Somehow, and for unknown reasons, the government is lying to the Brits. We are told that the U.K. has at least partially vaccinated about 70% of their population. Yet, new cases are skyrocketing and within days could record its highest ever daily new cases. How can that be happening in the face of this enormous vaccination drive? While substantially less, cases are again on the rise in most other 'EUNA' countries, including the U.S. If vaccinations are so important, why don't they seem to be working?
I have been attempting to spread the word on an important concept. Darwinian selection encourages quickly mutating viruses, such as corona viruses, to become more contagious over time, but simultaneously, less virulent. The reason is simple. First, when there are multiple variants, the most contagious will take over the viral landscape simply by out-reproducing the others. However, virulence is counter-selection. In other words, a variant that makes the patient very sick will also decrease their exposure to others. A very sick person is home, in bed, not out spreading the virus. That is, if they aren’t dead.
This is precisely what we are seeing with the 'Delta variant'. In India, where it originally emerged, because it is very contagious, the primary spike in cases lasted about three months start to finish. Also, while it was very virulent in India, as it spread around the world, it seems to have become much less virulent. While everything, in the real world, is the result of a multivariate distribution, this result is also consistent with the logic of Darwin. However, in the U.K., where vaccination rates are high (~70%) and lockdowns are in full force, the Delta variant does not appear to have a lower R(0) (a measure of how contagious it is) than it had in India. In other words, there is no discernable improvement in the population’s immunity due to vaccination. Yet, the officials are telling the population that the vaccination is effective against the virus, even the Delta variance. There is no statistical evidence for this. However, the death rate is simply not increasing with the increase in infection rate. In other words, the virulence of the Delta variant does seem to be quite low compared to earlier spike.
This raises a very interesting question. At what point does the loss of virulence render COVID-19 of diminished concern, epidemiologically? In other words, the common cold sweeps through populations every year, but it causes almost no deaths. From a public health perspective, nothing is done about it. The seasonal flu also sweeps through the population every year and does cause death in about 0.1% of the cases. Vaccines are created and promoted, but they are not mandatory and no further public health actions are generally taken. In other words, schools and businesses are not closed, masks are not mandated, and vaccination is not compulsory. When will COVID-19 be taken in stride, in a way similar to the seasonal flu? Does the death rate need to fall below that of the seasonal flu? Lower? Not as low? This is a discussion that we need to start having.
Perhaps the vaccination program in the U.K. is not substantially lowering the infection rate but is resulting in the lower death rate. In other words, in the multi-variate real world, some of the lower death rate is due to higher testing rates, some is due to Darwin, some is due to better therapeutics, and some is due to the vaccine. If vaccination does not lower transmission rates, then the argument for mandatory vaccination is removed. Not being vaccinated is a personal risk, but not a public health issue. Mandated mask wearing still makes sense, epidemiologically, but there is a balance that should be struck between public health and personally liberty. For example, it has always been the case that mask wearing probably would lower the infection rate in the seasonal flu and supposedly total deaths, as well. However, it has been deemed to be more important to respect personal liberty. That decision has not been made in the case of COVID. However, is there a reduction in the death rate where the decision should be reversed? This is a discussion that we are not having though it is clearly necessary.