Skip to main content

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

 +
JMJ


 

So, when not approving comments between Athanasius and Peter, accidentally publishing Athanasius' contact information (still feel bad about that), working full time in two different roles, facilitating conflicts and preparing for personal life events - I have been doing some research on the lethality of various pathogens.

Why?

To provide some context around this pandemic.

Early on in the pandemic I had come across the graph shown below. I thought it was a useful thing to put some context around the SARS-CoV-2 virus.


 When getting down to the discussion lethality etc it's utility was limited. I've also found that some of their data didn't quite sync up with other data.

In my discussion with Steven, I needed additional information So I found the "Information is Beautiful" graphic (link below).

While this was better, I couldn't zoom in to the lower left hand side of the graph ... but I found that they had published all their data.

Another thing is that I noticed that the lethality and reproduction number of the Spanish Influenza varied from the 'media' type reports that focused on assumed number of cases etc versus the publications (i.e. scientific papers) that I was looking at.

So looking at the above table, we find that the lethality of the 1918 H1N1 pandemic was about 2-3% - in the USA.  Worldwide it may have had a higher CFR, but that is where we enter the realm of rough order of magnitude estimates.

What surprised me is two things. First, the CFR is much closer and overlaps that of COVID-19.  Second, that because up to now I have held the Spanish Influenza to be among the nastier of Pandemics. This notoreity may be due to the fact that the second wave was particularly lethal to the young, striking them dead in days, if not hours. More on this later.

So, my question is how does COVID-19 stack-up against the 20th Century pandemics?

Here's the answer:


 I had fun researching some of the values etc, but first an explanation.

The 'x' axis is the reproduction number that generally shows how easy the pathogen is transmitted.  The 'y' axis is the lethality in terms of case fatality rate.  The size of the bubble is to give an idea of the severity of an outbreak by multiplying the Ro number by the CFR and then by mulitplying that by 100.  This is a visualization technique I use in risk management but is just that a visualization technique.

I have learned / realised that it is important to understand the limitations of these stats before going any further. 

First, both are subject to environment variations. I'm not talking about climate change, but the environmental factors - society, healthcare system, population density, hygiene - that affect the spread, severity, and mortality of a disease.  CFR tends to start high as the disease picks off the old and weak, and moves downwards as that vulnerable population becomes less available. Reproduction number likewise shifts around due to measures taken to contain an outbreak.

Second, the Spanish Influenza virus (H1N1) has variation in its stats and ... they have a comfortable overlapping with the SARS-CoV-2 stats. When I saw this, I realized why the scientists et al were concerned about this virus as well as SARS-CoV-1.  SARS-CoV-1 isn't shown on the graph above, but it is on the one below.

 


So here we have what I think is a good comparison of the disease - so SAR-CoV-1 is nasty because it had a high CFR. Luckily, it was contained, and its cousin MERS is still causing trouble in the Middle-East but fortunately it is contained.

Looking at the graph all I can say is I now understand why the Governments, Doctors, Scientists et al are concerned.  If the Spanish Influenza was bad, this Pandemic had the potential to approach the same scale of devastation.

Early on in the Pandemic, I made the assertion that the governments were damned if they did and damned if they didn't.

Meaning, if they just let the virus rip through the population, it would have overwhelmed the healthcare system and lots of people would have died.  If they locked it down properly, cases would be controlled, the healthcare system would cope and not as many people would die.

In both cases, the populace would say one of two things: The Gov didn't do what it was supposed to or they did too much.

This is a lose - lose scenario and we see the second one playing out right now.

So, while I am getting as tired of this pandemic as everyone else, when looking past the media to the numbers,  the government response is rationale.

Further, as the pandemic continues there will be more variants of concern.  So far they just look like they are more contagious, but there is not enough data to make a judgement on lethality.

Canada is now into its third wave and like the second wave of the Spanish influenza, we have a similar trend hitting the media in Ontario.  Note I wrote 'media'.  There are reports from Doctors of people in their 20s to 40s are now getting hit harder and dying.  Beyond the media, some of my colleagues know younger people who are getting seriously ill from the virus.  Ultimately, the way to know is to look at the stats (which I'll do later).

Conclusion

I now understand why the scientists et al are concerned about this pandemic. If the Spanish Influenza was bad, then this pandemic is likewise bad.

Looking at the above graph, it is obvious that it could have been much worse.

So, what do I think?

I think that God is giving us an opportunity to repent and turn back to Him.  

As Catholics, you know what happens when a people turns its back on God. 

Worse will happen.

P^3 


P.S. I will probably do further research on the Spanish Influenza CFR.

References

https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/technical-guidance/early-investigations

https://repository.gheli.harvard.edu/repository/12612/

https://informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/the-microbescope-infectious-diseases-in-context

 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Episcopal Consecrations of 1988, 1991 and 2015 - Some Perspectives

+ JMJ In defense of the recent consecration of Fr. Faure by Bishop Williamson, some have argued that the 1991 consecration of Bishop Rangel (RIP) by the Bishops of the SSPX present an equivalent standard of action and principles.  From this they conclude that the SSPX's condemnation of Bishop Williamson's action is flawed as the principles of the 1991 consecration and that of 2015 are equivalent.

SSPX and the Resistance - A Comparison Of Ecclesiology

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...

America Magazine: Why liturgy is not a space for self-expression

 + JMJ Introduction I subscribed to Jesuit Review America Magazine in order to improve my perspective on the crisis of the Church. At first, I found that I had a hard time reading through the articles that caught my attention.  Actually, at best, I didn't get further than a few sentences.  Mostly due to demands on what time I have left on this Good Earth. Then a title caught my eye in a latest article ... someone is saying that the Liturgy is not a space for self-expression.  Then there's the Performative Piety?  What does this mean? What is Performative Piety? I had a sense that "Performative Piety" is the practice of making external acts of piety to be seen by others and Matthew 6:1 (link) confirms this thought. Let's break down the Knox translation: Be sure you do not perform your acts of piety before men ,  for them to watch ;  if you do that,  you have no title to a reward from your Father who is in heaven. If you stopped after the first ph...

SSPXasia Timeline

+ JMJ The SSPXasia website has an excellent compilation of documents.  One day I may try to fuse it with my own chronicle project. P^3 https://sspxasia.com/Documents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Archbishop_Lefebvre_and_the_Vatican/Part_I/ (1987) June 29: Ordination Sermon of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre July 8: Letter of Archbishop Lefebvre to Cardinal Ratzinger July 28: Letter of Cardinal Ratzinger to Archbishop Lefebvre October 1: Letter of Archbishop Lefebvre to Cardinal Ratzinger October ...

Canonical Mission and State of Emergency - A Response to Mr. John Salza - Part B

 +  JMJ  I was trying to think of a way to map out the time course I discussed in Part A of this article.  Early this morning it came to me that this is more about obedience and duty than canon law.  As is my wont, I mapped out my thoughts (see image) to draw linkages between the core concepts. My conclusion is that, at least subjectively, Archbishop Lefebvre had sufficient information to make good decisions concerning whether or not he was obliged to obey.  I know that the Jesuits, some Sedevacantists and the priests that left over the years will not agree with my thoughts. So be it.  The core pieces of information include: Attacks against the SSPX were launched because they kept the Tridentine Mass and the pre-conciliar understanding of the Truths of the Faith. The authorities in the Church were willing to go against the laws of the Church. The same authorities encouraged the various dangers to the Faith embedded in popular interpretations of ambiguo...