COVID-19 infections are growing or likely growing in nearly every U.S. state, according to the latest epidemic modeling from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, with a map of current transmission trends showing almost the entire country colored red for the first time this summer.

As of Aug. 19, 2026, the CDC’s Current Epidemic Trends model estimates that COVID-19 infections are growing or likely growing in 47 states, declining or likely declining in zero states, and not meaningfully changing in just two states, according to the agency’s own published data. That figure builds on an even broader assessment from the prior week; as of Aug. 12, the CDC had estimated infections were growing or likely growing in all 50 states plus the District of Columbia, with Iowa the lone exception due to insufficient data available to generate a trend estimate, according to Newsweek.

The map’s near-total shift toward growth represents a dramatic escalation compared with conditions just a month earlier. On July 22, the CDC estimated infections were growing or likely growing in only 37 states, while 11 states were classified as experiencing stable transmission at that time, according to Newsweek’s earlier reporting on the model. Those 11 pockets of stability have since disappeared entirely from the map, reflecting how quickly the summer wave expanded from a regional phenomenon centered in the South and West into a fully nationwide trend.

The CDC’s model does not attempt to estimate the actual number of Americans currently infected with COVID-19. Instead, it relies on the effective reproduction number, known as Rt, to assess whether transmission is currently trending upward, downward or holding steady in a given location, functioning as one of the agency’s earliest available indicators of shifting disease activity, often flagging emerging trends before they become visible through other, slower-moving surveillance systems such as hospitalization or emergency department data. Newsweek reported that in many states, the CDC’s model now shows a greater than 99% statistical probability that infections are actively increasing.

Large, population-heavy states have been squarely caught up in the current wave. According to Newsweek, states including California, Texas, Florida, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois and Georgia are all showing growth under the CDC’s latest modeling, while broader regional trends spanning much of the Midwest, Northeast, South and Mountain West are reflecting the same pattern of rising transmission.

Andrew Pekosz, a professor of molecular microbiology and immunology at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, told Newsweek the current nationwide surge fits a pattern the country has now experienced for several consecutive years. “This looks like a pattern that has been documented in the past few years. Late summer/early fall surge of COVID cases seems to be part of the expected pattern of COVID-19 cases that we see,” Pekosz said. He characterized the current wave’s pace as measured rather than explosive, drawing on his own recent clinical observations. “Cases are increasing at a relatively steady pace, they aren’t surging dramatically. These are the people I still see in the hospital,” Pekosz said, according to Newsweek’s reporting.

A separate expert quoted by Newsweek in coverage of the trend offered a broader framing of how COVID-19’s current seasonal pattern differs from the earlier years of the pandemic. “We are in the ‘seasonal’ phase and out of the ‘pandemic’ phase,” the professor of immunology said, describing the recurring late-summer uptick as consistent with how the virus is now expected to behave several years removed from its initial global emergence.

Despite the near-total geographic spread of rising transmission shown on the current map, health officials have continued to emphasize that overall disease severity indicators remain comparatively mild relative to earlier phases of the pandemic. The CDC’s broader surveillance data has continued to show relatively low levels of acute respiratory illness prompting medical care nationally, even as the specific trend toward increasing COVID-19 transmission has become nearly universal across the country’s state-level map.

The latest CDC estimates arrive as lawmakers continue to revisit aspects of the federal government’s broader pandemic-era response, according to Newsweek, a backdrop that has added political dimension to ongoing public discussion of how the government tracks and communicates COVID-19 trends nearly six years after the virus first emerged.

The CDC’s Current Epidemic Trends tool also allows users to view transmission estimates at the more localized Health Service Area level, in addition to the standard statewide map, offering a more granular picture of where within individual states transmission may be increasing most sharply. The agency has said it will continue updating both the statewide and localized versions of the map on a rolling basis as new surveillance data becomes available, with the CDC noting that all previous historical estimates remain accessible through its public data portal for those tracking how the current wave has evolved over time.

With nearly the entire country now shaded to indicate growing transmission, and with only a small handful of states, currently just two according to the most recent Aug. 19 update, showing stable rather than increasing spread, public health officials are likely to continue monitoring closely whether the current wave follows the same general trajectory as prior late-summer surges, typically peaking before beginning to recede as autumn approaches, or whether this year’s unusually broad geographic spread signals a somewhat different pattern than the country has experienced in recent COVID-19 seasons.

This story includes information on a virus that can pose greater risk to certain populations, including older adults and people who are immunocompromised. If you are concerned about COVID-19 symptoms, exposure or vaccination options, consult a health care provider for personalized guidance suited to your individual risk factors.

The debate over whether butter or margarine belongs in a healthier kitchen has swung back and forth for decades, with each spread taking turns as the recommended choice as nutrition science evolved. According to registered dietitians, the current answer is more nuanced than a simple verdict in either direction, and largely depends on which specific product you’re comparing and what your individual health needs are.

Butter and margarine may look nearly identical sitting side by side in a grocery store dairy case, but they are made through fundamentally different processes. Butter is a dairy product made by churning cream or milk until the fat separates from the liquid, a technique that has been used for centuries. “Butter is made by churning milk, which separates the fat from the milk. It’s then allowed to stand, which means the fat rises to the top and is then separated from the liquid,” explained Emer Delaney, a registered dietitian and founder of My Private Dietitian. By law, butter must contain at least 80% butterfat, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Margarine, by contrast, is made from blended and emulsified vegetable oils, such as sunflower or soybean oil, rather than dairy. “Margarine is made from blending different vegetable oils such as sunflower or soybean oil, which have been refined and emulsified. It was originally developed as a cheaper, ‘healthier’ alternative to butter,” Delaney said. Margarine ingredients typically include oils such as palm or soybean oil, water and emulsifiers like soy lecithin, and because it is generally plant-based rather than dairy-derived, many margarines can be made vegan.

The nutritional heart of the debate centers on fat composition. Butter is roughly 60% saturated fat, about 30% monounsaturated fat, with the remainder split between polyunsaturated fat and trace amounts of trans fat, according to USDA data. Margarine’s fat profile tends to be more evenly distributed, with monounsaturated, polyunsaturated and saturated fats each making up roughly a third of its total fat content.

That distinction matters significantly for cardiovascular health. Cardiovascular disease remains the leading cause of death in the United States, claiming 919,032 lives in 2023 alone. Because saturated fat can raise LDL, or “bad,” cholesterol, a major risk factor for heart disease, the American Heart Association recommends limiting saturated fat intake to less than 6% of total daily calories. Nutritionist and registered dietitian Amy Goodson of The Sports Nutrition Playbook explained that this is precisely where butter tends to fall short. “Traditional butter contains a substantial amount of saturated fat, which can raise LDL (‘bad’) cholesterol levels when consumed in excess,” Goodson said, adding that saturated fat has also been linked to increased cardiovascular risk and arterial plaque buildup.

Margarine’s comparatively lower saturated fat content has led many dietitians to favor it for heart health specifically, provided the right type is chosen. Johannah Katz, a registered dietitian, offered a clear recommendation on which margarine formulation to look for. “A soft, non-hydrogenated margarine or plant-based spread made with unsaturated oils is generally the better choice for heart health compared with butter,” Katz said. Maryann Walsh, a registered dietitian and president of Walsh Nutrition Consulting, echoed that guidance while emphasizing the importance of avoiding older-style hydrogenated products. “Modern-day soft or liquid margarines made with plant-based oils and without partially hydrogenated oils are reasonable swaps for those wanting a butter substitute with no cholesterol,” Walsh said.

That caveat about hydrogenated oils is critical to understanding margarine’s complicated reputation. Older stick margarines historically relied on partially hydrogenated oils to achieve a solid, butter-like texture, a process that created trans fats, which research has since shown to be even more harmful to cardiovascular health than saturated fat, simultaneously raising LDL cholesterol while lowering HDL, or “good,” cholesterol. In 2018, the Food and Drug Administration banned partially hydrogenated oils from food products, including margarine, specifically to reduce Americans’ exposure to these heart-damaging trans fats. Following that ban, a University of Minnesota School of Public Health analysis found that margarine and butter-blend products now contain substantially less saturated fat and cholesterol compared with butter, and no longer contain any man-made trans fat, a shift that has meaningfully improved margarine’s overall nutritional standing relative to butter in recent years.

Despite that improvement, dietitians caution that not all margarines are created equal, and shoppers still need to check labels carefully. Softer tub and liquid margarines generally contain less saturated fat, fewer calories and less trans fat than harder stick margarines, according to nutrition guidance published by Providence health system. The clear recommendation from that guidance: steer clear of stick margarines in favor of soft tub or liquid varieties, which tend to be formulated with healthier oil blends.

Ultimately, most dietitians agree the “healthier” choice depends heavily on individual circumstances rather than a universal rule. “When it comes to choosing between butter and margarine in terms of what’s healthier, it really depends ‘for whom,’” said Joy Erdile, a registered dietitian and founder of BetterByDesign Nutrition Ltd. “For people who need to limit saturated fat for medical reasons, avoiding butter may be necessary.” For someone managing high cholesterol or existing cardiovascular risk factors, a soft, non-hydrogenated margarine is likely the more heart-conscious option. For someone without those specific medical concerns who values whole, minimally processed foods, occasional butter in moderation may be an entirely reasonable choice.

Despite the ongoing debate, dietitians are consistent on one point: neither spread should be a significant part of anyone’s daily diet. Both butter and margarine are calorie-dense fats meant to be used sparingly as flavor enhancers rather than dietary staples, according to nutrition experts across multiple outlets covering the comparison.

For those looking to sidestep the debate altogether, some dietitians point to alternatives built around healthy plant oils. Cold-pressed olive oil or avocado oil can replace butter or margarine in cooking or drizzling applications, and for a spreadable option, one simple trick offers a middle ground. “For those interested in reducing saturated fat content, simply placing a ramekin of extra virgin olive oil in your refrigerator can be a great way to make your own whole food spread,” one nutrition expert suggested, recommending fresh herbs and garlic for a savory version, or cinnamon and cloves for something sweeter.

Ultimately, the butter-versus-margarine question doesn’t have a single universal winner. For most people without specific medical restrictions, either can fit into a balanced diet in moderation, with the specific choice best guided by individual health needs, cholesterol levels and a preference for minimally processed ingredients over a blanket recommendation favoring one spread over the other.

This article was written by

Follow

Analyst’s Disclosure: I/we have no stock, option or similar derivative position in any of the companies mentioned, and no plans to initiate any such positions within the next 72 hours. I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it (other than from Seeking Alpha). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.

Seeking Alpha’s Disclosure: Past performance is no guarantee of future results. No recommendation or advice is being given as to whether any investment is suitable for a particular investor. Any views or opinions expressed above may not reflect those of Seeking Alpha as a whole. Seeking Alpha is not a licensed securities dealer, broker or US investment adviser or investment bank. Our analysts are third party authors that include both professional investors and individual investors who may not be licensed or certified by any institute or regulatory body.

This article was written by

Follow

Analyst’s Disclosure: I/we have a beneficial long position in the shares of PEYUF either through stock ownership, options, or other derivatives. I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it (other than from Seeking Alpha). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.

Disclaimer: I am not an investment advisor and this is not a recommendation to buy or sell a security. Investors are recommended to read all of the company’s filings and press releases as well as do their own research to determine if the company fits their own investment objectives and risk portfolios.

Seeking Alpha’s Disclosure: Past performance is no guarantee of future results. No recommendation or advice is being given as to whether any investment is suitable for a particular investor. Any views or opinions expressed above may not reflect those of Seeking Alpha as a whole. Seeking Alpha is not a licensed securities dealer, broker or US investment adviser or investment bank. Our analysts are third party authors that include both professional investors and individual investors who may not be licensed or certified by any institute or regulatory body.

This article was written by

Follow

Analyst’s Disclosure: I/we have a beneficial long position in the shares of NIU either through stock ownership, options, or other derivatives. I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it (other than from Seeking Alpha). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.

Seeking Alpha’s Disclosure: Past performance is no guarantee of future results. No recommendation or advice is being given as to whether any investment is suitable for a particular investor. Any views or opinions expressed above may not reflect those of Seeking Alpha as a whole. Seeking Alpha is not a licensed securities dealer, broker or US investment adviser or investment bank. Our analysts are third party authors that include both professional investors and individual investors who may not be licensed or certified by any institute or regulatory body.