Three years since Covid-19 shut down America, the disease’s future course is still unknown.

Researchers from the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington have mapped out some scenarios that weigh vaccine uptake, fading protection and antiviral use, among other factors, to project what we can expect across the globe through the end of June.

The takeaway: A lot depends on the next variant.

If the next strain is like mid-2021’s Delta variant, according to the researchers, it would cause more deaths than if the virus stabilizes or the next variant is more like Omicron, which took hold later in 2021.

A hybrid “DeltaCron” variant, though extremely unlikely in their view, would cause about 13 million more deaths and 17 million more hospitalizations than an Omicron-like variant.

Sigh of relief: “All but the most pessimistic forecasts” don’t foresee a “massive global surge” before the end of June.

Even so: “Given the uncertainty surrounding what type of variant will next emerge, the world would be wise to remain vigilant in 2023 as we move to the next phase of the COVID-19 pandemic,” the researchers wrote.

Their analysis is still awaiting peer review.

This is where we explore the ideas and innovators shaping health care.

The pandemic brought an increase in UFO sightings, according to a new study, but it didn’t have to do with Covid. The study in the Journal of Scientific Exploration by researchers from the University of Vermont and the Center for UFO Studies said it may have to do with Elon Musk: his Starlink satellites began launching in 2019, which some may mistake for UFOs.

Share any thoughts, news, tips and feedback with Ben Leonard at [email protected], Ruth Reader at [email protected], Carmen Paun at [email protected] or Erin Schumaker at [email protected].

Send tips securely through SecureDrop, Signal, Telegram or WhatsApp.

Today on our Pulse Check podcast, host Katherine Ellen Foley talks with Megan Messerly about the states where GOP lawmakers are making a play to head off abortion ballot measures by using bills that make it harder for voters to undo the abortion restrictions that lawmakers put in place after 50 years under Roe v. Wade.

Blood could hold the key to understanding and treating mental illness.

That’s the premise behind research at the University of Indiana’s medical school, where scientists have crafted a blood test they think could help diagnose and treat anxiety, as well as prevent it.

How they did it: The researchers examined the characteristics of the blood of people with anxiety and were able to identify genes and differences in how the genes functioned, which served as biomarkers.

Those can then be used to match up treatments that work best for patients with those biomarkers.

What’s next: Indianapolis startup MindX Sciences is working to commercialize the test.

Alexander Niculescu, a professor of psychiatry at the school, is attempting to get insurers and Medicare to reimburse for the tests. He told Ben blood testing will reduce costs in the long term by helping doctors target treatments and avoid trial and error.

“The case we will make to payers is that while these tests are expensive, they’re based on whole genome sequencing technology, and there are comparable tests in cancer that are being covered,” Niculescu said. “Mental health should have parity.”

Since the tests don’t make diagnostic claims, Niculescu said they don’t need FDA approval but he could seek it in the future, nonetheless, to differentiate his test from competitors’.

Digital breast tomosynthesis, also known as 3D mammography, is slightly more effective than standard mammograms at detecting breast cancer, according to a new, large study from a University of Pennsylvania radiologist and other scientists.

Previous research has shown that the 3D test is particularly better for women between 40 and 69 and those with dense breast tissue.

The research, published in the journal Radiology, examined outcomes of more than 2.5 million mammograms in women between ages 40 and 79 screened with either standard 2D mammograms or digital breast tomosynthesis.

It found:

– 3D mammography had lower rates of false positives and detected cancer in 5.3 per 1,000 patients.

– 2D mammography detected malignancies diagnosed as cancer among 4.5 in 1,000 patients.

More research is needed to determine the impact of different types of screening on mortality, Emily Conant, the study’s lead author and breast imaging division chief at Penn Medicine, told Ben.

Transparency mandate: Earlier this month, the FDA ordered mammography facilities to notify women of their breast density and inform them that standard mammography could miss cancer in dense breasts. About half of all women over 40 have dense breasts.

Cost concerns: Nonetheless, many women with dense breasts are billed for extra testing because Obamacare doesn’t mandate insurers cover additional breast cancer screening as preventive. Some state laws do.