations that prohibited zero premium plans — and if Indiana, Mississippi and West Virginia had adopted silver loading. Many more likely got coverage in states not included in our study.

All this is clearly not what the Trump administration had in mind when it cut subsidy payments. Other changes to the marketplaces probably masked some coverage gains that occurred. Notably, cuts in the public outreach for Healthcare.gov, along with the elimination of the individual mandate, decreased enrollment. But the popularity of zero premium plans resulting from silver loading likely stopped much of the damage – and Trump’s attempt to destabilize the marketplaces.

Increasing health coverage post-2020

Now states can take advantage of the attractiveness of zero premium plans to increase health coverage through the marketplaces. One way: States requiring marketplace insurers to provide extra benefits – again, like California and New Jersey – can pick up the small tab for those extras. For example, California enrollees pay for abortion coverage through a one-dollar monthly premium surcharge. This is not covered by premium tax credits. By shifting premiums from even one dollar to zero dollars, our estimates indicate enrollment would increase by approximately 13% among those with lower incomes.

Another way: States without silver loading should adopt it. This is not a partisan issue. Conservative states – or at least, GOP-controlled states like Alabama, Wyoming and Florida – have silver-loaded. State governments pay nothing, revenue for insurers is increased, and most critically, lower-income Americans are provided with affordable health insurance. Put simply, there’s no downside for states.

The Trump administration is prevented from restricting silver loading through 2021. However, a forthcoming Supreme Court case, Texas v. Azar, may yet repeal the entire ACA. If the court’s conservative majority rules in favor of the GOP plaintiffs, they will put affordable health insurance out of reach for the 11.4 million Americans that purchased health insurance in the marketplaces. They will also eliminate Medicaid coverage for an additional 16.9 million Americans.

If the case succeeds, the uninsured rate could easily surpass levels not seen since the height of the Great Recession. And for millions of Americans, access to health insurance – desperately needed, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic – will be eliminated.

 

 

 

Iowa tells workers to return to their jobs or lose unemployment benefits, despite warnings that reopening could lead to a 2nd wave of infections

https://www.businessinsider.com/iowa-tells-workers-return-to-work-or-lose-unemployment-benefits-2020-4?fbclid=IwAR3OghoKRKsPt9JVz4TIsn_Qv5im_ZPaCmzPenmsEFgJR80YXbFJ2QWrxpE

Iowa tells workers to return to work or lose unemployment benefits ...

  • Iowa is preparing to partially reopen 77 counties on Friday.
  • The state said furloughed employees who refuse to return to work that they would lose their unemployment benefits — and Gov. Kim Reynolds said it could disqualify them from future unemployment benefits.
  • However, a group of experts advised the governor last week not to loosen restrictions and said the state has not reached its peak of infections and deaths.

As Iowa prepares to partially reopen on Friday, the state has told furloughed workers that they will lose their unemployment benefits if they refuse to return to work.

The Des Moines Register reported that businesses like restaurants, bars, retail stores, and fitness centers would be allowed to reopen at half capacity starting on May 1. Gov. Kim Reynolds said the 77 reopening counties either have no cases or are on a downward trend.

Iowa Workforce Development, a state agency that provides employment services for individual workers, said an employee’s refusal return to work out of fear would be considered a “voluntary quit” — which would mean they could no longer receive unemployment benefits. The announcement applies to workers across the state.

Ryan West, the deputy director of Iowa Workforce Development, told Radio Iowa that there were some exceptions, such as workers diagnosed with COVID-19.

The Iowa Workforce Development website prompts employers to fill out what it calls a Job Offer Decline Form for employees who refuse to return to work. The governor has said that opting not to go back to work could disqualify employees from future unemployment benefits.

Business Insider’s Andy Kiersz reported that 232,913 Iowans filed for unemployment between March 15 and April 18, which is 13.5% of the state’s labor force.

Last week, seven epidemiology and biostatistics professors from the University of Iowa advised the governor not to loosen social-distancing restrictions, KWWL reported. They wrote a research paper for the governor after they were commissioned by the Iowa Department of Public Health.

“We observe a huge range of possible outcomes, from relatively low fatalities to catastrophic loss of life,” the paper said.

The scientists said there was still “considerable uncertainty” over how many deaths the state may eventually have; the projections range from 150 to over 10,000 deaths.

“We have found evidence of a slowdown in infection and mortality rates due to social distancing policies, but not that a peak has been reached,” the paper said. The professors said that did not mean measures should be eased: “Therefore, prevention measures should remain in place. Without such measures being continued, a second wave of infections is likely.”

 

 

 

U.S. Coronavirus Cases Passes 1 Million–A Third Of All Cases Globally

https://www.forbes.com/sites/mattperez/2020/04/28/us-coronavirus-cases-passes-1-million–a-third-of-all-cases-globally/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=dailydozen&cdlcid=5d2c97df953109375e4d8b68#5526ebe370a5

U.S. Coronavirus Cases Passes 1 Million--A Third Of All Cases Globally

TOPLINE

Confirmed cases of the COVID-19 coronavirus passed 1 million in the United States Tuesday, making up a third of all global cases, according to data compiled by Johns Hopkins University.

KEY FACTS

Of the 1,002,498 Americans who have been confirmed to have contracted the disease, 57,266 have died while 112,315 have recovered.

The new milestone comes as some states announce plans for reopening, something President Trump has been adamantly pushing for as 26 million Americans lose their jobs during the pandemic.

New York, the epicenter of the outbreak with 295,106 cases, saw its hospital admittance number drop below 1,000 for the first time in a month on Monday, with Governor Andrew Cuomo detailing a plan to start easing stay-at-home restrictions in parts of the state starting as early as May 15.

Georgia Governor Brian Kemp, however, with the state’s 24,604 cases, has drawn criticism from health officials and even Trump for allowing businesses like restaurants, hair salons and gyms to reopen before seeing a sustained reduction in cases.

Around 5.6 million people, or about 1.7% of the population, have been tested for the coronavirus, but researchers at Harvard Global Health Institute report that the country will need to perform 3.5 million tests per week at minimum before reopening.

Dr. Anthony Fauci, the country’s top infectious disease doctor, warned Tuesday during an interview that “it’s inevitable that we will have a return of the virus,” and that states reopening prematurely could cause “a rebound to get us right back in the same boat that we were in a few weeks ago.”

BIG NUMBER

87%. That’s how many Americans support current social distancing restrictions, or even want stronger measures in place, according to an Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research survey conducted from April 16-20.

KEY BACKGROUND

The U.S. reached 500,000 cases on April 10 and 100,000 on March 27. The model prefered by the federal government increased the projected death count from the coronavirus for the second time in a week on Tuesday, now projecting 74,000 total deaths from the virus.

TANGENT

Germany has been a leader in mitigating the spread of the coronavirus, but after easing some lockdown restrictions this past week, the country saw an uptick in infection rate.

 

 

 

 

COVID-19 brings largest quarterly GDP drop since last recession

https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/finance/covid-19-brings-largest-quarterly-gdp-drop-since-last-recession.html?utm_medium=email

GDP sinks 4.8% in the first quarter, biggest drop since 2008 and ...

Gross domestic product in the U.S. fell 4.8 percent in the first quarter of 2020, the biggest drop the nation’s economy has seen since the last recession in 2008, according to The Wall Street Journal.

The downturn reflects how shutdowns of businesses and schools and social distancing, which started in the final three weeks of the first quarter, affected the U.S. economy. According to The Journal, many economists believe the U.S. is now in a recession, as layoffs and declines across industries hit unprecedented levels.

With the economy largely shut down in April, economists are expecting a bigger drop-off in economic activity in the second quarter of this year. A few states have started to slowly reopen their economies, but many still have social-distancing restrictions in place that extend through May.

 

 

 

 

US surpasses 1 million COVID-19 cases

https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/494792-us-surpasses-1-million-covid-19-cases

Did the Trump Administration Overpromise 1 Million COVID-19 ...

More than a million people in the United States have tested positive for the coronavirus, a sobering milestone that experts say represents only the beginning of a months-long battle to end the pandemic.

The United States has now registered about a third of all confirmed cases of COVID-19 around the globe, according to data compiled by the Center for Systems Science and Engineering at Johns Hopkins University. More than 57,000 people have died in the United States, about a quarter of the known COVID-19 deaths around the globe.

The United States has now registered more confirmed cases than the next five countries suffering the largest outbreaks — Spain, Italy, France, Germany and the United Kingdom — combined.

Those numbers are partly a reflection of population, but there are troubling signs for the United States.

While those countries have reduced the pace of transmission and the growth in the number of new cases they are seeing on a daily basis, the United States has not similarly bent the curve.

Instead, it is stuck at a deadly plateau: In the last week, the U.S. has reported between 24,000 and 41,000 new cases a day, and between 1,200 and 2,600 deaths per day, according to The Covid Tracking Project, a group of researchers who keep tallies of case counts around the country.

Even as some states begin to relax orders that closed retail and service stores, experts warned the country is still at risk of a new rush of cases, and that the downslope of declining case counts will be much longer than the sudden surge the United States saw in April.

“We’re in the opening stages of this,” said Michael Osterholm, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Prevention at the University of Minnesota. States “are not in the mountains, they’re in the foothills. The mountains are still to come.”

More than a quarter million residents of New York have tested positive for the virus, and commuter suburbs in New Jersey and Connecticut have reported tens of thousands of cases. More than 50,000 residents of Massachusetts have tested positive, and California, Illinois and Pennsylvania have all confirmed more than 40,000 cases.

There are growing signs that the virus is shifting into new, more rural territory. States like Arkansas, Kansas, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Mexico, Rhode Island, Tennessee and Virginia all recorded substantial growth in the number of new cases they had confirmed in the last few days.

That pattern of viral spread beginning in large urban cores and eventually making its way to rural areas is typical, experts said, given societal connections between urban areas, suburbs and more rural areas.

“Epidemiologists know that this pattern is a very expectable one, that rural areas are going to have lagged waves of cases. So we’ve been bracing for that,” said Nita Bharti, a biologist at the Center for Infectious Disease Dynamics at Penn State University. “What they’re experiencing now is what cities have been seeing. It’s the same, it’s just delayed, and we knew it would happen.”

About six months after the coronavirus outbreak was detected in Wuhan, China, and four months after the first case arrived on American shores, the United States still lags the world in testing capacity. States have bolstered their capacity in recent days, conducting more than 225,000 tests per day over four of the last five days, the capacity needed to ensure the virus can be brought under control lags substantially.

An analysis by Harvard researchers for the scientific publication STAT found more than half of states would have to significantly bolster their testing capacity in order to safely begin easing stay-at-home orders in May. The hardest-hit state, New York, will have to be able to test at least 100,000 more people every day than it is currently able to; New Jersey’s capacity would need to increase by 68,000 a day.

Smaller states and those that have yet to experience thousands of new cases — places like Mississippi, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Arizona and New Mexico — already have the testing capacity they need to identify and squelch any new viral hotspots. Even Washington state, the first state to confirm a positive case, has built its capacity to meet demand.

Public health experts say a robust testing program must be supplemented by armies of contact tracers who can track down those who are at risk of contracting the virus.

Already, Massachusetts has partnered with the nonprofit Partners In Health to deploy about 1,000 contact tracers across the state. Alaska has managed to trace the contacts of each of its 341 positive cases. New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio said Monday that the city would hire 1,000 contact tracers of its own, and former Mayor Mike Bloomberg has pledged $10 million to kick start a contact tracing program in the tri-state area.

On Monday, a bipartisan group of top public health experts led by President Trump‘s former FDA commissioner Scott Gottlieb and President Obama’s former Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services administrator Andy Slavitt called on Congress to spend $46 billion to expand contact tracing capacity, including $12 billion to hire 180,000 new workers.

It is unclear how the outbreak in the United States compares with outbreaks in authoritarian countries like China, Russia and Iran, which do not report reliable numbers.

But even in the United States, where state and local governments are transparent about the data they collect, the actual number of cases and deaths are higher — likely significantly so. Early antibody tests in places like New York City and Miami show a significant number of people contract the virus without showing symptoms, and as studies show people who died inexplicably over the last several months tested positive for the virus.

 

 

 

COVID-19 vulnerability: A state-by-state analysis

https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/rankings-and-ratings/covid-19-vulnerability-a-state-by-state-analysis.html?utm_medium=email

To live and die in Dixie - Covid-19 is spreading to America's ...

Every state in the U.S. will be affected by COVID-19, but some are more vulnerable due to limited ability to mitigate and treat the virus, and to reduce its economic and social impacts, according to a COVID-19 vulnerability index created by the Surgo Foundation. 

The Surgo Foundation, a privately funded think tank, created an index that combines indicators specific to COVID-19 with the CDC’s social vulnerability index, which measures the expected negative impact of disasters of any type. The Surgo Foundation’s index takes into account factors that fall into one of several categories, including socioeconomic status, minority status, housing type, epidemiologic factors and health care system factors. Each state and the District of Columbia received a score in each category and an overall score, with a higher score indicating that the state is more vulnerable. Read more about the methodology here.

Here is each state’s ranking and composite score based on the vulnerability index: 

1. Mississippi: 1

2. Louisiana: 0.98

3. Arkansas: 0.96

4. Oklahoma: 0.94

5. Alabama: 0.92

6. West Virginia: 0.9

7. New Mexico: 0.88

8. Nevada: 0.86

9. North Carolina: 0.84

10. South Carolina: 0.82

11. Kentucky: 0.8

12. Hawaii: 0.78

13. Tennessee: 0.76

14. Missouri: 0.74

15. Kansas: 0.72

16. Indiana: 0.7

17. Georgia: 0.68

18. Oregon: 0.66

19. District of Columbia: 0.64

20. New York: 0.62

21. Alaska: 0.6

22. Delaware: 0.58

23. Michigan: 0.56

24. Arizona: 0.54

25. Illinois: 0.52

26. Iowa: 0.5

27. Texas: 0.48

28. New Jersey: 0.46

29. Idaho: 0.44

30. Maryland: 0.42

31. Ohio: 0.4

32. Massachusetts: 0.38

33. Nebraska: 0.36

34. Florida: 0.34

35. Washington: 0.32

36. Connecticut: 0.3

37. Pennsylvania: 0.28

38. Montana: 0.26

39. Rhode Island: 0.24

40. Virginia: 0.22

41. South Dakota: 0.2

42. Utah: 0.18

43. Wyoming: 0.16

44. California: 0.14

45. Minnesota: 0.12

46. Colorado: 0.1

47. Wisconsin: 0.08

48. North Dakota: 0.06

49. Maine: 0.04

50. Vermont: 0.02

51. New Hampshire: 0

 

 

 

U.S. Supreme Court sides with insurers in battle over risk corridor payments

https://www.fiercehealthcare.com/payer/scotus-sides-insurers-battle-over-risk-corridor-payments?mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiWXpNMlpXUTVaakpoTmpJMSIsInQiOiJzU3ViK3ZwV0oyMUxOS3N5T0tXY3h1anlUSW5ndTJ0MDlEMkE1S3BGRDg1Mlc1eDdpY3hGaHRCV0U1eUpFbWxhR3ZoSVlRdlU5M1NCek5FamxZZ0NLMEhxQ25teFwvNVwvSFEzYnlETEpuMnlZM0FJYThWeEhTcUFodElZUEcwS1RlIn0%3D&mrkid=959610

Supreme Court seems to side with insurers in ACA risk corridor ...

The Supreme Court sided with insurers in a years-long battle over billions in payments promised under the Affordable Care Act.

The nation’s highest court ruled (PDF) 8-1 on Monday that the ACA’s risk corridor program created an obligation for the federal government to pay health plans promised funds.

The insurers suing for damages sought $12 billion in unpaid funds from the program.

The ACA established the risk corridors to encourage health plans to participate in the exchanges. If an insurer earned massive profits through the individual market, the government would claim some of those funds and pay it out to insurers that are performing poorly.

The government did collect those funds, but did not pay out money to struggling insurers. The risk corridor program closed in 2016 after three years.

The justices argued that the government was compelled to make the payments.

“The plain terms of the risk corridors provision created an obligation neither contingent on nor limited by the availability of appropriations or other funds,” the court argued.

Justice Samuel Alito was the lone dissent in the case.

The justices also disputed the government’s argument that Congress implied a repeal of the risk corridors through appropriations riders. The justices said that any riders did not actually change the payment methodology or suggest the payments were not required.

The court also argued that the health plans had standing to sue under the Tucker Act.

“Petitioners clear each hurdle: The risk corridors statute is fairly interpreted as mandating compensation for damages, and neither exception to the Tucker Act applies,” the court said.

In his dissent, Alito blasts the opinion as a bailout for health plans.

America’s Health Insurance Plans CEO Matt Eyles praised the ruling in a statement.

“The federal government made a clear commitment in the interest of building stable markets and making coverage more affordable for individuals and small employers,” Eyles said. “Health insurance providers kept their commitments while incurring substantial losses.”

Today’s decision, as the Supreme Court observes, reflects ‘a principle as old as the Nation itself: The Government should honor its obligations,’” he added. “We appreciate that today’s Supreme Court 8-1 decision ensures that the federal government honors the obligations it made for services the private sector already delivered.”