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 Catholic Church and the Rule of Law – Part I: Dr. John Lamont

+ JMJ Is a Traditional Catholic who abandons the doctrine of the Catholic Church - are they truly worthy of the name of Catholic? This is why it is important to understand Catholic Doctrine so we don't knowingly abandon it! This is a lecture provided by Dr. Lamont that touches on the topic of obedience. Obedience is one key to emerging from this crisis. P^3 Source Part A: Society of St. Hugh of Cluny Source Part B: Society of St. Hugh of Cluny 8 May 2014 The Catholic Church and the Rule of Law – Part I By John Lamont (Lecture given in New York on Friday, April 4, 2014)

Schism

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...

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...

Morning and Evening and other sundry Prayers

+ JMJ Along the theme of P^3 (Prayer, Penance, Patience), and for my own reference ... here is a collection of Morning and Evening prayers from the Ideal Daily Missal along with some additional prayers. In this crisis of the Church, I do not think it is possible to do too much prayer, penance and have patience. P^3

The Catholic Church and the Rule of Law- Part II: Dr. John Lamont

+ JMJ This is the second article from Dr. Lamont from his lecture given in May 2014. P^3 Source Part A: Society of St. Hugh of Cluny Source Part B: Society of St. Hugh of Cluny 8 May2014 The Catholic Church and the Rule of Law- Part II By John Lamont To understand how the Jesuit conception of obedience departed from earlier conceptions, it is helpful to compare it with the teaching of St. Thomas on obedience. The fundamental difference between the two is that St. Thomas considers the proper object of obedience to be the precept of the superior (2a2ae q. 104 a. 2 co., ad 3). Obedience that seeks to forestall the expressed will of the superior does not bear on what the superior wants or thinks in general, but only on what the superior intends to command. St. Ignatius’s lowest degree of obedience, which he does not consider to be virtuous, is thus what St. Thomas considers to be the only form of obedience. St. Thomas holds that St. Ignatius’s alleged higher forms of o...