COVID-19 Coronavirus Containment Efforts

[Ygggdrasil]

This Indian variant is a worry. The numbers are small, but if it really can evade the vaccine then we're in trouble.

The new variant observed in India (B.1.651) has two different mutations of concern L452R and E484Q. Mutations at E484 in the B.1.351 variant from South Africa and the P.1 variant from Brazil have previously been suggested to help the virus evade antibody-based immunity in both laboratory studies of the virus and in clinical trials on various vaccines. However, the antibody response is only one arm of the adaptive immune system (which tries to neutralize pathogens before they can infect the body) and it seems like the variants are not able to evade the cellular immune response (which helps the body eliminate pathogens once infected). Indeed, laboratory data suggests that T-cell response to the virus is not affected by any of the variants tested ( B.1.1.7, B.1.351, P.1, and B.1.427/B.1.428). Note that B.1.351 and P.1 share mutations at E484Q with the B.1.651 variant and the B.1.427/B.1.428 variants from California share the L452R mutation with the B.1.651 variant.

Together these suggest that while the variants may be able to infect vaccinated individuals (due to evading antibody-based immunity), the infection is unlikely to result in serious disease (due to pre-existing cellular immunity).

Consistent with this notion, clinical trial data from vaccine trials support the notion that vaccines may show lower protection against infection by variants with mutations at position E484 of the spike protein but are still very effective at preventing hospitalizations and death. For example, https://ir.novavax.com/news-releases/news-release-details/novavax-confirms-high-levels-efficacy-against-original-and-0showed 96% efficacy in the UK but only a 55% efficacy in South Africa (where the B.1.351 variant is widespread). However, in both locations, the vaccine showed 100% protection against severe disease, including all hospitalization and death. Similarly, the Phase 3 trials of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine showed lower protection against infection in Brazil and South Africa versus the US, but similar protection against severe-critical COVID-19. Cohort studies done in Qatar tell a similar story for the Pfizer mRNA vaccine; slightly lower effectiveness at preventing infection (75% from B.1.351 vs 90% for the B.1.1.7 variant which lacks mutation at E484) but still 97% effective at preventing severe, critical or fatal disease.

So far, the vaccines do seem like they should be reasonably protective against hospitalizations and deaths from the new variants. Of course, the more the virus is allowed to continue replicating uncontrolled in various populations across the world, the greater the chance that new variants could continue to evolve.

 

[mfb]

You're missing the point/looking at the issue backwards. The point is everyone has the option to stop wearing a mask. And the people who will take that option are likely to be the ones who shouldn't.

Not everyone. The option is only there if they are vaccinated (and only in some places), in that case their risk to get infected and the risk that they infect others is small even without a mask.

That means enforcement doesn't require proof of anything/invasion of privacy.

Nothing changed in that aspect.
Supermarkets can simply keep their mask requirements. Most probably will, as checking vaccination records is too much effort.
Other places - I mentioned offices as example - can give people the choice between "keep wearing a mask" and "show that you were vaccinated, then you don't need to wear a mask". No proof of anything required, it's purely optional.

A "partial mandate" makes enforcement impossible; it's the same as no mandate.

That's clearly wrong as general statement. There are places where "wear a mask or show you are vaccinated" can be implemented. Other places can just keep the general mask mandates.

 

[nsaspook]

IMO the enforcement issues will disappear quickly as large private enterprise locations drop mask requirements. There will be little or no enforcement of VAX status at the vast majority of locations once some critical mass of locations drop mask requirements with no checks. Several large retailers and supermarket chains adopted CDC guidance on masks today with more expected next week.

Sin City didn't waste time either.
https://www.fox5vegas.com/coronavirus/heres-the-updated-mask-guidance-for-fully-vaccinated-people-at-casinos-on-las-vegas-strip/article_e3364990-b4f6-11eb-bcc3-9f8c6b0135e7.html

Nearly all Las Vegas Strip casinos have announced they no longer require guests to wear masks if they have been fully vaccinated.

 

[atyy]

Agreed, and because the range is wide/uncertain, and the current caseload still pretty high in the USA, I'd prefer to keep the mask mandates in place a little longer (at least in the USA).

Regarding caseload - are medical facilities anywhere in the US still under stress? If there isn't, that might be another reason for relaxing the mask mandate (even considering that it may effectively be a full relaxation due to enforcement impracticability).

Also, the US will soon be vaccinating 12- to 15-year-olds, which makes it consistent with effectively fully relaxing the mask mandate.

I guess the main concern is whether case loads go up enough to stress medical systems after a full relaxation of masking.

 

[Vanadium 50]

It would be interested to poll (if one could accurately) the vaccinated and unvaccinated to see which are more likely to stop wearing masks, given the new guidance.

As a psychology experiment? Maybe.

As some kind of measure of public health policy? I'm not so sure. I think many people think they are fully vaccinated who are not. Perhaps as many as 25 million people in the US.

"Fully vaccinated" means "received last dose plus two weeks". But the name sounds like it means "received last dose" and this is reinforced by government statistics using "received last dose" to count "fully vaccinated". For various reasons, some of them even good, they want these numbers to be as high as possible, so they have adopted a particular definition. It is not surprising if many people misunderstand.

 

[Ygggdrasil]

As a psychology experiment? Maybe.

As some kind of measure of public health policy? I'm not so sure. I think many people think they are fully vaccinated who are not. Perhaps as many as 25 million people in the US.

"Fully vaccinated" means "received last dose plus two weeks". But the name sounds like it means "received last dose" and this is reinforced by government statistics using "received last dose" to count "fully vaccinated". For various reasons, some of them even good, they want these numbers to be as high as possible, so they have adopted a particular definition. It is not surprising if many people misunderstand.

Immunity is not a binary state that suddenly switches on two weeks after the second dose. Looking at the clinical trial data (e.g. for the Pfizer vaccine), once can see signs of protection ~ 2 weeks after the first dose:

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2034577

Note that because the incubation period of the disease is can be up to two weeks, many of those diagnosed with COVID-19 a week or two after the first dose probably got infected prior to receiving the vaccine.

Large scale observational data from Israel suggests that there is 46% protection against infection 14-20 days after the first dose, 60% protection 21-27 days after the first dose, and 92% protection 7 days after the second dose. Protection certainly increases such that people are maximally protected 1-2 weeks after the second dose, but fortunately, people still experience some protection if they relax cautionary measures before then.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Immunity is not a binary state that suddenly switches on two weeks after the second dose.

Oh, I agree. My point is that the CDC has a definition of "fully vaccinated". They also have statistics on how many people are "fully vaccinated" - one that uses a different definition. Nobody should be surprised if this causes confusion. Indeed, we should be surprised if it doesn't.

 

[russ_watters]

As a psychology experiment? Maybe.

As some kind of measure of public health policy? I'm not so sure. I think many people think they are fully vaccinated who are not.

Sure, a poll could easily address both:

1. Are you fully vaccinated?
2. Do you war a mask indoors(at x,y,z locations)?
3. If not fully vaccinated will you comply with mask mandates? Even if they are not enforced?
4. What was the date of your second vaccination?

 

[nsaspook]

Interesting data point about containment efforts.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/covid-zero-havens-reopening-harder-210000541.html

Now that mass inoculation drives are allowing other parts of the world to normalize and open up to international travel, experts and residents are starting to question whether walling off from Covid is worth the trade-off, if implemented long-term.

“The whole world is not going to be Covid Zero,” said Rupali Limaye, director of behavioral and implementation science at the International Vaccine Access Center at Johns Hopkins School of Public Health. “That’s not an option here.”
...
Vaccination Lag

A major obstacle to reopening is the slow vaccine rollout in these Covid havens, due to a combination of supply limitations and citizens’ lack of urgency about fronting up for shots.
...
Nonetheless, Covid havens face a growing dilemma. If vaccinations don’t pick up pace, they risk being stuck in a perpetual cycle, unable to move past the pandemic.

“If their vaccination rates are low, that further jeopardizes their ability to open up,” Low said. “If so, the earlier ‘victory’ of these places over Covid-19 would have been a Pyrrhic one.”

 

[russ_watters]

As I was saying:

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's announcement Thursday that fully vaccinated people largely no longer need to wear a maskhas left many Americans wondering: If there are no enforcement measures, won't people just lie about their vaccination status?
...
Michael McCullough, a psychology professor at the University of California, San Diego, said the new guidance will enable unvaccinated people to flout rules with "impunity."

"Many will lie. Many are lying, have been lying," he said. "In some ways, this is a really perfect recipe for lots of people to be dishonest about whether they got vaccinated...
"It isn't just an honor system. Many people don’t want the vaccine on ideological grounds," Caplan said. "It's not the same as saying we’re going to rely on you to pay at checkout."

Lee agreed.

"My intuition is, given the situation, a lot of people feel they are justified not to take vaccinations," he said. "Therefore, they are going to feel more justified to lie to you as well."

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...t-americans-honest-vaccine-status/5107686001/

 

[Vanadium 50]

Are there a lot of vaccination scofflaws out there?

Here's what Google says about vaccination:

It looks like Dose #2 is still more or less linear.

Dose #1 is falling. Why? The story is these are primarily vaccination scofflaws, but is that true? Is there any evidence for it?

What I can tell is that I am unable to schedule a mock Dose #1 until June, and even then all I can get is J&J. We've already had the discussion on PF about whether it is better to get J&J or wait for Moderna or Pfizer. I can also say that some of the extraordinary distributions - i.e. companies vaccinating their employees - are closing. Because they are done.

Also, 150-160M looks like a little less than half, but the number of 16+ year olds is about 265M, so it's more like the 60% point.

 

[nsaspook]

"Many will lie. Many are lying, have been lying,"

Who is at risk for that lying?
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/16/world/cdc-director-unvaccinated-masks.html

The C.D.C. director offers a stark reassurance: Only unvaccinated people are at risk by unmasking.​

The head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, facing blowback over the agency’s new liberalized mask guidelines, offered a stark reassurance on Sunday: Only unvaccinated people are at risk if they take off their masks.

“If you are vaccinated, we are saying you are safe, you can take up your mask and you are not at risk of severe disease or hospitalization from Covid-19,” the C.D.C. director, Dr. Rochelle P. Walensky, said on “Fox News Sunday.” “If you are not vaccinated, you are not safe. Please go get vaccinated or continue to wear your mask.”

 

[atyy]

"Many will lie. Many are lying, have been lying,"

Who is at risk for that lying?
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/16/world/cdc-director-unvaccinated-masks.html

The C.D.C. director offers a stark reassurance: Only unvaccinated people are at risk by unmasking.​

But CDC should up its masking requirements for unvaccinated people. A cloth mask doesn't protect much, and there may increased transmission from unmasked vaccinated people who are asymptomatic or have only mild symptoms.

 

[russ_watters]

Are there a lot of vaccination scofflaws out there?

What's a vaccination scofflaw?

It looks like Dose #2 is still more or less linear.

Dose #1 is falling. Why? The story is these are primarily vaccination scofflaws, but is that true? Is there any evidence for it?

What sort of evidence would you accept? Can you think of a viable reason reason why the Dose #1 rate would be falling instead of rising? Other than <urgency?

Prediction: Dose #2 will show a noticeable downward drop in rate within the next week. I mean, it has to, right?

What I can tell is that I am unable to schedule a mock Dose #1 until June, and even then all I can get is J&J.

Really? How did you make that attempt? I just checked CVS's website (first and only one I checked) and I can make a 1st Pfizer dose appointment a half mile from my house, tomorrow (well...it's after midnight, so today). I got my 2nd dose last Monday, 20 miles away, and tried until the day before to schedule a closer one.

[Very late edit, but you haven't replied yet...]
There is another group that is likely significant and should be included here: those who don't think they need to be vaccinated because they had a confirmed or suspected case of COVID.

 

[nsaspook]

But CDC should up its masking requirements for unvaccinated people. A cloth mask doesn't protect much, and there may increased transmission from unmasked vaccinated people who are asymptomatic or have only mild symptoms.

It think it's too late for that because most states (Gov. Gavin Newsom Says California's COVID-19 Mask Mandate To End After June 15) will be dropping mask mandates soon. I think the CDC messaging is designed to make people consider their individual risks if they decide not to get vaccinated by using the old anti-mask/anti-vax logic of individual freedom to chose. Don't want to wear a mask and don't want to lie, get vaccinated. It's your choice to be safe.

 

[russ_watters]

"Many will lie. Many are lying, have been lying,"

Who is at risk for that lying?
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/16/world/cdc-director-unvaccinated-masks.html

The C.D.C. director offers a stark reassurance: Only unvaccinated people are at risk by unmasking.​

1. Of course we know that isn't true. Note: I've previously expressed the 'I don't care about you idiots' position on this, but also noted it isn't 100% true, just 95% true, give or take.

1a. Actually, it's not really even 95% true. If the infection rate is 4x higher because of those idiots (for example), then it is only 80% true. So those idiots have a substantial impact on my infection risk.

2. Do we really not care about those idiots? I mean, I say I don't care, but I don't really want my fellow humans to die just because they are idiots.

 

[russ_watters]

But CDC should up its masking requirements for unvaccinated people. A cloth mask doesn't protect much, and there may increased transmission from unmasked vaccinated people who are asymptomatic or have only mild symptoms.

What does that even mean? As noted above, a selective mask mandate with no enforcement is no mask mandate. It's more of a mask suggestion.

 

[atyy]

It think it's too late for that because most states (Gov. Gavin Newsom Says California's COVID-19 Mask Mandate To End After June 15) will be dropping mask mandates soon. I think the CDC messaging is designed to make people consider their individual risks if they decide not to get vaccinated by using the old anti-mask/anti-vax logic of individual freedom to chose. Don't want to wear a mask and don't want to lie, get vaccinated. It's your choice to be safe.

My point is that the CDC should say that once there is no mask mandate, even wearing a cloth mask is not safe. So when considering individual risk, unless you wear a surgical mask, you should get vaccinated.

 

[atyy]

1a. Actually, it's not 95% true. If the infection rate is 4x higher because of those idiots (for example), then it is only 80% true. So those idiots have a substantial impact on my infection risk.

Well, a vaccinated person can always choose to wear a mask.

The transmission risk is also increased by vaccinated people who don't wear a mask, since vaccinated people can still get infected and transmit the disease.

 

[russ_watters]

Well, a vaccinated person can always choose to wear a mask.

Choices, choices.

Any choice a vaccinated person makes will be rendered X times less effective due to an X times higher community infection rate. Despite being vaccinated (well...as of today, mostly vaccinated), I'm going to continue wearing a mask at the supermarket for a while, for that reason.

The transmission risk is also increased by vaccinated people who don't wear a mask, since vaccinated people can still get infected and transmit the disease.

True, though while I haven't seen good stats on that risk (I'm not sure there are any), my understanding is the risk is far lower than the vaccinated vs unvaccinated risk. We shouldn't be chasing pennies while losing dollars.

 

[atyy]

True, though while I haven't seen good stats on that risk (I'm not sure there are any), my understanding is the risk is far lower than the vaccinated vs unvaccinated risk. We shouldn't be chasing pennies while losing dollars.

My expectation is that everyone will eventually get it even in the ideal scenarios where there is 100% vaccination in a rich country, because of viral mutations (unless one also maintains closed borders). So the point of vaccination (even at 100% uptake) is not to prevent being infected, but to make the disease mild.

 

[Rive]

Just a short question. Two weeks after vaccination (second dose) is there a way that IgM positive? Can it be 'natural' after vaccination?

 

[collinsmark]

Just a short question. Two weeks after vaccination (second dose) is there a way that IgM positive? Can it be 'natural' after vaccination?

Yes.

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-...tech-vaccine-what-Clinicians-need-to-know.pdf

From slide 31 (boldface mine)

Antibody tests:
– Currently available antibody tests for SARS-CoV-2 assess IgM and/or IgG to spike or
nucleocapsid proteins
– Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine contains mRNA that encodes the spike protein; thus, a
positive test for spike protein IgM/IgG could indicate either prior infection or vaccination
– To evaluate for evidence of prior infection in an individual with a history of Pfizer-BioNTech
COVID-19 vaccination, a test specifically evaluating IgM/IgG to the nucleocapsid protein
should be used

 

[nsaspook]

1. Of course we know that isn't true. Note: I've previously expressed the 'I don't care about you idiots' position on this, but also noted it isn't 100% true, just 95% true, give or take.

1a. Actually, it's not really even 95% true. If the infection rate is 4x higher because of those idiots (for example), then it is only 80% true. So those idiots have a substantial impact on my infection risk.

2. Do we really not care about those idiots? I mean, I say I don't care, but I don't really want my fellow humans to die just because they are idiots.

Idiots are a lost cause to make rational decisions no matter the policy, we shouldn't cater to them with general mandates one way or the other that have a questionable scientific rational for effectiveness. When we all needed masks they didn't care so while I don't want them to die, they shouldn't stop or slow the path to normality for those that followed the rules for more than a year, got the vax and have earned the right to say 'I don't care' what idiots think.

More companies are making their decision.
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/05/17/starbucks-updates-mask-policy-for-vaccinated-customers.html

 

[russ_watters]

Idiots are a lost cause to make rational decisions no matter the policy, we shouldn't cater to them with general mandates one way or the other that have a questionable scientific rational for effectiveness. When we all needed masks they didn't care so while I don't want them to die, they shouldn't stop or slow the path to normality for those that followed the rules for more than a year, got the vax and have earned the right to say 'I don't care' what idiots think.

Unfortunately on the mask part specifically, that doesn't work/follow logically due to the conundrum I've been discussing here for the past few days. Unfortunately we can't have our cake and eat it to on this issue. We either all wear masks or the people who don't want to wear masks but should won't. Yes, it means treating them like toddlers ("see how mommy does it?") and its unfair to us, but it is what it is...

...except of course that we've made the choice to not; we're doing what you say, for the reason you say, even though it isn't going to work. But I do also agree with the "earned the right to say 'I don't care' about them" part. I just don't like that they still can affect my health and freedom*.

That being said, I did go to a grocery store yesterday and while I have no idea what the mask policy was, everyone I encountered was wearing a mask. So it is possible I'm being overly cynical.

*It strikes me as similar to the conundrum on smoking, back when that was a thing. Non-smokers had to choose between going and not going to certain places because the smokers decided the framing of the issue. Everyone has their own choice, but one smoker could change the equation for all non-smokers at a bar. But at least with that dilemma, we knew if we were around smokers.

 

[nsaspook]

Every car on the road can affect your health and freedom. Being vaccinated leaves a residual risk to Coronavirus from the non-vaccinated masked or not. If that unmasked risk is to a level comparable to slower rush hour traffic that's OK for me and IMO will be for most people. Fender-benders will happen but serious injuries are much rarer.

 

[pinball1970]

Yes, I agree with all of that. Herd immunity is a bit of a mis-statement because being vaccinated doesn't truly keep you from getting Covid.

Yes Chile

 

[nsaspook]

OSHA updates COVID-19 workplace policies to CDC guidance.
https://www.osha.gov/coronavirus/safework

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has issued new guidance relating to recommended precautions for people who are fully vaccinated, which is applicable to activities outside of healthcare and a few other environments. OSHA is reviewing the recent CDC guidance and will update our materials on this website accordingly. Until those updates are complete, please refer to the CDC guidance for information on measures appropriate to protect fully vaccinated workers.

 

[Vanadium 50]

What's a vaccination scofflaw?

Someone who doesn't want to be vaccinated.

What sort of evidence would you accept? Can you think of a viable reason reason why the Dose #1 rate would be falling instead of rising? Other than <urgency?

Sure.

1. It's relatively easy to get vaccinated if you live in a city. It's harder if you live in the boonies. You mentioned you had to drive 20 miles. At what point does this become a barrier? Is it reasonable to wait for a slot to open on a Wednesday when you'll be in town anyway? Especially as people who live far away are less likely to have contact with the infected than a New Yorker? It's also more likely that Emily, who is a social media influencer in Manhattan can get a half hour off to get vaccinated than Flo, a waitress in a diner in Pigs Knuckle, Arkansas, can get a couple hours off for a drive to the Big City to get hers.
2. Vaccine availability. You seem to be in an area with high availability. I seem not to be. It's not crazy that vaccines go to higher risk places. (And there are such calculations, although I would probably argue with the details of how this calculation is done)
3. Not wanting J&J. We have people on PF who have said that. If that's all you can get - you wait.

I'm not arguing that we will not reach a point where vaccination rates will not be limited by people who don't want it. I'm not even arguing that it is impossible that we have reaches this point now. I am arguing that we don't have any evidence that this is the driving factor other than "it seems like it should be" or "it agrees with my prior expectations". Neither is evidence.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Of course we know that isn't true.

Of course we do. The CDC could have said something more accurate like "They are putting themselves more at risk than the people around them" but they did not.

When people say "The CDC is lying", well, they are right. And when they ask "why should we believe them on another issue" the reply, "well, they were lying then, but it is for a good cause. We want to encourage good behaviors, after all. But on this other issue, the CDC is telling the absolute gospel truth" is the best that can be done.

 

[.Scott]

What's wrong with these numbers?

Below is a screen shot from Covid Act Now for New Hampshire.

The screen shot was taken after selecting the popup that shows the detail for each of the ten counties - and there are exactly 10 counties in New Hampshire.

Of interest is the "Daily New Cases per 100K".
The value reported for the State (shown to the left of the popup) is 10.2.
One would expect this to be the weighted average (by population) of the counties.
The county populations are shown in light gray under the county name. For example, it reports Hillsborough County as having a population of 420,000.
Notice that the range of "Daily New Cases per 100K" for the counties is 11.4 to 21.3.
So we have a weighted average that is less than the minimum value (?).

 

[collinsmark]

What's wrong with these numbers?

Below is a screen shot from Covid Act Now for New Hampshire.

The screen shot was taken after selecting the popup that shows the detail for each of the ten counties - and there are exactly 10 counties in New Hampshire.

Of interest is the "Daily New Cases per 100K".
The value reported for the State (shown to the left of the popup) is 10.2.
One would expect this to be the weighted average (by population) of the counties.
The county populations are shown in light gray under the county name. For example, it reports Hillsborough County as having a population of 420,000.
Notice that the range of "Daily New Cases per 100K" for the counties is 11.4 to 21.3.
So we have a weighted average that is less than the minimum value (?).

View attachment 283234

Something is definitely wrong. The site claims that "Over the last week, New Hampshire has averaged 139 new confirmed cases per day."

But then when you add up all 10 counties, of their individual claims (e.g., "Over the last week, Hillsborough County, New Hampshire has averaged 63 new confirmed cases per day"),

63
35
18
18
10
13
8
6
6
7
----------
Total: 184

(As of 2021-05-18)

 

[collinsmark]

Something is definitely wrong.

What's wrong with these numbers?

Ok, I've dug into the source data a little, and I don't think the discrepancy is the fault of the Covid Act Now site.

Rather the discrepancy seems to be found in the New York Times raw data, as far as I can tell. (The data files are too big to attach in this post, but here's a link to the data: https://github.com/nytimes/covid-19-data). I haven't double checked the calculation for each and every county, but I have checked the first couple, and it seems consistent with what Covid Act Now is reporting.

The figure from New Hampshire's new confirmed cases seems to come from us-states.csv, while the individual counties seems to come from us-counties-recent.csv. So the discrepancy seems to be a matter of how the New York Times is populating these data (.csv) files.

(Edit: removed edit)

 

[nsaspook]

The official 'interim' mask rules for Oregon. Status will be verified for indoors without masks. So I guess we get to see how that works now as I think Oregon is the only state with this check status requirement for fully vaccinated 'No Mask'.

https://www.opb.org/article/2021/05/18/oregon-health-officials-release-new-rules-for-masks/

The Oregon Health Authority added some clarification Tuesday about new mask rules that were announced last week. As health officials announced last week, people who are fully vaccinated will no longer be required to wear a mask indoors, but officials clarified that only applies in situations where individuals’ vaccination status is checked.
...
All businesses, places of employment, and faith institutions are required to enforce the state’s mask mandate unless they establish a new policy of checking for proof of vaccination status for every individual who enters.

Customers, employees, or congregants who can show proof of vaccination would then be allowed to enter without a mask.

 

[.Scott]

In New Hampshire, not only has COVID resulted in an inability to count, but this infection seems to have spread to other counts.

Earlier today, I posted NH county COVID case numbers with the odd property that the weighted (by population) average of the numbers (hence the State number) yielded a number that was less than any county.

But one town in NH has had another counting problem. After the November election, a State Representative candidate in Windham, NH asked for the towns votes to be recounted. That recount didn't chance the results for that representative, but the recount numbers were very different that the original machine counts. The difference was enough for the NH Legislature to unanimously vote to audit the result (and that's a lot of representatives to find themselves in unanimous agreements).

That audit is about half-way through the data collection phase - where the ballots and the machines are examined and the results recorded.

But an explanation seems to be coming into view. The voting machines are not COVID-tolerant.

The ballots are printed on thick paper - a bit larger than letter size. Depending on the number of candidates, offices, and ballot questions for that particular town and year, there may be anywhere from about 2 to 4 of these sheets.

Normally, when a voter shows up at the polling place, their registration is checked and then they are given a the ballot sheets. They take them to a private booth, mark the ballots, and place them into the voting machine on their way out.

But absentee ballots are a bit different. The ballots are marked by the voter, then folded in three so that the will fit into a standard size envelope. Then they are feed into the voting machines by the voting officials.

Normally, the number of absentee ballots is something like 2%.
Because of COVID, this year it was a lot more.

Because of the placement of the candidates on the ballot
1) The presidential results are not affected.
2) The Governors race may be affected, but there would have been no bias that would have resulted in a change to the winner (Gov. Sununu).
3) The Legislative votes may be very interesting.