Just How Lethal Is SARS-CoV-2 (i.e. COVID-19) Part A?

 +

JMJ

****** NOTA BENE ******

Smith just sent a lengthy reply to How Lethal is SARS-CoV-2.  In order to manage my time, I will post this draft of my reply to his earlier query.

P^3

 ****** ARTICLE ******

 Smith replied to Update 1 by email and since it is a detailed and deep response, I felt (and they agreed) that it was better to post it on the blog.

 This post has been long in the making ... apologies for the delay and any offense I may provide as I try to follow the threads.

If I understood correctly, Smith believes that because of the small percentage of the population that have died from the disease, the restrictions (masks, social distancing etc) harm as opposed to help the common-good.

I disagree as the TPMR does not reflect the lethality and therefore the anticipated impact a pathogen would have when given unfettered access to a population.  

IFR and CFR (see below and the Lethality articles) a better stats to estimate lethality and therefore the impact.

For the fun of it, I have calculated the basic CFR (Deaths / Confirmed Cases) and the other version  (Deaths / (Deaths + Recovered). 

Est. CFR	Est. CFR2	Difference
2.14%	2.32%	0.18%
1.80%	2.28%	0.49%

I see why they recommend the second version during a dynamic pandemic or outbreak. If there are a  high number of active cases the basic CFR will be skewed.  Only once the pandemic is over will the numbers be unified. Comparing CFR2 from US and Canada we find a difference of  2.32% - 2.28% = 0.04%. So basically equivalent fatality rates (nice).

With regards to the rationale, given that at least some estimates of CFR for COVID-19 are within estimates of the lethality of the Spanish Influenza - I think the rationale of the civil leadership is clear.

To compare the IFR the best estimate that I found was in a paper for Germany. They calculated that the IFR was about 0.4%.  The WHO has reported that the studies find that 0.5% to 1%: 

Many such serological surveys are currently being undertaken worldwide [10], and some have thus far suggested substantial under-ascertainment of cases, with estimates of IFR converging at approximately 0.5 - 1% [10-12] (source WHO)

So what would happen if 0.5% of a population died from COVID. Well in the States that would translate as 332,595,570 * 0.5%/100 = 1.6M people.  Of course, this stat is based on a health care system that is not overwhelmed.  I just calculated India's CFR2 = 6.3% For arguments sake, lets say that an overwhelmed US healthcare system would simply scale to a similar level - that would be 4.8M people.  

I would love to know H1N1's IFR, but that data isn't available so we're stuck with CFR estimates, but here is a theoretical case where we can use the TPMR.

1. SARS-CoV-2 (USA) Deaths 1.6M / Population 332,595,570 =  0.005 (0.5%)
   
2. H1N1 (USA)  Deaths 675k / Population (1918)  105,000,000 = 0.0064  (0.64%)

If the same rate applied to the USA today, it would translate into 2,138,114 deaths.  Well fortunately, it wasn't H1N1 or one of the more lethal pathogens that emerged ... this time.

Source: Measuring Mortality

 P^3

 

 

 =======================================

 

Dear Tradical,

Preamble:

"So if the person in a position of CIVIL authority has a reasonable basis to issue the order to wear masks in enclosed spaces, then it is a valid law."

Absolutely, I say.[Tradical: Then I misunderstood your original comments]

"It is irrelevant if we believe the civil authority to be in error.  It takes more than that to invalidate a law (civil or otherwise).  It would have to contravene a higher law."

Agreed.

"Smith gets to pick and choose which authority he is going to 'believe' and decide whether or not to disobey a civil law."

No, no, no, no, no.[Tradical: Then I definitely misunderstood ... I seem to be apologizing a lot lately]

Remember, I am not talking about beliefs about whether a law is irrational or not, but incontrovertible facts; that is, *knowledge*. You remember the saying: "You are entitled to your own opinion. You are not entitled to your own facts." That is what I hold. That is not Liberalism. Liberalism is to insist on the the right to create your own facts.

There are many things you have proposed as requiring a response, especially concerning the efficacy of masks.

Your suggestion that I do not KNOW that masks are inefficacious, but merely believe the authority of experts who have done the random controlled tests PRIOR to COVID is a very good point. However, it begs the question: Why do YOU choose to believe the *present* authorities, who clearly have a tyrannical agenda, in preference to all the science that preceded?

 

[Tradical:  There are three points here, I looked at both historical events, tests as well as assessed the rationale behind a scientific paper that demonstrated mask efficacy.  Combined these elements are sufficient that I am confident in the efficacy of masks (non-medical, N95, etc) at either reducing (non-medical) to slow the spread or filtering (N95 etc) the pathogens to a degree sufficient for safety]

MY point then is: You are just agreeing with the Leftist mantra "trust the Science" -- while we know that for them "Science" just means the present opinions of the vested interests in the political, medical, big business establishment, which has no interest in science whatever.

Do you think that is wise?

 

[Tradical:  This is an interesting question. I would make the response that I don't trust the media's version of the science.  I believe media science and talking heads to be more oriented towards increasing advertising revenues, their own beliefs / ideology and not the dissemination of the truth.  Nor do I blindly 'trust the science'.  

 

Where warranted, I research the academic papers, look at different perspectives and critically assess what is truly being related in terms of results and experimental design. There are definitely human elements to this, that's why it is important to dig into the journal papers to assure ourselves that there aren't any glaring errors.  Interestingly, this is like adding a personal assurance layer to the peer-review process.

 

Finally, I reject the 'vested interests'.  There are 'vested interests' on both sides of the debate and frankly I have been sickened by the 'rightest' mantra to "trust me not them".  When I read some of the Catholic media articles I was amazed at the errors and FUD put forth by their personal set of experts.]

Think about it. According to your criterion of knowing (which I insist is WAY too rigorous), unless each of us are top-level experts in epidemiology -- and to such a degree that we KNOW that our opinion trumps the consensus of all the other "experts" in the said establishment -- we have nothing left to do but blindly obey that establishment.

 

[Tradical: We are better equipped now than previous generations. Most of us can read. We have good principles for critical assessment of information. If combined correctly we can make good assessments of the 'expert opinion' being presented.]

In that case, Hitler's minions were innocent of any wrongdoing. Nay, they were acting virtuously.

And in the present world context, that is a strategy to usher in the reign of AntiChrist.

Tradical: That was uncalled for.

You have said that I am a Liberal.

You should have said that YOU are a Fideist. You hold that the intellect does not work, so that we must trust the authorities unquestioningly.

[Tradical: Blind trust is not what I meant.  If an order is given, then we have the criteria by which to examine it and determine if it is a licit law etc. If the authority has reasons for their action, that don't contravene higher laws, is not for their own benefit - then based on my understanding of the principles it is a licit law.  Whether one sins in disobeying the law is another matter. From my limited reading on the subject I have arrived at the conclusion ... that I need to study further.]

I grant that matters requiring real technical expertise should be left to real experts. The problem is knowing who are the real experts. The check against that is a base level of intellect that should be operating here and should be trusted above any authority. It is called Common Sense.

[Tradical:In my experience over the past decade, common sense is conspicuously absent in many of the 'reactions' to this and the more critical crisis: the crisis of the Catholic Church. My conclusion is that neither 'right' nor 'left' seem to have a good stock of common-sense at this time.]

Neither you, nor I, nor anyone, needs any authority to permit us to use it -- and act upon it.

There are things that we do know from common sense, and know infallibly. (Granted, many, many people these days actually have had even their common sense destroyed, but that is a problem for another day!).

 

[Tradical:  Agreed, with a caveat!  Common-sense that deviates from Catholic Principles, teachings and dogmas - may be common but it isn't sense. It is common-error. I've witnessed a number of smart people follow their un-anchored common sense into sede-vacantism, the resistance and abandonment of the Faith.  So I repeat: an untrained common-sense is more a danger than an aid to the person using it.]

For instance, we know that Fauci said in the early months of the "pandemic": "Don't wear masks, they're not needed and they don't really work." Then a couple months later he *reversed* his opinion.

Common sense leads to only two possible conclusions: Fauci is either completely incompetent or he is a liar.

 

[Tradical:  When I heard about that I thought, "That is the stupidest thing to say, can't see that coming back to haunt him".  Totally eroded the trust in him as an expert. I would like to know the reasons why he said the earlier statement and then retracted it.  I am aware that there was concern there would be a 'run' on masks that would create a shortage (a real concern early on).  Yet, that does not exonerate him from the stupidity of the remark.]

If you'll allow me a brief digression, the same people who contradict themselves on mask efficacy are now telling us to get the jab. There is no dispute by ANYONE that the mRNA "vaccines" are experimental, and that they mess with the operations of the human body at the cellular level.

Is it common sense to jab the majority of people on the planet and turn them all into guinea pigs in a vast biological experiment?

[Tradical:This is an interesting point.  First, everyone that looks at the approvals knows that these have been given exceptional status and temporary approvals due to the pandemic.  At this time we have safety data for short term effects of around 1 yr for the vaccines directly and related data from other uses of similar vaccines.  What I don't know if the degree of animal trials for toxicity etc that were performed.  Finally, all vaccines 'mess' with the body at the cellular level. What differs are the methods by which they accomplish their goals. The interesting thing is that the mRNA vaccines are currently the best alternative to the morally tainted vaccines like J&J and Astra Zeneca.

 

This is not my area of expertise and I haven't done a lot of additional study as I have been more focused on the morality of the vaccines as opposed to the safety issue.

 

One last thought, vaccines are, in a way, always experimental. Even when released through the normal system, there is always post-market surveillance to assess any long-term effects etc.] 

The question answers itself.

 

Tradical:  I disagree, but that may be because of my background and my experience (albeit limited) in this area of science.  All of the vaccines went through the regular 3 phases of trials, there were process changes where they would start to process the data during the try and submit to the regulators as available instead of at the end of each trial.  This converted a normally serial system into a parallel system.   In addition, not everything is untested. For example, the adjuvants used to boost the vaccine are pre-tested and approved. 

But if we take your advice, we will all blindly submit to both masks and jab -- because "Science" -- and we don't "know" the Science, but the "experts" do.

 

[Tradical:  I don't think that is what I said and is definitely not what I meant. I made some comments here (link), in addition  I am watching for the adverse events vs. number of inoculations.  My general strategy is to be a 'late adopter' in cases such as this.  For those at greater risk (70+ years of age), I would definitely advise to be inoculated by the most moral means possible.]

We don't NEED to know the science. Common sense is enough.

[Tradical: As noted above common sense without a good training to validate what we are trying to make sense of is I believe, like having a malformed conscience to guide you, not a recipe for success.]

Another element of common sense as it applies to both masks and the jab is one that you have ignored. And that is the infallibly known common sense FACT that even if masks were efficacious they are not NEEDED (and therefore it is still PLAINLY irrational to require them).

Notably you have referred to the use of masks during the Spanish flu, indicating that they helped that situation. Grant that was the case. So what? The Spanish flu was over 105 times more deadly than COVID. How do I know that? Why the very authorities that you trust told me!

How so?

Simple. On Dec. 27, 2020, I took the official world COVID death numbers from worldometers.com, divided it by the world population of 7.8 billion, moved the resulting number's decimal point two places to the right to get a percentage and a total population mortality rate. That TPMR was 0.023%. In contrast, taking an average of the estimates that have been made for total deaths from Spanish flu, and dividing it by the estimated world population at that time, etc. you get a TPMR for Spanish flu of 2.33%

 

Tradical: Masks are not needed?  This totally confused me at first but after re-reading this several times, it seems that you feel that there is no real danger to the common-good from SARS-CoV-2.  

 

Am I correct?

 

Assuming that I am and that you base this assessment on the TPMR (Total Population Mortality Rate?). 

 

This stat (TPMR) doesn't help to understand the lethality of the disease, it shows the deaths for an entire population - which includes those not infected. To understand the lethality you need to calculate the Infection Fatality Rate (IFR) and  Case Fatality Rate (CFR).   

 

For our readers, the IFR is the percentage of people infected who die from the infection.  The CFR are the cases that are registered in some manner, in this day and age usually via the hospitals etc.  The CFR is a moderately robust statistic based on directly observed conditions, whereas the IFR is calculated from a statistically significant sample and applied to a larger population.  In the present media this usually takes the form of 'serology test data'.  (See this doc for a detailed explanation link)

 

The stats differ as the numerator (deaths) is divided by denominators representing different populations.  In the TPMR we have the entire population of deaths, in IFR the population is those people infected and finally CFR is those reported. 

 

Each stat is useful for understanding different aspects of how a pathogen affects people.

1. TPMR tells you the impact on the general population, 
2. IFR gives a lethality if infected (both symptomatic, asymptomatic) and 
3. CFR gives a lethality if a disease state manifests itself (symptomatic) or an infection is detected.
   

Regarding your calculation of TPMR. From my review of some papers on the topic, the estimates of those who died and the world population vary considerably.  So I'm not certain if you have correctly captured the extent to which the disease impacted the world population and comparing the TPMR for a past pandemic and comparing it to an active one is invalid. As a comparative statistic, this would be valid only once the pandemic has been over from some time.

 

I further disagree that it is a valid statistic to employ in supporting your argument. When I consider a pathogen, I think about its lethality when released in a vulnerable population.  For example, Ebola is considered lethal because an average of 50% of people who are infected die. 

 

My stance is that CFR is the more reliable statistic available at this time. IFR would be far superior but there are only limited studies at this time.

 

Back to the stats ... focusing on CFR as a measure of lethality.

 

In Canada, based on data found here, the CFR is calculated as follows:

1. All stats are current at time of calculation ... which I forgot to noted but was near Apr 1, 2021.
   
2. Number of cases: 944,743
3. Number of fatalities:  22,655
4. General CFR = 22,655 / 944,743 =  2.3% (I don't have time to refresh my memory on how to calculate the confidence intervals)
   
5. Number of cases over 60y = 79,769 +45,450 +63,227 = 188,446
   
6. Number of deaths over 60y = 1,772 + 4,362 + 15,580  = 21,714
7. CFR(60y+)= 21,714 /  188,446 = 11.5%

 For the Spanish Influenza the data is estimated at greater than 2.5% ... see this 2006 NIH article (link)), NIH 1918 Influenza: The Mother of all Pandemics - table below p19 (link), and WHO Pandemic Influenza Risk Management (link).

 Nota Bene: The footnote on the Spanish Flu CFR listed below is that this is for the USA. The world wide data is probably unreliable due to the lack of records.  I'm guessing that the USA data below is more reliable as the US had better records.

Side Note: Something  has been bothering me for a while. Why is the American CFR for Spanish Influenza between 2-3% ... it would seem the COVID-19 - while not as bad as H1N1-1918 - it is in the same league.  I will be digging into this more in another article. (Note: Links to a couple of papers that started me down this path: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7318986/ and https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(20)30484-9/fulltext

 

Looking at the world Covid death stats we find that the estimated CFR would be: 2,999,246 / 139,670,800 = 2.14%

 Now there is a wide variation in the lethality of SARS-CoV-2 based on the availability of care. In some places the CFR is as low of 0.4% while in Mexico it hits 10%. 

The chart below is the estimated CFR from all the countries in the World-O-Meter - so there is a wide range depending on the region.  

 Quick CFR comparison: Mexico 10%, China 5.1%,  Italy 3%, Canada 2.14%, USA 1.8%,  Taiwan 1.03%, Norway 0.6%, Iceland 0.4%.

 

 

John Hopkins has a pretty good site as well here: https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/mortality

 

They also have the original map:https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/map.html

 

Now context is key and the common CFR comparison is with seasonal influenza.  Here's a list that I found at news-medical.com:

• Bubonic Plague – 60%
• Ebola – 90%
• Naegleriasis – 98-99%
• Seasonal Influenza – 0.1%
• HIV/AIDS – 80%
• Dengue Fever – 26%
• Malaria – ~0.3%
• Typhoid – 10-20%
• SARS – 9-11%  (NB: This is SARS-CoV)
  
• MERS – 34.4%
• COVID-19 – ~2.1% (NB: This is SARS-CoV-2)
  

 Thinking about the CFR for seasonal flu ... I believe I may have mixed up IFR and CFR in a number of earlier articles from a year ago ... my bad. 

So the general CFR for seasonal influenza is 0.1%. I found one estimated CFR for the 2009 flu epidemic that estimated a CFR of 0.3%.

To put the diseases in context - we find that SARS-CoV-2 is worse than seasonal flu and not as bad as Spanish Influenza.  We also find that SARS-CoV-1, was more lethal than some estimated CFRs for the Spanish Influenza (H1N1).  

Lucky for us that one was contained.  If SARS-CoV-2 had the same lethality as SARS-CoV-1, we probably wouldn't be having this argument. 

I delved into this more in these two posts

Just How Lethal Is SARS-CoV-2 (i.e. COVID-19) Part A?

Just How Lethal Is SARS-CoV-2 (i.e. COVID-19) Part B?

Even if we allow for the official deaths that have occurred to the end of January 2021, which would comfortably mark the end of COVID's course, and the assured achievement of herd immunity, no significant difference would be made.

 

Tradical: It will be interesting to see the case trend over the next few month - looking at the number of cases and extrapolating to the number infected based on the 80/20 ratio, the USA could be on the typical lower edge of herd immunity.  I seem to recall that statistically herd immunity starts to have an impact at 20-40% and is usually established somewhere higher than 50%.  My memory may be flawed in this regard as the wikipedia article (link) provides different ratios.

The coup de grace here is to add in the official figures for the 1957 Asian flu and the 1968 Hong Kong flu, which were the worst pandemics between Spanish flu and now. Asian flu had a TPMR of 0.86%, and Hong Kong flu a TPMR of 0.7%. They were therefore, respectively, 39 times and 32 times more deadly than COVID (as of Dec. 27). Remember, the experts of the time saw no need for any mitigation measures, much less masks. The "Science" of those very "experts" in whom you trust is settled...done, finito.

 

Tradical:  Again TPMR is not a measure of the lethality of a disease itself but its impact on a population and an indicator of the efficacy of measures to contaian the outbreak. 

 

  The Asian Flu (1957) had a CFR between less than 0.2% and 0.67% (wikipedia link) and Hong Kong flu (1968) had a CFR of less than 0.2%. 

 

 So using comparably reliable stats we find that the CFR of these two epidemics was less than that of SARS-CoV-2. 

 

Something to consider is that vaccines were developed in both cases so the disease didn't just burn itself out. So the addresses the 'no need for any mitigation measures'.  Further, I recall reading that as a result of the Second World War, the Asian populations were more apt to use masks without requiring any orders.

 

Normally, I just monitor the Canadian stats, but this made me curious to see what the CFR would be for the stats.

As of April 10, 2021

Total cases: 31,915,179

Total deaths: 575,818

US General CFR:  1.8% 

This brings up an interesting comparison. Canada's general CFR is 2.3% , whereas the states is 1.8%.  However, in looking at the Deaths per 1M population comparison (USA: 1,732 and Canada: 614) I think I made an error interpreting that stat. I think I need to retract an earlier statement where I felt that the USA response to the Canadian response was worse. Will assess below.

I'm assuming it is Total Population Mortality Rate (I admit I had not seen this stat before).   I am going to make an assumption that the formula is : Deaths / Total Population.

 

So let's try to make sense of this stat compared with the calculated CFR.

 

 Factors to consider:

• Measures taken to address the pandemic including shutdowns, vaccine administration, social 'distancing' etc.
• Geographical influence, for example the pandemic lessons during the warmer months due to people being outdoors and the virus being susceptible to UV radiation.
• The lethality of the virus itself (ignoring different variants in circulation).
  

 

Virus

 

 Comparing the CFR for both the USA and Canada  (1.8% vs 2.3% - a variance of 0.5%). We know that 95% of the deaths in Canada are from those over the age of 60y.  I did a search of the data and found this link on Statistica (link) and another US CDC (link). In the states this value is ~80% from 65y and older for 50y and older it is 95% (the US age cohorts are different).  So the population distribution is slightly different with the elderly (60/65+) less impacted in the states compared with Canada.  This may be impacting Canada's slightly higher CFR as the elderly are more susceptible to the disease and in the early days of the pandemic there were many catastrophes in a number of Canadian long-term health care facilities.

 

So on this count the virus factor appears to be roughly equivalent. Albeit this may change with the emergence of regional variants.

Geography

The US is south of Canada and therefore has the benefit of warmer weather and higher UV levels.  This is an advantageous factor for the southern portions of the US, but there is a large population centre (New York) just south of the border.  If this is a factor, we should see a higher number of cases in the northern states compared with the south - over a full year of data.

 

I found this graphic and it appears that Geography is not a reliable factor.

 

https://www.savi.org/2020/10/09/animated-map-of-new-u-s-covid-19-cases-over-time/

 

 

Measures

So on a per-capita basis the USA mortality rate is worse than Canada's. What does this mean?  It means that more US citizens per capita contracted and died of COVID than Canadians. 

 

The key difference seems to be in the approach to addressing the outbreaks. The largest provinces (Ontario, Quebec) have taken severe measures to try and contain the outbreaks.  Compared with the US, this seems to have been more effective.

 

That is not to say there weren't mistakes made over the last year+ in dealing with the outbreak, but using the per-capita measure, Canada has fared better.  

 

I wonder if the per capita infection rate is different (cases per 1M from world-o-meter):

• Canada:27,860
• USA: 95,992

So,the national epidemic in Canada is about 1/3 of that of the USA, which scales to the CFR being close.

Conclusion

 The CFR between the two nations is roughly equivalent with a 0.5% difference, but the difference is in the extent of the national COVID epidemic. In the states it is ~3 times higher and the per capita death rate has naturally followed suit.  This seems to support the conclusion that the efforts to contain the epidemic in the US have not been effective as those employed in Canada.

COVID did not require ANY mitigation measures, and it does so now less than ever, because herd immunity has been reached.

Tradical: That is a good question ...  Has the USA reached herd immunity? As noted above, from my reading this takes effect between 20% and 40% infection rates. The USA has a total of 31.4M cases, out of 332.4M people.  The rule of thumb is that for each case there is around 4 asymptomatic cases.  That means the USA has an estimated 125M people who have been exposed and created their own immune response. Meaning that yes, herd immunity may be having an effect on course of the US epidemic. This is of course, combined with the inoculation programs.  The proof will be in the fall of 2021 if another wave doesn't emerge. The 7 day average may be trending upwards ... but we should know in about 6 weeks which way trend will go.

 

 

Now, the thought that this Pandemic didn't require any mitigation measure is, I believe, unfounded.  Using a proxy of your TPMR, the US Deaths per 1M is 1,711.  For Canada the stat is 607.  If we assume that the measures taken in the US were less restrictive than those Canada - we find that the per capita death rate in Canada is 1/3 the death rate than the US. (see above)

Further, the time the measures gave the system to prepare for more patients also needs to be factored. A friend of mine is an ICU nurse in the USA.  They used the time to increase their isolated ISU units from 3 to10.  I understand that at one point they have 7 occupied.

 

Now here's my common sense ace in the hole.

If you STILL think that COVID was or is a big deal, just use your eyes and ears and LOOK AROUND at the REAL world you live in. Then ask yourself this question: How many people do I PERSONALLY know whom the "experts" claimed had COVID, and who died from it?

 

For me, that number is zero. I know about a hundred people. Moreover, none of THOSE people know anyone who died of COVID. Moreover, I am in regular contact with two people who are over 80, and three who are over 90. They didn't even get sick.

 

Tradical:  Well, our experiences differ and the small sampling that you see in a single day could also be constrained by your area of observation and could be described as 'undersampling'.

There was an outbreak in the care-home near my home and 5 out of 12 infected died.  I know someone who spent 6 weeks on a ventilator and medically induced coma - and beat the odds and survived. One Aunt and Uncle had it, with the Uncle requiring oxygen assist for about a week or so, but survived. I know a number of younger people who, as expected, had a relatively milder version of the disease and survived. In addition, a couple in my town, in their 50s died, leaving orphans.  My adult children have been exposed to a number of confirmed cases.

So, from where I'm sitting, people have gotten sick, it is not something that I want to catch, nor do I want my 80+ mother to catch.

 

The key element here is that the state has a responsibility to protect the lives of its citizens. They aren't supposed to play Russian roulette with our lives even when there are 50 chambers in the revolver. 

Remember, I'm assuming that people purported to have died of COVID were tested, and that the tests were accurate, while it's already well known that the PCR tests have been administered with improper protocols up until a couple of months ago, so that hundreds of thousands of false positives were found.

[Tradical: I can't speak for the states, but I heard through my scientific contacts that there are systems in place to account for the issues with PCR tests.  I am aware that in Canada they will do a number of retests on the samples plus people etc.  That said, I am not aware of the details of how they work to improve statistical significance of the PCR method.  I also believe they use a serology (blood) test for those in the hospital.  But this something that I would have to research - time allowing.]

Considering all this, that I produce a thesis proving that masks are ineffective in slowing COVID would be a massive exercise in futility. Whether they are or not is ultimately irrelevant when the spread of COVID itself has always been inconsequential.

[Tradical: I don't think the data supports that conclusion. The study I reviewed demonstrated that the mask material did reduce the viral load and that is a factor in the severity of the infection. Is the goal not to slow the rate of infection so the healthcare system isn't overwhelmed?  In Canada it was the latter and compared with the stats above, it would appear that the measures were more effective.  

Let me respond to a couple of other points of yours.

"I recommend that you read the entire series on obedience and keep in mind that you have crossed from obedience to a civil authority to religious authority."

Full disclosure: I just don't have time to do that reading right now. I will say this, however: St. Thomas' definition of human law applies universally in human affairs, religious or civil.

[Tradical: I agree to a point. The fundamental principles do apply, however St. Thomas made some additional distinctions for civil leaders.]

"Wearing a mask is causing others to sin???  Please describe the causal chain."

The causal chain is admittedly subtle. 

 

It works like this:

1) You know there are persons around you who have the same knowledge you do: that wearing the mask is certainly and demonstrably irrational. Doing so then encourages blind obedience and the inevitable tyranny that follows it. It also gives public assent not just to masks but to other measures connected to the COVID hoax, like lockdowns, which unquestionably do both economic and physical harm to the population [Tradical: What is of more value human life or economics?  I believe that St.Thomas would come down on the side of human life.  The same can be said for self-harm vs harm from a disease]

2) But you decide to mask up anyway, because it's easier.

3) This causes a diminution of moral support to those who would otherwise do the right thing and refuse the mask. In other words, they lose the encouragement they might need by seeing others fight the same fight.

4) This could cause them to succumb to cowardice, just as you did[Tradical:  Ouch rash judgement] , so that they choose to lie to themselves and the world by pretending they believe in the hoax when they don't. And like you they will wear the mask and thus support both the mask, the lockdowns, and all other harmful "mitigation" measures.

Tradical: This rests on the question of whether or not masks are an effective means at slowing the spread of the virus or reducing viral loads. It has been demonstrated that they do both and I have satisfied myself by a review of the method of the current publication and historical cases.  So I would submit that your avowed 'knowledge' in #1 is actually a belief without a proper examination of the evidence.

If this doesn't make sense to you, I suggest that you consider whether that is because it actually and objectively doesn't make sense, or whether its because you don't *want* it to -- because maybe it hits a bit too close to home. I'm sorry to be so in-your-face about it, but I think I was obligated to say this.

"Wow - masks are harmful.  I guess we should tell the coal miners who use N95 masks to take them off."

I like you too much to respond to this one!

Tradical: I think I took your statement out of context.My apologies. (Note April 29, 2021: After reviewing the comment, I'm pretty certain that I did misunderstand.)

Finally, you have implied that I am in favor of "killing Grandma", because I am against the Masker Aiders, by saying:

"I am aghast at people who use the same argument as abortionists. Just because the virus poses a greater risk to the elderly, Smith is ready to throw them under the bus."

C'mon man. .... That was just a cheap shot, and I think you should admit it. I never even said anything about how the elderly should be dealt with. Now you bring it up I will. They should have been told that they would be safer if they would voluntarily quarantine themselves, and they should have been given every opportunity to do so, without forcing them. Sheesh, when you're near average life expectancy anyway you should be allowed to choose to live a normal life and take the risks that go with that, especially when you're older and (hopefully) wiser.

 

[Tradical:   Apologies - that was not my intention. Here's the issue, in the care-home next to us the virus was brought in by workers.  In the catastrophe in Ontario and Quebec it was, I believe, a similar situation.  In one Quebec care home, the workers quarantined themselves with their residents voluntarily for weeks to prevent the virus from making its way into the care home. This was effective.  In the other cases, it was horrible and the military had to take charge of these facilities.

What should most definitely NOT have been done is exactly what WAS done: the whole bleeping world had to be quarantined for the sake of keeping one segment of the population as safe as possible; not just safe but as safe as possible. Completely unrealistic. Especially consider that 50% of those that officially died of COVID were 80+ years old. For crying out loud, that's already above the average human life expectancy! (Which is yet another common sense indication that COVID is WAY less deadly than the hysterical want to think). But the main point is, use mitigation tools that are appropriate for the job! Don't protect the elderly by universal lockdowns that kill businesses, lead to increased domestic abuse, and many deaths by suicide or substance abuse.

 

Tradical: Someone presented the same argument to me last summer.  I did some rough calculations factoring in the available beds and ICU units in Canada. Conclusion, while the majority of the deaths are from those over 60y of age, the illnesses and hospitalizations are still of sufficient proportion to overwhelm healthcare systems.

 

If the healthcare system is overwhelmed, then the CFR will climb because even a portion of the younger generation needs oxygen and even ventilation to survive. In Canada over 30% of cases that are hospitalized are under the age of 60y.

There is also another element to be aware of.  The Spanish Influenza is known for its second wave where it was particularly lethal to the young and healthy adults.  There are reports from the coroners in Ontario of young people are starting to die before they reach the hospital. I have also noted that the Canadian stats have shifted slightly (~1%) away from the over 60y group to the under 60y's.

I have been concerned about this for about a month and part of me hopes that the Millennials who were calling COVID-19 "boomer remover", will have an attitude adjustment.

 

I am aghast at your willingness to throw the whole world under the bus for the sake of saving a few among a special class of persons. That is an injustice against the very purpose of society: the common good.

Tradical:  The virus is indiscriminate of age and given time, it may, like H1N1 mutate to use the young more effectively as a host. Our leaders have an obligation from God to protect the lives of their citizens.  If they fail to implement measures to protect them they fail in their duty.

 

Additional Resources

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/pandemic-resources/1918-pandemic-h1n1.html