The 'Efficacy' of Contact-tracing and Vaccines

     (illustration: saurabh singh)

Contact-tracing 

Contact-tracing has a very low efficacy rate when it comes to preventing a epidemic because it only traces conscious contacts, or contacts one is aware of. 

It does not trace unwitting contacts whom have contact with others through sitting at the same table, using the same escalator, using the same tap, holding the bars on the back of seats in buses, etc. 

So unless a virus is transmitted only through prolonged face-to-face interaction, it is pretty much as efficacious as a rabbit's foot in the long-run.

Contact-tracing, however, has the benefit of slowing down viral transmission, not eradicating it. That slows down the demands on medical facilities and should be implemented in the narrow window when one first gets wind of the virus, provided this is paired with other measures like physical-distancing, closing of borders, staying home, etc.  If not, Contact-tracing in itself becomes a case of holding back the tide with a broom.  That is because viruses spread exponentially, and far more than that actually.  

For instance, in some countries, home food delivery is widely practiced, and the person delivering the food is an 'exponential satellite', transmitting any virus he picks up to everyone he delivers to, picks up the food from, onto doorbells, the bag he uses to transport food, etc.  And that applies to food sellers exchanging money with numerous people, packing their food, etc.  If a contact-traced person comes into contact with one of these,  she works have passed it on through them, to numerous people.  And this is just one source of exponential transmission out of many, like postpersons, those who deliver leaflets, etc, etc, many of whom were still operating through lockdowns.

Think about the chinese emperor who suspected an official of plotting against him.  He killed that official, his family, relatives, friends, etc, etc, till more than a 100 000 died.  That's what I'm talking about with reference to 'exponential satellites'.  And this is all the more so if lockdowns and such come late.   And plausibly, when the first hospitalisations begin, it is already too late to hope that Contact-tracing is going to stop an epidemic, because such cases may just be those whom have reacted the worse to the virus, NOT those whom have been infected and are mildly symptomatic or asymptomatic.  And that is especially the case with a virus that doesn't severely affect everyone, or most people.

Contact-tracing as a False-positive

Contact-tracing, has a tendency to be a false-positive in itself in terms of the effectiveness of Contact-tracing being deemed to be the reason why infection rates might be low.   It can be highly likely that people are largely mildly symptomatic or asymptomatic. 

It is the failure to consider this plausible scenario, and especially where other measures have not been simultaneously implemented, that leads to decisions later that is based on the notion that,

1.  government measures are effective;

2.  most haven't already got the virus,

3. and to not be infected, everyone should vaccinate. 


One false assumption thus leads to a whole host of false assumptions upon which more decisions are made, and others in the world hold them up to be fine examples of epidemic-resistance and emulate such measures.  That just internationalises mistaken perceptions.  

No consideration is paid to the possibility that there may be a whole range of other reasons that are keeping the population mildly symptomatic or asymptomatic and thus keeping reported infection rates low, such as culturally-induced immunity through foods, other practices, genetic factors. etc.  So instead of study these, they just adopt their epidemic-resistajce strategies such as their Contact-tracing and other strategies.  And if identified infections still go up, blame is assigned elsewhere, and nobody asks of there was something else that was keeping identified infection down, instead of Contact-tracing and other social strategies.

Contact-tracing must be appreciated for what it is, and not what we would like it to be.

That is, a strategy to slow down the spread of a virus, NOT eradicate its spread, so as to buy time to get all resources ready for an epidemic, and slow down hospitalisation.  To assume it actually stops epidemics, WITHOUT proof of testing the entire population, just gives rise to the myth that most aren't already infected, haven't been infected in the past, and if they are alright, that is because they have never been infected.  These are utterly baseless assumptions that will remain so till mass testing is done for antibodies. 

That leads to greater paranoia, undue urgency for an experimental vaccine, failure to consider other factors (culinary, lifestyle, genetic, etc) that could be reducing the impact of the virus and which could be a lesson for others, and leads people to think that fatalities are higher than it is because of the false assumption that reported infections are the only ones whom are infected and not possibly the whole nation, region, or planet.

This is what I've been saying from the very beginning when Contact-tracing was first implemented globally.  For this to NOT be realised till today indicates a serious flaw in official and public perception that will surely impact negatively on the production of the best possible approaches and solutions to this situation.

Vaccine Efficacy?

Up till today, generally, people are not tested before, or as a precondition, for vaccination, and hence, it further forwards the notion that the vaccine works.  And if cases are less severe, again, the vaccine is held up as the reason for reduced severity, just like Contact-tracing, ir even lockdowns, were held up as the reason for low identified infection rates.

One can't say with certainty that it isn't the vaccine working in tandem with naturally-acquired immunity that might be seeing reduced severity amongst the vaccinated.  One can't say with certainty that more unvaccinated being hospitalised might just mean that it is their first-time infection, or their specific immune system is compromised to the point that either naturally-acquired immunity or the vaccine might not have had much effect on them. One can't say with certainty naturally-acquired immunity will not outlast mrna-induced immunity.  

And one can't say with certainty, as has been proven time and again, that mrna-induced immunity will not come with immediate or delayed adverse reactions.  Naturally-acquired immunity does not come with such risks.  The only major and certainly noteworthy risk of intending a natural acquisition of immunity comes with not being able to acquire it naturally, and which can then most certainly lead to adverse reactions or death to a small percentage.  

It is all of the above information that has to go into the consideration of the efficacy of the vaccine, and again, die to its uncertainties, is why it has to be voluntary. 

So, when we talk about the 'efficacy' of vaccines, we cannot rule out adverse reactions, both long and short-term, which is still quite unknown or unacknowledged, as opposed to natural immunity that comes with none of these.   That is not to say one shouldn't get vaccinated, but that these reasons are enough to make it voluntary.  

The 'efficacy' of anything is dependent not only on its benefits, but on its costs - just like one can't tabulate the efficacy of the means of ones prosperity without factoring in consequential liabilities, and cost of not going with alternative means of prosperity.  And in the case of a vaccine released under an Emergency Use Authorization, and employed on a global scale on different genetically-composed peoples, the claimed benefits are to a significant degree compromised by its possible immediate and delayed risks.  

If anything, the overstatement of the efficacy of Contact-tracing has largely served to overstate the efficacy of most of the measures implemented and promoted, and the reliability of all its proponents, thereafter.

edX

#covid #covid19