A priest stands by one of the coffins stored at the
church of San Giuseppe in Seriate, near the hard-hit city of Bergamo in
the Lombardy region of Italy on Thursday. (Piero Cruciatti/AFP/Getty
Images)
There's a lot of focus on the numbers as people try to rationalise for and against measures that restrict their 'freedom'.
So let's add a little clarity.
First the fatality rate is a result of sampling a population. If the sample only includes those symptomatic, then the statistic reflects the fatality of those in that cohort.
In other words, it is a sample of the 15 and 5 percenters that are really sick. No one knows COVID-19's actual fatality rate because of the skewed data. What they do know is that if a person falls in the 20% level, it is bad.
While that may sound like a small percentage (hey 80% was a 'B' in school eh?) it still represents a huge portion of a population. The population of Canada is 37.59M, the states is 327.5M. This translates into 7.5M Canadians and 65.5M Americans being hospitalized. Of this population, based on the Chinese fatality data I posted earlier, the upper fatality would be ~28%. This is based on a 100% infection rate of the population. I don't know how to estimate / validate any smaller number.
So, the data shows a worse case scenario of 2.1M Canadians and 91.7M American deaths. The key factor in this stat is the level of care provided early in the disease. If the healthcare system is overwhelmed (ie Italy), then things get really bad. If the population is older (immune systems diminish with age), then the impact will also be greater.
Hence the need to slow its progression through the population.
That said, I feel that the concerns over the restrictions on personal freedoms are, in large part, misplaced.
If there is a disease passing through a country, the leaders have an obligation to protect society.
If left unchecked, it could create a societal upheaval and breakdown of what societal norms remain in the wasteland of the post-Vatican 2 world.
So, take this time to reflect on your lives repent of your sins, pray for forgiveness and make this your best lent ever.
Because the coffin over which a priest is praying may be your own.
Can the SSPX be right about the Novus Ordo? Revision: Feb 11, 2013 On another web forum, I was engaged in a rather heated discussion about the documents of Vatican II.
+ JMJ Amidst the shadows cast by the publication of Traditionis Custodes, I am working on a map of the 'resistance' splinters to put their reaction in contrast with that of the SSPX. In the midst of this, I just came across Fr. Burfitt letter on the attempted consecration. Breaking it down (see below) items 2 and 3 are key. Just as the consecrating bishop is 'doubtful', even if he hadn't muffed the first attempt, Fr. Pfeiffer remain doubtful and therefore this impacts those men is attempts to 'ordain'. There were rumours that Fr. Pfeiffer was seeking episcopal consecration for years as he cast about for various bishops (also doubtful) to help him achieve this goal. I wonder how he convinced the 'doubtful' bishop to provide (twice) the doubtful consecration. What a mess! This creates a danger to the souls of his followers and wonder where it will end. Will he go full sede and have himself 'elected' pontiff as others have done before him...
Shining the light of Church Teaching on the doctrinal positions of the SSPX and the Resistance. Principles are guides used to aid in decision making. It stands to reason that bad principles will lead to bad decisions. The recent interactions between Rome and the SSPX has challenged a number of closely held cultural assumptions of people in both sides of the disagreement. This has resulted in cultural skirmishes in both Rome and the SSPX. Since it is the smaller of the two, the skirmishes have been more evident within the SSPX. The cultural fault-line that Bishop Fellay crossed appears to be linked to two points of Catholic Doctrine: Ecclesiology and Obedience. The cultural difference of view points is strong enough that it has resulted in the expulsion of a number of members. It should also be noted that some other priests expelled since the beginning of the latest interactions (starting in 2000) held the same view points and have joined with the l...
There is some question as to whether the Pope can be in actual schism as per the Cardinal Torquemada: Citing the doctrine of Pope Innocent III, Torquemada further teaches: "Thus it is that Pope Innocent III states [De Consuetudine] that, it is necessary to obey the Pope in all things as long as he, himself, does not go against the universal customs of the Church, but should he go against the universal customs of the Church, 'he need not be followed' . . . " [Cited from A Theological Vindication of Roman Catholic Traditionalism, Father Paul Kramer, B.Ph., S.T.D., M. Div. (2nd edition, St. Francis Press, India) p. 29. The full quotation from Cardinal Torquemada reads, "By disobedience, the Pope can separate himself from Christ despite the fact that he is head of the Church, for above all, the unity of the Church is dependent on its relationship with Christ. The Pope can separate himself from Christ either by disobeying the law of Christ, or by commanding som...
+ JMJ I've been watching the popularity of the post about Fr. Pfeiffer's attempted episcopal consecration and its continued top listing on the 'popular posts' list at the bottom of posts. After some thought, I decided that I don't want to be responsible for anyone joining Fr. Pfeiffer's 'group', however unlikely that would be at this time. So I have reverted the article to the draft state. If anyone wants it reinstated, I would ask that they comment on this post with a rationale for reinstatement. P^3
Comments
Post a Comment