Are American government institutions, businesses, schools and private organizations doing enough – soon enough – to protect American citizens from coronavirus? Are the measures currently taken adequate to prevent a nationwide medical care disaster and large numbers of resulting deaths? Quite probably not, and hence this posting.
First, a contrasting look at what the cities of St. Louis and Philadelphia experienced in the 1918 influenza pandemic. The graph below shows the number of deaths per 100,000 people for the two cities.
St. Louis vs. Philadelphia death rates in 1918 flu epidemic
What was the difference? It was how each city responded to the first cases of influenza showing up in their cities. The difference makes a good case showing that social distancing does work. In Philadelphia, the first case was reported on September 17 and authorities downplayed the significance of the case. They even allowed a city-wide parade to happen on September 28. School closures and bans on public gatherings did not happen until October 3, sixteen days since the first case. Meanwhile, St. Louis had its first case on October 5 and the city implemented social distancing measures two days later.
Protective measures, such as self-isolation and canceling large gatherings, will delay and decrease the outbreak peak, reduce the burden on hospitals at a given time, and decrease the overall number of cases.
Without efforts to slow the spread, COVID-19 will likely infect a lot more people than can be handled in the short term by hospitals. But if we slow the spread, and there are fewer people in need of care at the same time, there would be fewer medical shortages.
A study conducted last month from the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention provides statistics about the lethality of COVID-19. Those statistics were analyzed by Business Insider.
You can see those statistics in the graph above. Younger people have a one in 10,000 (0.01%) chance of dying from the flu and a one in 500 (0.2%) chance of dying from COVID-19. So, COVID-19 is twenty times more lethal for a 15-year old than the flu. That mortality rate rises quickly as the victims get older.
For 55-year olds who contract COVID-19, between one and two of 100 will die of the disease. That’s twenty-two times the mortality rate of the flu. However, the real jump occurs in those who are 60 and above. Almost 15% (1 in 7) of those aged 80+ will die if they contract the coronavirus.
There is yet no vaccine against COVID-19. There is no cure. The only way for a 60+ year old to avoid a 3.6% – 14.8% chance of dying is to avoid the disease. The real odds of dying are the infection rate multiplied by the mortality rate. But once you contract the disease, you are far more likely to die than if you contracted the flu.
Is there any activity on Earth that a rational person would undertake with a 3.6% – 14.8% chance of dying? For comparison purposes, an American sent to fight in Vietnam had about a 0.5% chance of dying.
Given those odds, is it really hysteria to cancel fan participation at sporting events, close schools and implement other containment measures? Our only defense is distance and containment and those come with a fair amount of inconvenience. What is the alternative? Hope is not a strategy.
