I update charts daily for New Hampshire on new cases w/ 14-day average; on hospitalizations w/ 14-day average; and total deaths w/ 14-day total. I haven’t been charting testing numbers, but maybe I should. Note that on Wednesday the state added 74 hospitalizations to the running total, saying it had re-examined records, so that chart looks really wonky.
The Concord Monitor is keeping track of four measurements as indicators of how the COVID-19 pandemic is progressing. This is our sixth weekly update and the news continues to be good, although questions remain about testing numbers.
The number of tests might be the most important goal because many other numbers depend on it. If not enough people are being tested regularly then data about the number of active cases and the percentage of people who have the disease becomes unreliable.
Because of that, I have reordered the 4 goals bringing testing numbers to the forefront.
Goal 1
At least 150 PCR tests, which spot current COVID-19 cases, performed per 100,000 people per day.
Have we met this goal? No.
New Hampshire has 1.35 million people, so performing 150 PCR tests per 100,000 people means 2,000 tests a day. The daily average hit that number in late June but since then has slipped. At the end of last week it was 1,884.
The decline is a surprise because the state has instituted “surveillance” testing at a number of long-term care facilities, with regular tests of randomly chosen people to spot outbreaks before they happen. I thought it would boost the overall number of tests – about 300 tests a day are being performed by Mako Labs, the company that contracted to test samples from nursing homes – but apparently testing elsewhere has slipped.
That may be a reflection of some high-profile testing locations closing down but I suspect it’s more a reflection of COVID fatigue. Rightly or wrongly people are less worried than they were in May so they’re less likely to take the time and the nasal irritation of getting tested.
The decline in tests outside of surveillance programs is reflected in the fact that the number of people tested on the average day is just 1,230. By their very nature, surveillance testing gives tests repeatedly to the same people. That’s important when anticipating outbreaks in a nursing home but it doesn’t do much for the bigger picture of measuring the spread of the disease throughout the state.
Whatever the reasons for the testing number slip, it’s a concern for New Hampshire’s ability to stay on top of the virus. We’re one of the best states in the country when it comes to the amount of COVID-19 right now but if we don’t measure what’s out there we won’t know whether, and how, we need to make changes.Goal 2
A two-week drop in cases as measured by the 14-day running average, which would indicate that less of the virus is circulating.
Have we met this goal? Yes, but there are concerns
The average number of new cases over the previous two weeks had fallen consistently since June 4, but over the past week it seems to have stabilized at about 30 new cases each day.
Goal 3
Fewer than four new cases per 100,000 people each day, which would show that the disease is below dangerous levels.
Have we met this goal? Yes!
New Hampshire has 1.36 million people, so four new cases per 100,000 people is a ceiling of 54 new cases a day. The two-week average has been lower than that for almost a month: Most recently it was just 31 cases per day.
Goal 4
A positive rate of PCR tests below 5%, indicating that the virus is not spreading rapidly in the general population.
Have we met this goal? Yes.
The positive rate has been around 3% as measured by the Department of Health and Human Services over a three-day average for two months.
Another metric that continues to do well is hospitalization. On average, barely one new hospitalization happens every day.
Even the death rate may finally be slowing. The two-week total of daily deaths fell last week to 33, its lowest number in months. That is still a tragedy, of course, but it may indicate that we’re seeing benefits from an emphasis on long-term care facilities, where about 80% of the state’s COVID-19 deaths have occurred.
To see a discussion of how I decided on these four measurements, check this earlier column.
Return to the Concord Monitor
I read your column every week about Covid19. I see that the NH testing numbers are declining but I’m not sure who should be tested. Can you report on that sometime? It’s all so overwhelming at times.
“150 PCR tests, which spot current COVID-19 cases, performed per 100,000 people per day” – my daughter was told she may have been exposed at work. She went to Concord Hospital and was told they would only test her if she had symptoms, which she did not. I thought that had changed. Perhaps THAT is why the number of tests is slipping. (This was 10 – 14 days ago).
She can get it done for free at the drive-in testing sites
Last I checked, there was not one in Concord. The drive in Test site at Concord Hospital turned her away due to no symptoms.
Do we know how many tests represent “first time ever tested in NH” vs repeat testing? A recent opinion piece in the Concord Monitor suggested that essential workers (the author used her gas station attendant as an example) must be tested every other week. Is this accurate?
I don’t, although you can estimate by subtracting “persons tested” from “tests performed” – about one-third of tests appear to be repeats on people
Lots of people are discouraged from being tested due to really long turnaround for results. If it’s more than 5-7 days it’s hardly worth it if the person is positive unless they are quarantined until they receive the results. If the person asymptomatic and not quarantined how do you accomplish the desired result?
Excellent point. I will be writing about this issue in Monday’s update of the tracking stories.