Changing Covid-19 isolation?

 here is an interesting email from Katelyn Jetelina  "Your Local Epidemiologist" (aka YLE), thanks to Paul Susman for sending me this. you can subscribe or just view them at <yourlocalepidemiologist@substack.com>

she does some really great analyses, with a strong public health perspective.  

 

here is the one from a few days ago about Covid-19. if you want the hyperlinks and they are not working below, go to: https://yourlocalepidemiologist.substack.com/p/changing-covid-19-isolation

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------

What happened? The Washington Post leaked that CDC is considering replacing the Covid 5-day isolation guidance with “staying home until 24 hours fever free and improving symptoms.”

First, what we do know

·         Contagiousness has not changed. If infected, you still spread Covid-19 to others for 5-12 days.

·         Spreading Covid-19 is less consequential these days, though. Hospitalizations and deaths continue to decouple from infections. (This means ~300 deaths per day—which is still a lot—compared to the peak of 3,500.) Long Covid-19 prevalence is decreasing slowly, but millions still suffer.

·         Testing is expensive. Innovation has not kept up. Antigen tests are not positive until days 3, 4, or 5 now.

·         The number of paid sick days for Americans is abysmal—23% of Americans have zero (!) paid sick leave. Among those who do have it, the average American has 10 days.

·         We are no longer in an emergency. The majority of Americans have put Covid-19 in the rearview mirror. Only 1 in 5 adults are vaccinated.

What we do not know

The actual proposed policy from the actual agency. This was a leak, which means it lacks justification, context, and details. We don’t have the full picture, like whether they will recommend masks, a cautionary period, or what to do for those at high risk.

A leak automatically puts CDC on the defense, which is disappointing as stakeholder engagement, gathering data, and conducting models takes time. Let’s give them time to line up their ducks.

One of the worst things CDC did throughout the emergency was change guidance without clear communication. I’m optimistic this will change.

What would be nice to know

We are always working off incomplete data, but some rough answers would certainly help me, at least, craft an opinion:

·         How many people follow the current isolation guidelines? In other words, will this impact community transmission? Data from the U.K., California, and Oregon can help answer this, as they have already implemented similar guidance. Oregon, for example, shared that dropping isolation did not impact community transmission.

·         How many people get a fever with Covid-19 infection? Is a fever or improving symptoms correlated with contagiousness for Covid-19? How well does this align with the flu and RSV? Do people know what “symptoms improving” means?

·         Is there a risk difference between a symptomatic person on Day X vs. asymptomatic case walking around (which is about 40% of Covid-19 cases)?

Even if we get answers to the science, health policy is also based on psychology, politics, economy, culture, and values:

·         What is acceptable to the majority of Americans? 100% protection x 0% adherence = 0% benefit.

·         How many sick days are people willing to cash in for Covid-19? How many missed school days is “worth it”?

·         Does a 5-day isolation period disincentivize people from testing in the first place?

·         How will institutions react? If someone needs to stay home longer, will their employer let them? What will happen at hospitals?

·         What do key high-risk stakeholder organizations (i.e., nursing homes, AARP, immunocompromised, health departments, healthcare workers) think?

·         What is the purpose of public health?

·         Whether we get answers or not, all of this centers around one core question: What is the purpose of public health? Do we meet people where they are (e.g., people aren’t isolating anyways, so let’s drop), or provide a north star (e.g., this is ideal, although we know most people won’t follow it)?

·         Ideally, it’s a balance with a clear goal in mind. This has resulted in a tug-of-war throughout the pandemic.

·         This isn’t abnormal in public health, though. Take car safety. In the 1980s there was incredible pushback on seatbelt laws. But that didn’t stop guidance, and wearing a seatbelt was eventually normalized. Seatbelts had minimal (if any) tradeoffs, though. We don’t tell people not to drive, even though it’s the most dangerous thing people do      daily. Instead, public health put in place interventions and recommendations to mitigate harm.

·         When recommending an intervention to a huge fraction of society, we’d better have strong justification of the benefits and risks, even if acting on the precautionary principle and limited data.

·         Ideally, guidance comes in tandem with background systematic change after an emergency—ventilation, free vaccines, paid sick leave, normalizing mask usage. I see it in Japan, but it is a fleeting pipedream in the U.S. Of course, a lot of this isn’t in the purview of CDC.

·         Bottom line

·         Health policy is messy and complex, involving weighing tradeoffs that change over time for very diverse 330 million people. We ultimately need guidance that is protective and actionable and feasible. I’m optimistic CDC will provide answers and clarity soon.

·         Love, YLE

·        

·         “Your Local Epidemiologist (YLE)” is written by Dr. Katelyn Jetelina, M.P.H. Ph.D.—an epidemiologist, wife, and mom of two little girls. During the day, she is a senior scientific consultant to several organizations, including CDC. At night, she writes this newsletter. Her main goal is to “translate” the ever-evolving public health world so that people will be well-equipped to make evidence-based decisions. This newsletter is free, thanks to the generous support of fellow YLE community members.

---------------------------------------------- 

here are my comments:

i would add that in the rush to remove Covid as a public health issue, many employers, including health centers and hospitals, seem to be moving to not coveri covid illness as before: it comes out of our PTO or sick time, even though we may be excluded from work for several days by being positive. and even though we might well get covid at work.  see below for concerns about further loosening restrictions. and, remember that:

    -- the CDC stopped getting any data on Covid infections other than those leading to hospitalizations/deaths. so, the only thing we have for overall cases is waste-water assessments, which do nothing to inform us about prevalence of Covid in the population (just the odds of getting it). And, there certainly is no mass testing that would reveal the number of asymptomatic individuals

    – And we do know that the Omicron variants (which keep varying) are highly transmissible: omicron is about 4x as contagious as delta variant was. 

    – and, and, and: it is very hard in the US, with its amalgam of 50 states with 50 different views of what they want to/are willing to do, to have a coherent policy to protect the public. this applies to all aspects of life that affect health, including vaccinations, food quality, air quality, tobacco/alcohol, overuse of antibiotics in animal husbandry/medical treatments for nonbacterial infections, etc etc

geoff

-----------------------------------

If you would like to be on the regular email list for upcoming blogs, please contact me at gmodest@bidmc.harvard.edu

  

to get access to all of the blogs:  go to http://gmodestmedblogs.blogspot.com/ to see the blogs in reverse chronological order

  -- click on 3 parallel lines top left, if you want to see blogs by category, then click on "labels" and choose a category​

  -- or you can just click on the magnifying glass on top right, then type in a name in the search box and get all the blogs with that name in them

 

if you would like access to the dropbox for articles, go to https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/vj803z91w1trd471h9fj8/h?rlkey=klpxdjpdhcdt3sahnpirzz730&dl=0

 

please feel free to circulate this to others. also, if you send me their emails (gmodest@bidmc.harvard.edu), i can add them to the list

Comments

Post a Comment

if you would like to receive the near-daily emails regularly, please email me at gmodest@uphams.org

Popular posts from this blog

HDL a negative risk factor? or cholesterol efflux??

Although the data on HDL being protective of atherosclerotic disease is pretty consistent, there are negative studies, and the data on medications which dramatically improve HDL levels (eg, the cholesteryl ester transfer protein --CETP --inhibitors, such as torcetrapib) are clinically disappointing. there have been several explanations for this. for example, some HDL particles are "pro-inflammatory" and elicit an atherosclerotic response (which may be related to apolipoprotein C-III). a new article in NEJM highlights another angle -- that the issue is not the HDL number, but HDL's functionality in the reverse transport of cholesterol, as measured by the cholesterol efflux capacity (see  lipids HDL efflux capacity vs amt NEJM 2014 in dropbox, or  DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1409065). This article looks at the Dallas Heart Study, where they measured HDL levels, HDL particle concentrations, and cholesterol efflux capacity in 2924 adults free of cardiovascular disease and followed p
Read more

Drug company shenanigans: narcolepsy drug

I have not done a blog for a long time on drug company shenanigans. So it is my great pleasure to bring up a brand-new drug company approach to garner huge amounts of money (see  https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/28/business/jazz-narcolepsy-avadel-patents.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare  ).  Based on an article by  Rebecca Robbins of the New York Times, who has written several articles on drug company excesses   As background, this will be my 42 nd  such blog: for the array, see  https://bucommunitymed.wpengine.com/page/4/?s=drug+company+shenanigans   Th e drug company  approach  this time  to extending  their  patents has a few “interesting” angles: -- this is a medication manufactured by Jazz Pharmaceuticals to treat narcolepsy: there are 2 versions: Xyrem and Xywav (Xywav has less sodium, so is marketed to those who should be on a low sodium diet). These meds are basically derivatives of gammahydroxybutyric acid (GHB)      -- the drug actually has a pretty
Read more

UPDATE: ASCVD risk factor critique

  I decided to do an extensive update of my prior ASCVD (atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease) risk analysis and critique of risk calculators, with much more information about the “non-traditional” risk factors. I felt that there should be more data/clarification, since I think we are really undertreating/not preventing the most common cause of death by relying on the ASCVD risk calculators   -- Cardiovascular risk models:      -- many of us rely on the various cardiovascular risk models to determine the appropriate approach to patients, and these are often integrated into the electronic medical records      -- these risk models have several very important limitations:          -- they are typically based on community data, eg from the Framingham study etc. But, in clinical practice, we are dealing with the individual and not the community:              -- there is very clear evidence that there are many individual risk factors that are associated with increased risk of a cardiovascu
Read more