logo
Why COVID 'Razor Blade' Sore Throat Hurts So Bad

Why COVID 'Razor Blade' Sore Throat Hurts So Bad

WebMD4 hours ago

June 26, 2025 – The new COVID-19 variant that now makes up about a third of U.S. COVID cases has a signature symptom: a painful sore throat that feels like "razor blades."
"This 'razor blade sore throat' was reported as a common symptom in China," where the variant first emerged in May, said Matthew S. Kelly, MD, MPH, chief of infectious diseases in the Pediatrics Department at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences. It's also been widely reported in other countries, including the U.S., as the variant has spread worldwide.
Why Does This Sore Throat Hurt So Much?
NB.1.8.1 – or Nimbus – is a subvariant of Omicron, the dominant COVID variant since late 2021. Omicron variants tend to cause more throat problems than the virus's earliest forms.
In the past few years, infectious disease specialist Peter Chin-Hong, MD, has seen more and more COVID patients with sore throats.
"Even before this variant, sore throat has been reported in up to 70% of patients with COVID, and it can be severe," said Chin-Hong, a professor at the University of California, San Francisco.
One possible explanation is that as the virus evolves, our body's response to it changes too.
COVID viruses bind to ACE2 receptors, found on the surface of cells. Cells in the upper airway (nose, throat) have more ACE2 receptors than those in the lower airway and lungs do – making them prime targets for Omicron variants, which bind to these receptors more strongly. Research suggests that of all the variants circulating now, Nimbus binds to ACE2 receptors the most.
Once the virus reaches those cell receptors in and around your throat, your immune system – likely primed by past infections, vaccination, or both – kicks into overdrive to keep the virus at bay. Cue inflammation, fluid buildup, redness, and swelling.
"Symptoms of the sore throat are not from the virus itself," said Chin-Hong. "They are from the inflammatory reaction to the virus."
Another possibility: A COVID sore throat might feel worse today than it did earlier in the pandemic, because the original virus had more severe systemic symptoms, diverting attention from individual ones like a sore throat, said Chin-Hong.
What Works for a Sore Throat?
Anti-inflammatory drugs."[Data shows that] the most effective thing for sore throat is systemic therapy," said Chin-Hong. Think over-the-counter pain relievers such as ibuprofen. If pill swallowing is painful, try a liquid form, he said.
Numbing agents, like throat sprays and lozenges with benzocaine, can be effective for short-term relief. Just don't ignore the package directions because misuse can be dangerous. "You're just trying to dull the pain for a couple of days when it's at its worst," said Kelly.
Menthol lozenges. Menthol affects nerve activity in the throat, causing a mild numbing effect for a short time.
Warm or cold liquids. No high-quality studies exist for these interventions, but many doctors still recommend hot tea and soup, or ice chips and ice pops. "This is sort of where medicine crosses over into: What seems to work for you? What did your mom do?" Kelly said.
Here's what not to do:
Don't beg your doctor for antibiotics. "Viruses are the most common cause of sore throat," said Chin-Hong – and antibiotics only work against bacterial infections. Plus: "Overprescribing antibiotics is bad for the microbiome and for increasing the risk of thrush and yeast infections."
Don't assume steroids are a quick fix. "Sometimes people try to reach for steroids for pain associated with sore throat," said Chin-Hong, but steroids can have an immune-suppressive effect. In one 2025 study, people who took a corticosteroid for mild or moderate COVID had longer-lasting symptoms than those who took a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory instead. They were also more likely to be hospitalized.
Don't apply pressure. You may have seen TikTok influencers touting "throat massage" techniques for a sore throat. Your neck is rich with delicate blood vessels and tissues that can be easily damaged with too much pressure, Kelly said. Leave massaging to trained experts.
What Should You Do if You Have a Sore Throat?
Take an at-home COVID test. (They still work for new variants.) If the test is positive, you can ask your doctor whether you're a candidate for an antiviral medication to help you recover faster. If it's negative, retest in 24 hours to confirm. When throat pain is your only symptom, it can take a few days before nasal swab tests can detect the virus, said Chin-Hong.
Watch for symptoms that get worse, which could mean you have a severe bacterial infection or abscess. See a doctor if:
Throat pain is much worse, compared to other symptoms.
It's the worst sore throat you've ever had.
You notice signs of a throat obstruction, such as hoarseness, drooling, or trouble breathing.
Your doctor might do a throat culture for strep. If it's positive, you'll likely be prescribed antibiotics to keep the infection from spreading. "We want to prevent bad stuff down the road, like heart disease, rheumatic fever, or kidney disease," said Chin-Hong.
Should You Worry About Nimbus?
While U.S. cases are still relatively low, "this could lead to a summer surge or a surge in the next couple of months," said Kelly. Now's a good time to get a booster vaccine, particularly if you're 65 or older or have a chronic medical condition, he said. The COVID vaccines available now were formulated to target Omicron variants.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

In unanimous decision, Supreme Court makes it easier for students with disabilities to sue schools
In unanimous decision, Supreme Court makes it easier for students with disabilities to sue schools

Yahoo

timean hour ago

  • Yahoo

In unanimous decision, Supreme Court makes it easier for students with disabilities to sue schools

WASHINGTON − A unanimous Supreme Court on June 12 made it easier for families to use the Americans with Disabilities Act to sue schools for damages, ruling a lower court used too tough a standard to dismiss a lawsuit from a student with a rare form of epilepsy. Writing for the court, Chief Justice John Roberts said the student's family did not have to show the school acted in 'bad faith or gross misjudgment." That's more difficult to prove than the 'deliberate indifference' standard courts often use when weighing other types of disability discrimination claims. The court also rejected an argument from the school that would have raised the bar for all victims of disability discrimination rather than lowered it for educational instruction claims. The case, A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools, was closely watched by disability rights groups. They say the courts have created a 'nearly insurmountable barrier' for schoolchildren and their families. But schools across the country worry that making lawsuits easier to win will create a more adversarial relationship between parents and schools in the difficult negotiations needed to balance a student's needs with a school's limited resources. In this case, Gina and Aaron Tharpe said they spent years asking Osseo Area School District to accommodate their daughter's severe cognitive impairment and rare form of epilepsy called Lennox-Gastaut Syndrome. Her seizures are so frequent in the morning that she can't attend school before noon. A previous school in Tennessee shifted Ava's school day so it started in the afternoon and ended with evening instruction at home. But the Tharpes say the Minnesota school system, where she is currently enrolled, refused to provide the same adjustment. As a result, she received only 4.25 hours of instruction a day, about two-thirds of what nondisabled students received. When the Tharpes sued under the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, lower courts dismissed the case. More: For students with disabilities, what's the difference between IEPs and 504 plans? Judges on the St. Louis-based 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said their hands were tied because of a 1982 circuit decision – Monahan v. Nebraska − that said school officials need to have acted with 'bad faith or gross misjudgment' for suits to go forward involving educational services for children with disabilities. The Tharpes 'may have established a genuine dispute about whether the district was negligent or even deliberately indifferent, but under Monahan, that's just not enough,' the appeals court said. More: Will a Texas-led legal fight over gender dysphoria threaten disabled student protections? Hundreds of district court decisions across the country have been litigated under that standard, with most of them ending in a loss for the families, according to the Tharpes' attorneys. The Justice Department backed the Tharpes' argument that there should not be a different standard for disability discrimination cases involving education. The school district's attorneys pushed the court to apply a tougher standard for all cases rather than lower the bar for cases like Ava's. But because the school district didn't make that argument until after the court agreed to take the case, the justices said they could not consider it. 'We will not entertain the District's invitation to inject into this case significant issues that have not been fully presented,' Roberts wrote for the court. Two justices said the school district raised an important issue that the court should consider in a future case. 'Whether federal courts are applying the correct legal standard is an issue of national importance, and the District has raised serious arguments that the prevailing standards are incorrect,' Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in a concurring opinion that was joined by Justice Brett Kavanaugh. 'That these issues are consequential is all the more reason to wait for a case in which they are squarely before us and we have the benefit of adversarial briefing.' Ava's lawyers had warned that the school's argument threatened 'to eviscerate protections for every American who endures disability discrimination – and quite possibly other kinds of discrimination too.' Roman Martinez, who represented the Tharpes, said the court's decision "gets the law exactly right, and it will help protect the reasonable accommodations needed to ensure equal opportunity for all." 'We are thrilled for Ava and her family," Martinez said in a statement. The court's action revives, but does not settle, the Tharpes' lawsuit. Attorneys for the district said the school had not shown 'deliberate indifference," the lower standard. Although the school declined to provide after-school support at Ava's home, officials said they offered other measures to accommodate her needs while 'effectively utilizing scarce resources shared among all students, including others with disabilities.' This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Supreme Court makes it easier to sue schools in disability cases

New Heart Risk Tool Reveals Hidden Ethnic Patterns
New Heart Risk Tool Reveals Hidden Ethnic Patterns

Medscape

timean hour ago

  • Medscape

New Heart Risk Tool Reveals Hidden Ethnic Patterns

TOPLINE: The American Heart Association's Predicting Risk of Cardiovascular Disease Events (PREVENT) equations successfully identified the risk for heart problems in a group of 361,778 ethnically diverse patients. Over a mean follow-up of 8.1 years, researchers observed 22,648 cardiovascular events, with the equations showing modest variation in performance across disaggregated ethnic subgroups. METHODOLOGY: The retrospective cohort study analyzed 361,778 primary care patients aged 30-79 years across the Sutter Health system in Northern California from January 2010 to September 2023, with participants requiring at least two primary care visits during the study period. Participants were required to have several baseline data points for the PREVENT equations to evaluate, including non-high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol, systolic blood pressure, BMI, estimated glomerular filtration rate, diabetes status, and smoking status, all while being free of cardiovascular disease (CVD). Primary outcomes included identifying CVD events, defined as total CVD, atherosclerotic CVD, and heart failure, using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth and Tenth Revision codes, with a mean follow-up duration of 8.1 years. TAKEAWAY: Among Asian populations, C statistics for total CVD ranged from a C statistic of 0.79 (95% CI, 0.77-0.81) in Filipino patients to a C statistic of 0.85 (95% CI, 0.83-0.87) in Asian Indian patients, with calibration slopes generally under 1.0, except for Asian Indian participants. Hispanic subgroups showed consistent C statistics — a measure of how well a model distinguishes between two groups — between 0.80 and 0.82 for total CVD and good predictive performance. The PREVENT equations outperformed the pooled cohort equations for predicting atherosclerotic CVD across all racial and ethnic groups and subgroups. The researchers observed small differences in the performance of PREVENT equations for atherosclerotic CVD and heart failure among racial and ethnic groups and subgroups. IN PRACTICE: 'Our results show that PREVENT equations performed well in this study cohort and similarly to the original equation development and validation cohort on the discrimination measure,' the researchers reported. 'In particular, the performance was slightly better in discriminating CVD events for Asian and Hispanic participants compared to Black or White participants in the study population. The equations slightly overestimated CVD risk for all three CVD event types in Asian and most Asian subgroups and accurately predicted CVD events among Hispanic and disaggregated Hispanic subgroups.' 'As the burden of CVD and its risk factors is forecasted to increase in the coming decades alongside rapid growth of the Asian and Hispanic populations in the US, the imperative for equitable clinical CVD prevention is more urgent than ever,' wrote Nilay S. Shah, MD, MPH, of Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, in Chicago, in an editorial accompanying the journal article. 'Although best practices for clinical implementation of the PREVENT cardiovascular disease risk prediction models should be further investigated, [the new study shows] that the PREVENT equations are an important step forward for Asian and Hispanic communities that until now were unseen in CVD prevention recommendations.' SOURCE: The study was led by Xiaowei Yan, PhD, MS, MPH, of the Center for Health Systems Research at Sutter Health in Walnut Creek, California. It was published online on June 25 in JAMA Cardiology. LIMITATIONS: Despite disaggregation of Asian and Hispanic subgroups, the researchers were unable to fully examine other disaggregated groups due to small sample sizes. As a study based on data from a healthcare system, the population may be biased toward less healthy individuals compared to the general population. Almost half of eligible patients had incomplete data and were excluded from the analysis, potentially introducing selection bias. DISCLOSURES: The study received funding from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; the American Heart Association/Harold Amos Medical Faculty Development program; and the Doris Duke Foundation, as well as consulting fees from multiple organizations including Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Esperion Therapeutics, and others. This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store