For the first time in two months, Virginia has reported three consecutive days with fewer than 3,000 new COVID-19 cases each, and the Northern Virginia region's average has dropped below 1,000 cases a day.

The Virginia Department of Health reported 2,740 new coronavirus cases on Tuesday, following 2,861 on Monday and 2,558 Sunday.  The last time the state had three straight days with fewer than 3,000 cases reported was Dec. 2-4. 

The health department had said it expected Sunday's number to be lower than normal due to a system upgrade over the weekend but that Monday's number would reflect any adjustment.  It was not immediately clear Tuesday morning whether the system upgrade had been completed or whether it might still be affecting the number of cases reported. 

This week's snowfall in some parts of that state may also affect numbers due to offices being closed and testing events canceled. 

Regardless, the state's seven-day average of new COVID-19 cases now stands at 3,864.9, its lowest level since Jan. 1 and well below the peak just over two weeks ago of 6,166.3. 

In Northern Virginia, 647 new cases were reported Tuesday, following 658 on Monday. The region's seven-day average is 915.9, its lowest level since Dec. 20 and also well below its record high of 1,628.4, also set Jan. 18.

Likewise, hospitalizations for treatment of COVID-19 in Virginia have continued to fall in recent days and are down nearly 25% from the high reached on Jan. 13.  As of Tuesday, 2,473 patients were hospitalized for treatment of the virus.  In Northern Virginia, 434 patients were hospitalized for COVID-19 treatment, the fewest since Nov. 28.  

The state reported 43 new deaths related to coronavirus on Tuesday, following 10 new deaths Monday.  Death reports tend to lag behind other indicators, however, due to the time required to process and verify death certificates.

In Northern Virginia, no new deaths were reported Monday but 11 were reported Tuesday. Of those, four were in Fairfax County, two apiece in Arlington, Loudoun and Prince William counties and one in Falls Church. 

Northern Virginia data by locality (Feb. 2, 2021)

SOURCE: Virginia Department of Health

Locality Cases Hospitalizations Deaths
Alexandria 9,528 489 104
Arlington 11,806 732 203
Fairfax 59,960 3,276 788
Fairfax City 434 30 12
Falls Church 296 19 7
Loudoun 20,618 769 183
Manassas 3,737 155 33
Manassas Park 1,073 66 8
Prince William 35,573 1,320 315
Totals 143,025 6,856 1,653
County/City Cases Hospitalizations Deaths
Fredericksburg 1,566 74 14
Spotsylvania 7,282 243 83
Stafford 8,058 274 50
Fauquier 3,513 125 33
Culpeper 3,772 151 34

The Virginia Department of Health's vaccine data showed that as of Tuesday morning the state has administered about 873,000 doses out of more than 1.37 million distributed. Over 130,000 Virginians have now received the requisite two doses for the vaccines to be fully effective, and about 613,000 have received at least one dose. 

The state is now reporting an average of 35,880 doses being administered each day, ahead of Gov. Ralph Northam's short-term goal set three weeks ago of 25,000 per day, although that number could come down as some vaccination clinics had to be canceled this week due to the snow.  

Average test positivity rates both statewide and in Northern Virginia continue to fall from their peaks in early January.   

Seven-day average test positivity rate by health district (Feb. 2, 2021)

SOURCE: Virginia Department of Health

Health District Peak Low Current Trend
Alexandria 40.1% / April 23 3.2% / Oct. 18 7.6% Down
Arlington 42.8% / April 20 2.4% / June 26 7.1% Down
Fairfax 38.6% / April 22 3.3% / Oct. 16 9.4% Down
Loudoun 27.9% / April 28 4.0% / Sept. 30 & Oct. 3 11.6% Down
Prince William 36.7% / April 18 5.4% / Oct. 20 13.5% Down
Rappahannock 19.2% / Jan. 7 3.5% / July 3 15.5% Up
Statewide 20.6% / April 22 4.5% / Sept. 30, Oct. 1,2,12 & 13 11.5% Down


New Cases/Deaths

  • Northern Virginia: 647 new cases, 11 new deaths.   

  • Statewide: 2,740 new cases, 43 new deaths.

  • Statewide Testing: 19,925 PCR diagnostic test results.     

Overall Total

  • Northern Virginia: 143,025 cases, 1,653 deaths  

  • Statewide: 510,380 cases, 6,517 deaths

  • Statewide Testing: 5.28 million PCR diagnostic tests (6.57 million when including antibody and antigen tests)  

  • Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in Children (MIS-C) cases: 16 (including four in Fairfax, three in Prince William, and one apiece in Loudoun and Alexandria). 

*Provided by Virginia Department of Health. The health department's COVID-19 data is updated each morning by 10 a.m. and includes reports by local health agencies before 5 p.m. the previous day.

Statewide Hospital and Nursing Home Data

  • Hospitalizations: 2,473 (up from 2,446 the previous day)

  • Peak Hospitalizations: 3,209 reached Jan. 13

  • Patients in ICU: 493 (up from 478 the previous day)

  • Patients Discharged: 40,673 total

  • Nursing Home Patients: 1,300 (fewest since Dec. 16 and down from 1,357 on Saturday; no report on Sundays or Mondays)  

*Provided by Virginia Hospital and Healthcare Association

For updated national and international COVID-19 data, visit the Johns Hopkins University coronavirus dashboard



See more headlines at Email tips to

(12) comments

Wake Up & Smell The Coffee!

Right on time, just as it had been planned...


Covid testing requirements changed after Biden inauguration. It's hard to to be cynical .

John Dutko

Gonna need a better source than that.

Fang Fang

Says the b00t lickin' Redc0at


John Dutko



How this ? I can supply you with a few dozen more , but I assume you are not stupid and your google works.

John Dutko

This was covered in August:

About the time that Trump was pulling us out of the WHO because he didn't like what they were saying.

So, it is very understandable to see that on Day One, that Biden rejoined the WHO and the Paris Climate Accord and you would expect to see some kind of structure and standard being implemented by which to test by.


"Iwouldntgiveabean " NYtimes ? Gonna need a better source than that.

John Dutko


So tell me, in your own words, what point you are trying to make.

In the Times article, the WHO recognized the fact that there are false positives and false negatives--leading to follow-up tests for better accuracy.

The WHO news item that YOU provided reinforces this thinking:

"WHO guidance Diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2 states that careful interpretation of weak positive results is needed (1). The cycle threshold (Ct) needed to detect virus is inversely proportional to the patient’s viral load. Where test results do not correspond with the clinical presentation, a new specimen should be taken and retested using the same or different NAT technology.

WHO reminds IVD users that disease prevalence alters the predictive value of test results; as disease prevalence decreases, the risk of false positive increases (2). This means that the probability that a person who has a positive result (SARS-CoV-2 detected) is truly infected with SARS-CoV-2 decreases as prevalence decreases, irrespective of the claimed specificity.

Most PCR assays are indicated as an aid for diagnosis, therefore, health care providers must consider any result in combination with timing of sampling, specimen type, assay specifics, clinical observations, patient history, confirmed status of any contacts, and epidemiological information."

This was known in August 2020. The US is rejoining the WHO after Trump initiated a pull-out of the organization. This is not a hard concept.

As for the NYT, it is considered a primary or secondary source. Whatever you linked ain't that.


So all that blithering and and you still have no reliable source to support your assertion ? The NYT is not a reliable source. Therefore if you can produce documentation from WHO establishing that they fully intended to alter their covid testing protocols one hour after the inauguration, let see it. I have shown you proof that it was done as described. Now provide proof to substantiate your assertion that that WHO announced in August 2020 that they would alter their testing 1 hour after inauguration. Note, the election hadn't even been held yet ! I'll wait. I also have reservations regarding your assertion that the "Paris Climate Accords" have anything to do with the subject at hand. However, if you have documentation supporting your assertion that the Paris Climate accords had some role in altering covid 19 testing on January 2021, please provide it.

John Dutko


How can I explain this to you more clearly...

You didn't read the article you linked from the WHO. Here is the pertinent data (located at the top) which was put out to clarify a position that was made on 14 December:

Product type: Nucleic acid testing (NAT) technologies that use polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for detection of SARS-CoV-2

Date: 13 January 2021

WHO-identifier: 2020/5, version 2

Target audience: laboratory professionals and users of IVDs.

Purpose of this notice: clarify information previously provided by WHO. This notice supersedes WHO Information Notice for In Vitro Diagnostic Medical Device (IVD) Users 2020/05 version 1, issued 14 December 2020.

Description of the problem: WHO requests users to follow the instructions for use (IFU) when interpreting results for specimens tested using PCR methodology.

There is no point going back and forth if you do not even look at your own cursory evidence.

Have a nice day and stay safe!

Jimi Weaver

Campaign Life Coalition, a Canadian political lobbying organization, founded LifeSiteNews in 1997. The website was founded with the intent to promote anti-abortion views.

According to Snopes, LifeSiteNews is "a known purveyor of misleading information”.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.