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

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

Church Militant TV and the SSPX - Again

+ JMJ The old narrative used to be that the SSPX was 'schismatic' and 'excommunicated'. Now the excommunication has been lifted for a number of years and the only ones who think it still has effect are the 'resistors'. That leaves the other opponents of the SSPX with the label 'schismatic'. Make it clear, the conservative Catholics have issues with the SSPX probably because they violate some of their assumptions about the Faith and this crisis of the Church. Church Militant TV is one of these the exists along the Catholic thought spectrum. They like the Traditional Mass but must ensure that they don't get tarred with the same 'schismatic' brush that the liberals use against the SSPX.  So what do they do, they use the same brush against the SSPX. The funny thing is that even when the Church does speak, they don't want to listen and persist in calling the SSPX 'schismatic'. Here's a transcript of the latest s...

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 th...

The Position of the SSPX on Canonizations by the Saint Factory

+ JMJ I have sometimes been criticized for including 'St' as a title for Pope John Paul II et al. I've given my reasons here  in a discussion with Alex Long. The question is one of prudence in discussions with ntCatholics and in some cases with tCatholics. In discussions with:  ntCatholics, I will use the title in order to continue the discussion and help them arrive at a realistic understanding of the crisis of the Church. tCatholics, I will use the title in order to broaden their perspective on the doctrine of dogmatic facts. This broader perspective is, in my opinion, essential maintaining a realistic understanding of the crisis of the Church. So from a doctrinal position, I have written the article Dogmatic Fact of Fancy  and includes a reference on canonizations. Now, I know the position of the SSPX is that the canonizations are doubtful (see references below) and I also know of at least one non-SSPX theologian who agrees with the level of doubt du...