A Look Back At How America’s Covid Response Failed

Do you remember the days of 2020? Do you remember the uncertainty, the anxiety, and the constantly changing advice? Do you remember waking up every day, checking the news hoping for something better, but just seeing bad news after bad news? Perhaps, one of the most disheartening aspects of it was the expectations of scientists vs. what actually happened. At every turn, the virus proved more mysterious, complex, and unpredictable than what was anticipated. Every time, we thought that it was over and that we could declare mission accomplished, there was always something unexpected waiting for us. Taking a look back at some of these different moments during the Pandemic, my hope is to depict how the virus surprised us at every turn, and the lessons that we can take away for the next major Infectious Disease Outbreak.

The first surprise that the virus threw at us was that the majority of us believed that our vaccines produced something known as sterilizing immunity. This was the ideal scenario because it meant that not only did the vaccine reduce the incidence of symptomatic and severe disease. However, it also reduced the incidence of infection and how frequently it was transmitted. This meant that, even if someone could not or chose not to get vaccinated, they would effectively be protected because the people around them could not spread the infection. This would decrease the overall community burden of Covid, along with the number of hospitalizations and deaths. Initially, it seemed like our vaccines had the potential to do this. For instance, there were studies in early 2021 showing that “The Pfizer vaccine reduced asymptomatic cases by 89.4%, and symptomatic cases by 93.7%”(Israeli Studies find Pfizer Covid-19 Vaccine reduces transmission). Similarly, many Israeli studies in the early part of 2021 observed the phenomenon that “Vaccines reduced the viral load in the respiratory tract of infected individuals, compared to unvaccinated people who were infected”(Israeli Studies find Pfizer Covid-19 Vaccine reduces transmission). Additionally, as Israel and the United States begun vaccinating their population, cases dramatically decreased. For instance, from January to May, Covid cases in Israel decreased from “1000 million per day to less than 3 per million”(What pushed Israel out of herd immunity? Modeling Covid-19 Spread of Delta and Waning Immunity). Unfortunately, these early signs of optimism were misplaced, and it clouded our judgement and took our eyes off the ball for the challenges that were about to come next.

Around the same time that the incidence of Covid was decreasing in first world countries like the US, Israel, and the UK, the situation was extremely dire in India. In India, the number of infections were significantly increasing, along with the number of hospitalizations and deaths. The cause was not known yet, at the time. However, in April 2021 in India, “56-65-year-olds were spending an average of 13 days in the hospital”(Covid-19 Mortality in the Delta Wave in India: A Hospital-Based Study from Ramanagara District, Karnataka). Additionally, “77-84.62% of individuals in hospitals were completely out of breath, and WBC count was significantly elevated in over 40% of cases”(Covid-19 Mortality in the Delta Wave in India: A Hospital-Based Study from Ramanagara District, Karnataka).  In other words, there were early indications that there was something going on in India that was causing the pathogenicity of Covid to increase, and a significant number of people to get Covid to become seriously ill. To some extent, it was even more than what was seen during the initial Covid wave in New York or during the 2020 winter Covid wave in the United States. This was corroborated by the number of individuals “…needing significant levels of Oxygen”(Covid-19 Mortality in the Delta Wave in India: A Hospital-Based Study from Ramanagara District, Karnataka). Perhaps the largest red flag and warning sign in this situation should have been the fact that most of the population in India had already been infected, and supposedly developed immunity. According to some studies, “55% of India’s population may have been infected by January 2021″(India says it contains spread of COVID-19, no new cases in fifth of country). This only further proves that a new, pathogenic variant that was clearly immune-evasive, and especially adept at penetrating immunity induced by natural infection had arisen and would prove a significant threat to the United States, where so many people had still not been vaccinated. Indeed, the story of what happened in India repeated almost exactly in the United States 2-3 months later.

So, America experienced the catastrophic effects of the Delta variant surge and then believed that everything was over. Surely there was enough immunity in America, so everything would be okay now, right? Unfortunately, the virus was still not done with us. Not only did our cases end up at a higher baseline than they were prior to the Delta surge. However, we then had a new variant arise in South Africa, which was good at evading all the immunity obtained from the Delta Variant, and previous variants. Specifically, “The reinfection rate of individuals who had been infected by other variants was up to 56% according to studies done by Qatar”(Protection against the Omicron Variant from Previous SARS-CoV-2 Infection). On the bright side, there were some positives on the horizon, though. The variant seemed to induce clinically milder symptoms and may have carried a lower risk of Long Covid. The variant also seemed to confer stronger protection to previous variants, suggesting that it was favored to be the dominant variant. For instance, studies showed that after having the Delta Variant, “Many individuals had a 6-fold increase in neutralization ability/capacity”(Omicron infection enhances Delta antibody immunity in vaccinated persons). This was unique to the Omicron variant, as other variants did not appear to provide such a broad immune response, especially to variants that were so dissimilar to it. This raised the hope that Omicron could signal a start to a more stable state with Covid because Omicron would be able to block reinfection, and infection, even if Covid experienced a significant number of mutations. Plus, the lower pathogenicity of Omicron would give it a survival advantage across populations, given that it would be less likely to kill its hosts. All that being said, while this prediction turned out to be somewhat true and the pandemic has remained stable after that point, with deaths and hospitalizations staying relatively stable in the US (albeit at a high level), and all subvariants being offshoots of Omicron, the 2021 winter Omicron wave caused a high rate of hospitalizations, deaths, and cases, even if it induced immunity in the process. 

So you might be wondering, what exactly was the point of going down memory lane with Covid? What was the point of discussing all these events? What I hope that you gleamed from this article is that while the Covid-19 Pandemic had an end of sorts, and while we appear to be out of the unstable, uncertain phase of the Pandemic now, America’s response fell quite short in many ways. Any future Pandemics could be made worse, and if we do not focus on how to significantly improve our response, the level of suffering that we undergo then could be made way worse. For one, we needed to be way more proactive, not reactive. We needed to stop hoping that Covid would end by itself, and we needed to actually take the steps to end it. We needed to tightly restrict travel from other countries and put a lot of security measures in place to prevent variants from coming to our country. Similarly, we needed to distribute the vaccine much more equitably and put a much more all hands-on deck effort in getting the world vaccinated by early 2022. It would not have been easy, but it could have been done. Additionally, we needed to keep slight restrictions in place until the world was vaccinated, like having a Federal Mask Mandate to keep cases as low as possible, while vaccinating the world. Finally, with the level of genomic analysis that we have available in today’s day and age, we should have worked on predicting worst case mutations that Covid-19 could undergo and created backup vaccine formulas based on those mutations to have immediately ready the second that we heard of these new variants. All of that would have minimized the level of hospitalizations, deaths, and disruption that society had to undergo throughout this pandemic. So, if nothing else, I hope you as a reader takeaway one point from this article: We needed to do way better in our response, and we are lucky that this was not way worse than it already was!

Sources:

Lubell, Maayan. “Israeli Studies Find Pfizer COVID-19 Vaccine Reduces Transmission.” Reuters, Thomson Reuters, 19 Feb. 2021, www.reuters.com/article/health-coronavirus-israel-vaccine-int/israeli-studies-find-pfizer-covid-19-vaccine-reduces-transmission-idUSKBN2AJ08J/.

De-Leon, Hilla, and Dvir Aran. “What pushed Israel out of herd immunity? modeling covid-19 spread of Delta and waning immunity.” medRxiv, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.09.12.21263451.

Mukhopadhyay, Amita, et al. “Covid-19 mortality in the Delta Wave in India: A hospital-based study from Ramanagara District, Karnataka.” Cureus, 2023, https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.43678.

Das, Krishna N. “India Says It Contains Spread of Covid-19, No New Cases in Fifth of Country.” Reuters, Thomson Reuters, 28 Jan. 2021, www.reuters.com/world/india/india-says-it-contains-spread-covid-19-no-new-cases-fifth-country-2021-01-28/.

Altarawneh, Heba N., et al. “Protection against the Omicron variant from previous SARS-COV-2 infection.” New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 386, no. 13, 2022, pp. 1288–1290, https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmc2200133.

Khan, Khadija, et al. “Omicron infection enhances Delta antibody immunity in vaccinated persons.” Nature, vol. 607, no. 7918, 2022, pp. 356–359, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-04830-x.

 

 

 

 

Your journey starts here! Let’s talk!

ThemeRex © 2026. All rights reserved.
  Timothy Durham was convicted of rape when a test showed his DNA genotype matched the DNA recovered from the crime scene. Eye witnesses testified that Durham was in a different state at the time of the incident, but he wasn’t exonerated from his 3000 year sentence until follow up DNA analysis showed that the preliminary forensic analysis used in the trial was misinterpreted (Thomas et al.). DNA testing serves an invaluable part in our criminal justice system, but it comes with complications and bias that can lead to wrongful convictions and misinformed juries.  

Background:

Forensic genetics aims to identify the origin of a biological sample. It can be traced back to Karl Landsteiner who discovered human ABO blood groups. With blood groups, suspects could be eliminated based on their blood type. For example, if a suspect had type A blood and there was type B blood left at the scene by the perpetrator, the investigators could rule out the suspect. Unfortunately, the reverse didn’t work. If the suspect and perpetrator both had the same blood type, it can’t be concluded that the suspect was guilty. Blood identifiers evolved into 8 distinct categories which improved the ability to eliminate suspects, but could only conclude that (if the system matched) it might be the perpetrator or this person might be related to the perpetrator (Jobling and Gill). The field evolved in the 1980s with the discovery of Minisatellites, lines of repetitive DNA that don’t encode proteins. Minisatellite patterns in DNA create what we know today as the DNA fingerprint, and it has a much higher accuracy rate than previous methods (Augustyn et al.). Around the same time, a breakthrough for victims of sexual assault was discovered. In the case of assault, bodily fluids of both the victim and the assaulter can get mixed. A process called differential lysis was created which could selectively increase the concentration of sperm in a fluid sample thereby allowing for accurate DNA testing (Jobling and Gill). Forensics evolved to use single-locus probe testing after several years because of its ease of interpretation. It looked at specific minisatellites that had high variability between subjects. This was the first DNA-based method to be used in a criminal investigation. Two murder homicides from several years apart were connected using DNA evidence. The evidence was then used to exonerate an innocent man, and the guilty party was found when he tried to evade mandatory DNA testing for all men in the small town. His guilt was then reinforced when the DNA profiles matched, and he gave a confession (Jobling and Gill). Finding DNA at a crime scene doesn’t guarantee that you’ll find a murderer. There are issues with non-pure samples and limited samples that make DNA work difficult, and accreditation of facilities and new techniques and take time (Jobling and Gill).  

Subjectivity of DNA Interpretation:

In a 2009 publication, the National Academy of Science discusses the possibility for subjective influence in lab based forensics. The interpretation bias happens in complex cases where, for example, there could be a mixture of DNA. A study published in 2011 looked specifically at this issue. A gang rape happened in Georgia, and the mixture in DNA from the case was used to prosecute one suspect after another suspect took a plea bargain to testify against him. With DNA mixtures, there are three possible conclusions: suspect excluded, suspect cannot be excluded, and inconclusive. If the suspect is excluded, it means that there’s little to no possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. If the suspect cannot be excluded, it means that there’s a possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. In the trial, the DNA examiners who knew the context of the case concluded that the suspect being prosecuted could not be excluded. The 2011 study gave the DNA evidence from this case and the DNA profiles of the suspects to 17 forensic examiners. These examiners had no context of the case, and they all worked independently. Of the 17, only 1 came to the same conclusion (suspect cannot be excluded) as the examiners who knew the context of the case. Twelve of the 17 concluded that the suspect who was prosecuted and convicted had no relation to the DNA found in the sample. Not only does this show that subjectivity occurs due to the context of the case, but the 17 examiners came up with different findings based on their past experiences meaning that not all DNA analysis is objective. Some organizations like the Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods say that quantitative statistical evidence should be presented with every categorical conclusion, but the US doesn’t require this (Dror and Hampikian).

False Positives:

There are two categories that cause wrongful identification in a DNA report: coincidental matches and false positives. Coincidental matches are DNA matches between two unrelated people. The probability of these matches is about 1 to 500,000 for white individuals and about 1 to 350,000 for black individuals. This small probability of coincidental matches makes people feel confident in DNA evidence. False positives, on the other hand, are matches between DNA and test DNA that result from issues in the forensics lab. There have been multiple cases of forensics labs accidentally switching victim and suspected rapist DNA which lead to convictions that were later overturned when the lab realized the error. There are also cases of misreading or misunderstanding a sample. In a case from 1993, a man was convicted of rape because someone interpreted a mixed sample of victim and perpetrator DNA as an individual sample. The conviction was again overturned. To prevent false convictions, retesting DNA is allowed, but it’s not an efficient solution. Many people are pushing for statistical information on the probability of false positives, so that the jurors can make accurate judgements based on DNA evidence (Thomas et al.).  

Conclusion:

DNA analysis is a useful tool for the criminal justice system, but subjectivity can be an issue in forensic testing. To combat wrongful convictions, there are organizations like The Innocence Project who use DNA testing to free the innocent, but reformed forensic testing standards should be put in place to prevent subjectivity and to ensure juries are correctly informed during trials. https://www.innocenceproject.org/    

Citation:

Augustyn , Adam, et al. “DNA Finerprinting.” Encyclopedia Britannica , 26 Apr. 2018, www.britannica.com/science/DNA-fingerprinting#ref153186. Dror, Itiel E., and Greg Hampikian. “Subjectivity and Bias in Forensic DNA Mixture Interpretation.” Science & Justice, vol. 51, no. 4, 2011, pp. 204–208., doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2011.08.004. Jobling, Mark A., and Peter Gill. “Encoded Evidence: DNA in Forensic Analysis.” Nature Reviews: Genetics, vol. 5, no. 10, Oct. 2004, pp. 739–751., doi:10.1038/nrg1455. Thompson, William C, et al. “How the Probability of a False Positive Affects the Value of DNA Evidence.” Journal of Forensic Sciences, vol. 48, no. 1, Jan. 2003, pp. 1–8., doi:10.1520/jfs2001171.