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 Curious Case of Steve Skojec and the Dangers of Deep Diving into the Crisis Sub-Titled: The Failings of Others

 + JMJ It's been a while now since Steve Skojec sold 1P5 and abandoned the Catholic Faith. I've been a 'Trad' since 1982 and in those 40+ years I seen this death-spiral before with a similar end point. It seems that anyone who jumps into the fray unprepared for the enormous task of righting wrongs will, eventually, become discouraged by not the task but the people who surround them.   I remember when Skojec complained of the treatment his family received from a traditional priest.  This seems to have been the start of the end for him. So what can we learn from the likes of Steve Skojec, Michael Voris (maybe?), Louie Verrecchio, Gerry Matatix and other celebrity Catholics? Probably quite a lot about what not to do. First, don't burn out on the crisis?  When you burn out, on work or anything else, little things assume a more greater importance than they are due.   This is one of my 'canary in the coal mine' signals that I've been stretching myself too thin

Communique about Avrille Dominicans - SSPX.org

+ JMJ Having completed the review of the 'Avrille' perspective, this communique from the French District Superior is perfectly timed. I believe that the 'resistance' has lost rationality and further argumentation simply results in their holding on to their false ideal all the more firmly. Pray much ... First, for them to acquiesce to the grace of humility in order to obtain a clear perspective on the principles involved. Second, that we may remain faithful to the Church, and Her Dogmas, Doctrines and Principles. Lest we become that which against we strove ... P^3 Courtesy of SSPX.org

Cathinfo and the 'resistance' perspective (updated with response to comment)

+ JMJ Matthew, the owner of Cathinfo - a resistance forum has posted a response to a person that indicated his reasons for continuing to go to the SSPX.

Fr. Burfitt on Fr. Pfeiffer's Attempted Consecration

 + 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

Yes Sally, Pope Francis IS the Pope and is in great need of our prayers!

+ JMJ The Church of Christ is Apostolic and this is also a 'Mark' of the Church. Specifically it means: The true Church is also to be recognised from her origin, which can be traced back under the law of grace to the Apostles; for her doctrine is the truth not recently given, nor now first heard of, but delivered of old by the Apostles, and disseminated throughout the entire world. ... That all, therefore, might know which was the Catholic Church, the Fathers, guided by the Spirit of God, added to the Creed the word Apostolic. For the Holy Ghost, who presides over the Church, governs her by no other ministers than those of Apostolic succession.  ( Tradicat: Marks of the Church Apostolic - Catechism of Trent ) The consequence of this is Dogma is that if there are no longer any Bishops, then the promise of Our Lord Jesus Christ that the Church would stand to the end of the world, was false. A secondary consequence of this would be the eradication of the priesthoo