With a new COVID variant on the rise, which US states have the most cases?
Some regions of the U.S. are still experiencing higher rates of positive COVID tests than others, though reporting has slowed down enough nationwide that the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) has begun allowing more time to pass between certain types of updates, such as those on variant prevalence.
Testing, cases, hospitalizations and deaths are still being recorded on a weekly basis, however, even amid the chaos of ever-changing strains, recommendations and cuts to vaccine development funding.
Here's what to know about the latest data.
How many COVID cases were reported nationwide?
During the week ending on Aug. 2, 8.5% of the 25,731 Americans tested were positive for COVID, according to the CDC's latest data. This was 2% increase from the week prior.
During the same period, only 0.3% of cases resulted in death and 0.9% resulted in an emergency room visit, a 0.1% decrease from the week prior for both categories.
More: What is an mRNA vaccine, and why is it controversial?
Where are the most COVID cases being reported? See map
Western and southern states, including Washington, Oregon, Idaho, California, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas and Louisiana, had higher percentages of positive COVID tests during the week ending Aug. 2.
What is the most common COVID variant?
The CDC has moved to using longer data timeframes for COVID tracking due to low reporting from states. According to the latest data for the two weeks ending June 21, variant NB.1.8.1 remained the most common, accounting for 43% of cases, followed by LP.8.1 at 31% of cases and XFG at 14%.
NB.1.8.1 experienced a meteoric rise to becoming the predominant variant, accounting for 0% of cases in April and only 10% in the last week of May, up to 24% at the beginning of June and 43% by the end.
XFG, a combination of variants F.7 and LP.8.1.2, is on the rise as of late, having been responsible for 0% of U.S. cases through March, 11% by early June and 14% by late June.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
26 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Gen Z and Millennials Have Differing Views on Ozempic
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Gen Z and millennials have radically different views on GLP-1s like Ozempic and how much they want the weight loss and diabetes drugs regulated, according to a new report from GLP-1 prescription weight loss company Levity. While 40 percent of current and recent GLP-1 (glucagon-like peptide-1) users said the current regulations are fair, 28 percent want fewer rules and 22 percent said there should be more. But in the millennial age group, users tend to want less regulation, while Gen Z leaned toward more. Why It Matters GLP-1s, which are injectable drugs that mimic hormones to reduce blood sugar and promote weight loss, have skyrocketed in popularity in recent years. Popular products, including Ozempic, Mounjaro, Wegovy and Zephound, have been a game changer for many Americans who are obese or have type 2 diabetes. However, stricter FDA rules are now in effect, banning certain compounded GLP-1s and making it more difficult for many Americans to secure the drugs, especially if using it for weight loss reasons. Ozempic is medicine for adults with type 2 diabetes. Ozempic is medicine for adults with type 2 diabetes. Steve Christo - Corbis/Corbis via Getty Images What To Know The Gen Z and millennial response to the stricter FDA rules have been notably different, according to Levity. At 31 percent, millennials were the most likely to favor fewer GLP-1 regulations compared to 19 percent of the group who wanted more. Gen Z, meanwhile, favored stricter rules at 37 percent, while 32 percent wanted fewer. "Millennials are more likely to be prescribed a GLP-1 as compared to Gen Z; therefore, it is not surprising that millennials desire less regulation on these drugs," Richard Frank, MD, MHSA, and chief medical officer at Vida Health, told Newsweek. "Having said that, the regulatory environment surrounding compounded agents, in general, and compounded GLP-1s, specifically, is not as rigorous as it is for branded and generic drugs. Therefore, compounded drugs carry unknown risks that more regulated medications do not." Because semaglutide is no longer on the FDA shortage list, compounding it can carry legal risks. Already, the effects are being felt, as 17 percent of GLP-1 users said it has become harder to get their medication since the FDA tightened rules on compounded semaglutide, Levity reported. There was also a difference in how the generations viewed their use of the drugs. While 75 percent of GLP-1 users believed they'll still be on their treatment plan a year from now, Gen Z was the least likely to think so, at 58 percent. What People Are Saying Board-certified endocrinologist Dr. Caroline Messer told Newsweek: "Millennials, many of whom are now managing midlife weight and metabolic health concerns, may see GLP-1s as a practical tool and want fewer barriers. Gen Z, meanwhile, is generally more wary of long-term unknowns, hence leaning toward more safeguards. Broadly, Americans are divided but lean toward keeping current regulations." Richard Frank, MD, MHSA, and chief medical officer at Vida Health, told Newsweek: "From a business perspective, limiting access to compounded drugs when branded drugs are available protects the drug companies' patents. This protection provides the financial incentive for drug companies to develop innovative new therapies." What Happens Next The long-term effects of GLP-1 medication use are so far unclear. A recent study discovered a new link between taking GLP-1 drugs and elevated risk of pancreatitis and kidney conditions, including kidney stones. And GLP-1 medications have also been associated with a higher risk of digestive problems, including nausea, vomiting, diarrhea and even stomach paralysis in rare cases.
Forbes
28 minutes ago
- Forbes
Rebalancing Pharmaceutical Pricing Without Sacrificing Innovation
Medications are stored on shelves at a pharmacy on May 12, 2025 in Los Angeles, California. (Photo by) Getty Images Two weeks ago, President Trump sent letters to 17 leading pharmaceutical manufacturers, giving them 60 days to propose plans to lower U.S. drug prices to align with the lowest prices offered in other developed nations. This is an opportunity to recalibrate pharmaceutical pricing in a way that brings relief to U.S. consumers, corrects global imbalances and safeguards innovation, a transition the entire healthcare ecosystem must eventually adopt. Most discussions about drug prices focus narrowly on the retail cost patients see at the pharmacy counter, but these are only a fraction of the real economic picture. Trump's directive aims to address a decades-long imbalance: Americans pay significantly more for the same products than consumers abroad, in effect subsidizing both foreign healthcare systems and pharmaceutical profits. The 'most favored nation' concept could give consumers better pricing, but it also raises critical questions about sustaining innovation and ensuring access. By putting pharmaceutical manufacturers on the clock, the administration signals a willingness to use negotiation and policy leverage, similar to its tariff strategy, to change entrenched practices. As I've long argued in previous columns, focusing solely on high drug prices misses the larger problem: healthcare as a whole delivers too little value for what we spend. The need for transparency in both cost and quality, as well as a greater appreciation of outcomes that matter to patients, applies to every sector, from pharmaceuticals to hospital care. Pharma is a practical starting point because public attention is already here, but the real target is an ecosystem-wide business model change. Without a broad value-based framework and a clear vision of how to proceed, reforms will default to piecemeal fixes that merely shift costs from one part of the system to another. Some policymakers have advocated for blunt price caps as a quick solution to escalating drug prices. Experience shows this approach distorts markets, erodes innovation and ultimately harms patients, the topic of one of my past columns. In Europe, where prices are heavily controlled, access to new therapies can be delayed or denied, a cautionary example for the U.S. Innovation is inherently risky: only a fraction of drug candidates ever reach the market, and the returns on successful products fund the failures. Suppressing returns discourages the investment needed for breakthrough discoveries. The goal should be rebalancing—with Europe paying more, the U.S. paying less—not penalizing one of America's most important and competitive industries. The administration has made it clear it is prepared to disrupt the status quo. Disruption is most productive when it's channeled toward structural reform. Pharmaceutical pricing reform can set a precedent for other segments of healthcare—delivery systems, payers and PBMs—where misaligned incentives drive up costs without improving outcomes. Stakeholders should view the 60-day deadline not just as a compliance exercise but as an invitation to propose creative, sustainable models that link payment to measurable results. This is a rare alignment of political will, public attention and market readiness, an environment conducive to bold experimentation. If the industry responds defensively or minimally, the likely result will be more prescriptive regulation and less flexibility to innovate. Conversely, failure to address pricing inequities will keep U.S. consumers shouldering disproportionate costs, fueling political pressure for heavy-handed solutions. Past decades of incremental tweaks have left us with a fragmented, opaque system. The risk now is that we repeat that pattern rather than rethinking the fundamentals. Rebalancing pharmaceutical pricing is not about punishing one sector or enacting price controls. It's about creating a market where cost reflects value, competition rewards innovation and consumers benefit from both affordability and access. Pharmaceutical companies are simply the first to face this scrutiny, but the value conversation must extend to every corner of healthcare delivery. This moment, if met with creativity and commitment, can be a catalyst for systemic change that has eluded us for decades.
Fox News
an hour ago
- Fox News
Record low number of Americans report drinking alcohol, and new teetotalers are explaining why
More Americans than ever are choosing not to drink alcohol, according to a new Gallup Poll. Only 54% of respondents to Gallup's annual Consumption Habits survey conducted last month say they consume alcohol, which is the lowest on record in nearly 90 years. "This coincides with a growing belief among Americans that moderate alcohol consumption is bad for one's health, now the majority view for the first time," Gallup said in a press release. The National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism cites nine body systems impacted by alcohol use. "Current research points to health risks even at low amounts of alcohol consumption, regardless of beverage type," its website says. Those who do drink are drinking less, Gallup reported, averaging about 2.8 drinks a week. Over the past two years, Republicans have reported a sharp drop in drinking habits, but Democrats' percentage has held fairly steady. The highest number of Americans who reported drinking alcohol, at 68 to 71%, were all recorded between 1974 and 1981, Gallup said. Beer is still the "most preferred alcohol," the global analytics and advisory firm said, adding that it "[h]as documented three consecutive years of decline in the U.S. drinking rate as research supporting the 'no amount of alcohol is safe' message mounts." Gallup does not believe the decline in alcohol consumption is caused by people shifting to other mood-altering substances, in particular recreational marijuana, which is not legal in approximately half of the U.S. states.
