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

Comparision of the Tridentine, Cranmer and Novus Ordo Masses

+ JMJ I downloaded the comparison that was linked in the previous article on the mass (here) . ... a very good reference! P^3 From: Whispers of Restoration (available at this link) . CHARTING LITURGICAL CHANGE Comparing the 1962 Ordinary of the Roman Mass to changes made during the Anglican Schism; Compared in turn to changes adopted in the creation of Pope Paul VI’s Mass in 1969 The chart on the reverse is a concise comparison of certain ritual differences between three historical rites for the celebration of the Catholic Mass Vetus Ordo: “Old Order,” the Roman Rite of Mass as contained in the 1962 Missal, often referred to as the “Traditional Latin Mass.”The Ordinary of this Mass is that of Pope St. Pius V (1570) following the Council of Trent (1545-63), hence the occasional moniker “Tridentine Mass.” However, Trent only consolidated and codified the Roman Rite already in use at that time; its essential form dates to Pope St. Gregory the Great (+604), in whose time the R...

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...

If Pope Francis is bad - what about Pope St. John Paul II et al?

+ JMJ So here we are on the apparent cusp of yet another post conciliar Papal canonization. This time we have Pope's John-Paul I and Paul VI canonizations to 'look forward' to. This follows, obviously, on the heels of Pope St. John Paul II's canonization? So the first question that I usually encounter is: How is it possible, keeping in mind the doctrine on infallibility of canonizations (note doctrine not dogma), that Pope St. John Paul II is a Saint? First, what does it mean???  According to the doctrine of dogmatic facts - it is the universal opinion of Theologians that canonizations are infallible.  It means that they enjoy the beatific vision.  ... that's it.  That is the doctrine and it is at the level of universal opinion of theologians.  It is called a 'dogmatic fact'. That they made mistakes is obvious.  That the miracles seem to not be very miraculous is also a bit of an issue. Here's something to consider: The rush that surrou...

Spiritual Journey Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre - Extracts

+ JMJ I have posted these two chapters to provide context for the quote of: It is, therefore, a strict duty for every priest wanting to remain Catholic to separate himself from this Conciliar Church for as long as it does not rediscover the Tradition of the Church and of the Catholic Faith. P^3 Courtesy of SSPX.ca Chapter II The Perfections of God We ought to remember during this entire contemplation of God that we must apply all that is said of God to Our Lord Jesus Christ, Who is God. We cannot separate Jesus Christ from God. We cannot separate the Christian religion from Jesus Christ, Who is God, and we must affirm and believe that only the Catholic religion is the Christian religion. These affirmations have, as a result, inescapable conclusions that no ecclesiastic authority can contest: outside of Jesus Christ and the Catholic religion, that is, outsi...

Dogmas of the Catholic Faith (de fide) - Expanded Listing: Answer for Reader

 + JMJ  A reader asked the following question in the 2015 version of the article on the Dogmas of the Catholic Faith (link) : 117: "In the state of fallen nature it is morally impossible for man without Supernatural Revelation, to know easily, with absolute certainty and without admixture of error, all religious and moral truths of the natural order." Where can you find this in the documents of the Church? ( Link to comment )  Here's the reference from Ott: The citation that Ott provided was Denzinger 1786 and the source document is Dogmatic Consitution Concerning the Faith from the First Vatican Council (Papal Encyclicals - link) : Chapter 2 On Revelation, Article 3: It is indeed thanks to this divine revelation , that those matters concerning God, which are not of themselves beyond the scope of human reason, can, even in the present state of the human race, be known by everyone, without difficulty, with firm certitude and with no intermingling of error. Here's ...