lifesitenews--2020-03-17--Coronavirus pandemic: God’s punishment or meaningless bad luck?

March 17 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) — In a remarkable address , Prof. Roberto de Mattei points out the consistency with which the vast majority of bishops have declined to call for supernatural responses to the coronavirus , preferring rather the natural responses that our society exclusively recognizes : De Mattei notes that a certain prominent bishop in Italy had “ forcefully reject [ ed ] the idea that the Coronavirus epidemic or any other collective disaster can be a punishment for humanity .
The virus , the bishop believes , is only the effect of nature.
” But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a creature of God , like nature , like all that exists , because nothing of what exists can exist apart from God .
All that happens in history is foreseen , regulated and ordered by God for all eternity .
... God is the author of nature with its forces and its laws , and he has the power to arrange the mechanism of the forces and laws of nature in such a way as to produce a phenomenon according to the needs of his justice or his mercy .
God @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all of all that exists , always makes use of secondary causes in order to effect his plans .
Whoever has a supernatural spirit does not stop at the superficial level of things but seeks to understand the hidden design of God that is at work beneath the apparently blind force of nature .
This “ hidden design ” includes God ’ s chastisement of human beings for sins , which pertains to all of us , since we are all implicated in the fall of Adam , and no man who has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can claim to be without personal sin ( cf .
1 Jn 1:8 ) .
The Bible , the Church Fathers and Doctors , and the whole patrimony of Christian theology confess with one voice : God ’ s Providence is in charge of everything that happens ; the physical evils of sickness and death are caused by the moral evil of sin , and are sent as retributive , purgative , and medicinal punishments .
Some would counter with the Gospel of John , where the Lord says a certain man ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sins or his parents ’ sins ( cf .
Jn .
9:2 ) .
Yet the same Lord tells us in Luke 13 : There were present , at that very time , some that told him of the Galileans , whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices .
And he answering , said to them : Think you that these Galileans were sinners above all the men of Galilee , because they suffered such things ?
No , I say to you : but unless you shall do penance , you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ eighteen upon whom the tower fell in Siloe and slew them : think you that they also were debtors above all the men that dwelt in Jerusalem ?
No , I say to you : but except you do penance , you shall all likewise perish .
Jesus reminds us that punishment justly falls on all of us , and that we must do penance for our sins and the sins of others .
The evils of this world are an invitation to reject moral evil ; purify our hearts ; and return @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in any case , render an account at the end of our days .
It is only in the Enlightenment ( 17th–18th centuries ) that self-styled philosophers reject , simultaneously , the doctrine of original sin , the doctrine of divine Providence , and the value of penance .
Ernst Cassirer noted that the Enlightenment thinkers , despite their great diversity of opinions , all agreed to throw out original sin .
For the rationalists , all men are born with a “ neutral ” human nature , open to either good or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ based on their upbringing and social influences .
If bad things happen , it ’ s due to chance or personal vice .
God , if His existence is acknowledged at all , is merely a clockmaker who builds the cosmic machine and sets it going .
It then continues on its own , without His involvement .
The picture of the universe we ’ ve been given by modern science is one in which God plays no intimate role .
To those who labor under such an impoverished metaphysics , talk of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a plague or a famine , would seem not at all different from Homer talking of petulant Greek gods interfering in the Trojan war .
Self-consciously “ modern ” theology , in turn , has often taken its cue from rationalism : it does not regard the human race as shipwrecked or drowning , as deserving of death and punishment , nor does it see God as intimately present to all things , especially to the creatures made in His image , calling them to redemptive suffering and eternal beatitude .
How @ @ @ @ @ @ @ perspective vividly seen in the medieval prayer that the superior general of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter , Most Rev .
Andrzej Komorowski , FSSP , asked the priests of the Fraternity to pray at the end of every public Mass until further notice : V. Deal not with us , Lord , according to our sins .
R. And take not vengeance on us because of our misdeeds .
V. Help us , O God , our Deliverer .
R. And for Thy name ’ s sake , O Lord , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ O Lord , our sins of old .
R. Hasten to us with Thy compassion , for we are become exceeding poor .
R. That we may be made worthy of the promises of Christ .
R. And let my cry come unto thee .
Let us pray .
Vouchsafe to hear us , O God , our only salvation !
And through the intercession of the glorious and blessed Mary , Mother of God and ever Virgin , of Thy blessed martyr , Sebastian and of all the saints , deliver Thy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and restore their confidence by the outpouring of Thy compassion .
Be moved to pity , O Lord , at our earnest entreaties , and heal the illnesses of body and soul ; so that experiencing Thy forgiveness we may ever rejoice in Thy blessing .
We beseech thee , O Lord , grant us a hearing as we devoutly raise our petitions to Thee , and graciously turn away the epidemic of plague which afflicts us ; so that mortal hearts may recognize that these scourges proceed from Thine indignation and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mercy .
Through our Lord Jesus Christ , Thy Son , who liveth and reigned with Thee in the unity of the Holy Ghost , God , world without end .
Amen .
Looking at these truly robust and Catholic prayers from the Age of Faith , we have to ask : why did such prayers get the axe after Vatican II ?
( This one is from the old Rituale Romanum , which did , in fact , get the axe ... although , thankfully , it is coming back into use @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Either the Church was right for all those centuries to pray this way — lex orandi , lex credendi — or she was wrong to do so .
If she was right , then we today must repent of the destruction visited upon our own liturgical heritage and take up our “ law of prayer ” again in humility and trust .
If she was wrong , however , why are we still Catholic ?
It would be more intellectually honest to become a secular humanist , or , for that matter , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fundamental question that the liturgical reform raises over and over again — once one becomes aware of the stark differences between old and new .
What were Catholics of olden times thinking during periods of sickness and trial ?
Here is what the great Mother Mectilde de Bar ( 1614–1698 ) wrote to a sick lay sister on Pentecost Tuesday , May 23 , 1695 : We must remain in the situation in which God places us , bless Him always , and always consent , right , left , on all sides @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do .
My poor Sister , the good God sends us back again [ to health ] in order to do penance ; but we must do it in His way and not in ours… The great secret to always being content is to adapt to God ’ s way , to His mode , and in everything that happens — good or bad , without making a distinction — to see always the will of God in God Himself , and God Himself in His will .
Never view anything as being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ little prick of your finger , or any small grief which in the morning you expect to happen during the day .
See everything in God , and stop neither at what is human nor at secondary causes ; instead be attached to God ’ s pleasure and to His will , so as to conform to it .
Let us not waste time , the end draws nigh .
The current epidemic has exposed how ubiquitous an error in our times is the denial that God is in charge of every last @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wills or permits all things for the punishment and reformation of sinners and for the merit of the just .
Accepting the sovereignty of God as Mother Mectilde counsels is fundamental for the spiritual life ; otherwise , we are truly “ at sea , ” without living faith in God ’ s care for us and His power to save us and to perfect us through suffering .
Even the Lord Jesus trod this path at the Father ’ s behest : “ It was fitting that He , for whom and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bringing many sons to glory , should make the pioneer of their salvation [ Christ ] perfect through suffering ” ( Heb .
2:10 ) .

The current epidemic has exposed how ubiquitous an error in our times is the denial that God is in charge of every last detail.
March 17, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — In a remarkable address, Prof. Roberto de Mattei points out the consistency with which the vast majority of bishops have declined to call for supernatural responses to the coronavirus, preferring rather the natural responses that our society exclusively recognizes:
The bishops today not only are not speaking about divine scourges, but they are not even inviting the faithful to pray that God will liberate them from the epidemic. There is a coherence in this. Whoever prays, in fact, asks God to intervene in his life, and thus in the things of the world, in order to be protected from evil and to obtain spiritual and material goods. But why should God listen to our prayers if he is disinterested in the universe created by Him?
De Mattei notes that a certain prominent bishop in Italy had “forcefully reject[ed] the idea that the Coronavirus epidemic or any other collective disaster can be a punishment for humanity. The virus, the bishop believes, is only the effect of nature.” But this is incoherent:
History in reality is a creature of God, like nature, like all that exists, because nothing of what exists can exist apart from God. All that happens in history is foreseen, regulated and ordered by God for all eternity. … God is the author of nature with its forces and its laws, and he has the power to arrange the mechanism of the forces and laws of nature in such a way as to produce a phenomenon according to the needs of his justice or his mercy. God, who is the first cause above all of all that exists, always makes use of secondary causes in order to effect his plans. Whoever has a supernatural spirit does not stop at the superficial level of things but seeks to understand the hidden design of God that is at work beneath the apparently blind force of nature.
This “hidden design” includes God’s chastisement of human beings for sins, which pertains to all of us, since we are all implicated in the fall of Adam, and no man who has the exercise of reason and free will can claim to be without personal sin (cf. 1 Jn 1:8). The Bible, the Church Fathers and Doctors, and the whole patrimony of Christian theology confess with one voice: God’s Providence is in charge of everything that happens; the physical evils of sickness and death are caused by the moral evil of sin, and are sent as retributive, purgative, and medicinal punishments.
Some would counter with the Gospel of John, where the Lord says a certain man’s blindness was not caused by his sins or his parents’ sins (cf. Jn. 9:2). Yet the same Lord tells us in Luke 13:
There were present, at that very time, some that told him of the Galileans, whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. And he answering, said to them: Think you that these Galileans were sinners above all the men of Galilee, because they suffered such things? No, I say to you: but unless you shall do penance, you shall all likewise perish. Or those eighteen upon whom the tower fell in Siloe and slew them: think you that they also were debtors above all the men that dwelt in Jerusalem? No, I say to you: but except you do penance, you shall all likewise perish.
Jesus reminds us that punishment justly falls on all of us, and that we must do penance for our sins and the sins of others. The evils of this world are an invitation to reject moral evil; purify our hearts; and return to Him to whom we must, in any case, render an account at the end of our days.
It is only in the Enlightenment (17th–18th centuries) that self-styled philosophers reject, simultaneously, the doctrine of original sin, the doctrine of divine Providence, and the value of penance. Ernst Cassirer noted that the Enlightenment thinkers, despite their great diversity of opinions, all agreed to throw out original sin. For the rationalists, all men are born with a “neutral” human nature, open to either good or evil; men become good or evil based on their upbringing and social influences. If bad things happen, it’s due to chance or personal vice. God, if His existence is acknowledged at all, is merely a clockmaker who builds the cosmic machine and sets it going. It then continues on its own, without His involvement. The picture of the universe we’ve been given by modern science is one in which God plays no intimate role. To those who labor under such an impoverished metaphysics, talk of God willing a tsunami or an earthquake, a plague or a famine, would seem not at all different from Homer talking of petulant Greek gods interfering in the Trojan war. Self-consciously “modern” theology, in turn, has often taken its cue from rationalism: it does not regard the human race as shipwrecked or drowning, as deserving of death and punishment, nor does it see God as intimately present to all things, especially to the creatures made in His image, calling them to redemptive suffering and eternal beatitude.
How radically different is the Christian and Catholic perspective vividly seen in the medieval prayer that the superior general of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter, Most Rev. Andrzej Komorowski, FSSP, asked the priests of the Fraternity to pray at the end of every public Mass until further notice:
V. Deal not with us, Lord, according to our sins. R. And take not vengeance on us because of our misdeeds. V. Help us, O God, our Deliverer. R. And for Thy name’s sake, O Lord, free us. V. Remember not, O Lord, our sins of old. R. Hasten to us with Thy compassion, for we are become exceeding poor. V. St. Sebastian, pray for us. R. That we may be made worthy of the promises of Christ. V. O Lord, hear my prayer. R. And let my cry come unto thee. V. The Lord be with you. R. And with thy spirit. Let us pray. Vouchsafe to hear us, O God, our only salvation! And through the intercession of the glorious and blessed Mary, Mother of God and ever Virgin, of Thy blessed martyr, Sebastian and of all the saints, deliver Thy people from the terrors of Thy wrath, and restore their confidence by the outpouring of Thy compassion. Be moved to pity, O Lord, at our earnest entreaties, and heal the illnesses of body and soul; so that experiencing Thy forgiveness we may ever rejoice in Thy blessing. We beseech thee, O Lord, grant us a hearing as we devoutly raise our petitions to Thee, and graciously turn away the epidemic of plague which afflicts us; so that mortal hearts may recognize that these scourges proceed from Thine indignation and cease only when Thou art moved to mercy. Through our Lord Jesus Christ, Thy Son, who liveth and reigned with Thee in the unity of the Holy Ghost, God, world without end. Amen.
Looking at these truly robust and Catholic prayers from the Age of Faith, we have to ask: why did such prayers get the axe after Vatican II? (This one is from the old Rituale Romanum, which did, in fact, get the axe…although, thankfully, it is coming back into use in more and more places.) Either the Church was right for all those centuries to pray this way — lex orandi, lex credendi — or she was wrong to do so. If she was right, then we today must repent of the destruction visited upon our own liturgical heritage and take up our “law of prayer” again in humility and trust. If she was wrong, however, why are we still Catholic? It would be more intellectually honest to become a secular humanist, or, for that matter, a nihilist.
This is really the fundamental question that the liturgical reform raises over and over again — once one becomes aware of the stark differences between old and new.
What were Catholics of olden times thinking during periods of sickness and trial? Here is what the great Mother Mectilde de Bar (1614–1698) wrote to a sick lay sister on Pentecost Tuesday, May 23, 1695, as recorded by another nun:
We must remain in the situation in which God places us, bless Him always, and always consent, right, left, on all sides; this is what we have to do. My poor Sister, the good God sends us back again [to health] in order to do penance; but we must do it in His way and not in ours… The great secret to always being content is to adapt to God’s way, to His mode, and in everything that happens — good or bad, without making a distinction — to see always the will of God in God Himself, and God Himself in His will. Never view anything as being outside of God, not even a little prick of your finger, or any small grief which in the morning you expect to happen during the day. See everything in God, and stop neither at what is human nor at secondary causes; instead be attached to God’s pleasure and to His will, so as to conform to it. Let us not waste time, the end draws nigh.
The current epidemic has exposed how ubiquitous an error in our times is the denial that God is in charge of every last detail of the universe and that He wills or permits all things for the punishment and reformation of sinners and for the merit of the just. Accepting the sovereignty of God as Mother Mectilde counsels is fundamental for the spiritual life; otherwise, we are truly “at sea,” without living faith in God’s care for us and His power to save us and to perfect us through suffering. Even the Lord Jesus trod this path at the Father’s behest: “It was fitting that He, for whom and by whom all things exist, in bringing many sons to glory, should make the pioneer of their salvation [Christ] perfect through suffering” (Heb. 2:10).
Peter Kwasniewski, Thomistic theologian, liturgical scholar, and choral composer, is a graduate of Thomas Aquinas College in California (B.A. Liberal Arts) and The Catholic University of America in Washington, DC (M.A. and Ph.D. in Philosophy). He taught at the International Theological Institute in Austria and the Franciscan University of Steubenville’s Austria Program, then helped establish Wyoming Catholic College in 2006. There he taught theology, philosophy, music, and art history and directed the choirs until leaving in 2018 to devote himself full-time to writing and lecturing. Today he contributes regularly to many websites and publications, including New Liturgical Movement, OnePeterFive, LifeSiteNews, Rorate Caeli, The Remnant, and Catholic Family News, and has published thirteen books, including four on traditional Catholicism: Resurgent in the Midst of Crisis (Angelico, 2014, also available in Czech, Polish, German, Portuguese, Spanish, and Belarusian), Noble Beauty, Transcendent Holiness (Angelico, 2017), Tradition and Sanity (Angelico, 2018), and Reclaiming Our Roman Catholic Birthright: The Genius and Timeliness of the Traditional Latin Mass (Angelico, 2020). His work has been translated into at least eighteen languages. Kwasniewski is a scholar of The Aquinas Institute in Green Bay, which is publishing the Opera Omnia of the Angelic Doctor, a Fellow of the Albertus Magnus Center for Scholastic Studies, and a Senior Fellow of the St. Paul Center. He has published over a thousand articles on Thomistic thought, sacramental and liturgical theology, the history and aesthetics of music, and the social doctrine of the Church. For news, information, article links, sacred music, and the home of Os Justi Press, visit his personal website, www.peterkwasniewski.com.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-03-16--Why coronavirus will not take hold in America as it did in Italy and South Korea

March 16 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – I have heard in the past couple of days a couple of alarming projections about how many Chinese coronavirus cases we have in the country , and also about the number of people who will supposedly die as a result .
But I have to tell you that the numbers given in these scary scenarios simply don ’ t add up .
We have , for example , the Republican governor of Ohio , Mike DeWine , going on national television and claiming that because of “ community spreading ” the number @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as 100,000 in his state alone .
Although neither he nor his Director of Medical Services explained how they arrived at this astonishing number , it was probably the result of an exponential equation that assumed that every infected person spread the disease to 2.6 others within a few days after showing symptoms of the disease .
A Rate of Infection ( ROI ) of between 2 and 3 is what the CDC is currently using to track the spread of the Chinese coronavirus .
At an ROI of 2.6—which is an extraordinarily @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ transmissions ” from Patient Zero to reach 100,000 cases .
But exponents are tricky things .
What if the real ROI was actually closer to the 1.3 characteristic of the seasonal flu ?
In that case , every infected person would only spread the disease to 1.3 others .
And the resulting number of infections after the same dozen “ transmissions ” ?
Only Twenty-four ( 24 ) !
You see what I mean about exponents being tricky things .
Very small differences in the ROI can produce huge differences over time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by changing their behavior .
This is what washing your hands , coughing into your elbow , and self-quarantine is all about .
But even common sense tells you that Ohio simply can not have 100,000 cases at the present moment .
Why ?
Because to date Ohio has only confirmed 37 actual cases of the Chinese coronavirus , and is testing 361 more .
Well , you say , this is only because the rollout of the test kits has been so slow .
But if that is the case , then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and not a single death ?
That ’ s zero fatalities as in zero , zip , nada .
That leaves only two possible explanations .
Either the estimate of 100,000 cases is a gross exaggeration or the Chinese coronavirus is much less dangerous than we have been told .
Or both .
To illustrate this , let ’ s do some even simpler math .
We are told by Dr. Fauci that the CDC estimates the mortality rate for the virus at around 1 % .
But if this were true , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ already , then we would have 1,000 deaths in Ohio alone by the time the disease had run its course in those currently infected .
Even assuming that , because these are early days in the “ community spreading ” that Governor DeWine has been told is going on , there would still be hundreds of deaths recorded to date .
Literally dozens of people would be dying every week .
The funeral homes would be filling up .
They ’ re not .
Even if we assume that the Chinese Coronavirus is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , with a mortality rate of 0.1 % , the state would still be facing a hundred deaths .
But right now we don ’ t … have … a single … fatality .
In fact , as of Sunday , March 15th , we only had 62 deaths in the entire United States .
You see what I mean about the numbers not adding up ?
There are the even more ominous projections being bandied about .
A number of doctors have suggested that we are facing hundreds of thousands , or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
John Nolte , summarizing these alarming prognostications for Breitbart , warns that the experts are suggesting that the U.S. may see up to 1.5 million deaths from the Chinese Coronavirus .
Such projections are based on an even simpler equation : Number of Chinese Coronavirus Cases times Death Rate ( Percent of Those Infected Who Die ) I don ’ t want to pick on Nolte , whose columns I read and enjoy .
He has been told that 150 million Americans may get Chinese Coronavirus and that 1 percent of these @ @ @ @ @ @ @ numbers into the above equation and was taken aback by the result .
Now it is a mathematical certainty that if 150 million Americans become infected and if one percent of those infected die , then we are looking at a staggering 1.5 million deaths .
But are we ?
Where do these assumptions about the rate of spread and lethality of the Chinese Coronavirus come from ?
Unlike the Chinese Coronavirus itself , they don ’ t come from China .
Or at least they shouldn ’ t .
No one , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ diseases spread and can be controlled—should take Beijing ’ s statistics on their viral epidemic seriously .
The reported numbers of dead , infected , and recovered are sheer fabrications intended , above all , to make the regime look good .
Many epidemiologists are , however , looking at South Korea or Italy ’ s epidemics as approximations of what we are facing in the U.S. in terms of the rapid spread and lethality of the disease .
South Korea , for example , is a developed country that has done fairly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the numbers .
To date , 66 South Koreans have died , 7869 have been infected ( some of whom will still die ) and 333 have completely recovered .
That gives you a mortality rate of about .9 percent .
The numbers from Italy are in flux , but are at least as bad .
But I think that these two countries are both—for somewhat different reasons—very imperfect analogies to our situation here in the U.S .
Speaking as an anthropologist , a number of cultural factors come into play .
Both @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are much older , live in much more crowded conditions , and have much smaller “ personal bubbles ” than your average American .
At the same time , because of declining marriage and fertility rates , elderly Koreans and Italians are much more socially isolated than we are as well , which means that they are going to suffer more consequences from the coronavirus because of a lack of close relatives to help care for them should they fall ill .
These are all factors that increase the spread and deadliness of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to these factors several additional ones : First , if the Chinese Coronavirus behaves like previous viral epidemics , it will become less lethal as it spreads farther afield .
The virus reached South Korea and Italy before it reached our shores .
Second , in Italy , China and even to a certain extent in South Korea , the medical system simply broke down under the weight of a massive wave of severely ill patients arriving in these nations ’ ERs all at once .
In China , this resulted in people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and on the streets .
In Italy , it has led to a triage system where the elderly may be admitted to the hospital but are given only minimal care .
Scarce ventilators , for example , are reserved for younger patients .
Obviously , survival rates for elderly Italian patients have dramatically declined .
Septuagenarians and up are basically being given only palliative care and left to recover on their own .
Many don ’ t .
Finally , I believe that Americans have modified their behavior in ways that reduce the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of draconian quarantines that other countries have imposed .
This will in turn help to limit the rate at which the disease spreads .
After all , aside from spoiled snowflakes and aging socialists like Bernie Sanders , Americans have never been inclined to simply wait for the government to come and save us .
Be watchful , take precautions , and wait .
This too shall pass .
I will talk about the cultural , behavioral , and demographic factors that will help to mitigate the American epidemic in more detail in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is the President of the Population Research Institute and the author of Bully of Asia : Why China ’ s Dream is the New Threat to World Order .

While the trajectory of the epidemic here is still unknown, the U.S. is not Italy, South Korea (or China)
March 16, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – I have heard in the past couple of days a couple of alarming projections about how many Chinese coronavirus cases we have in the country, and also about the number of people who will supposedly die as a result. But I have to tell you that the numbers given in these scary scenarios simply don’t add up.
We have, for example, the Republican governor of Ohio, Mike DeWine, going on national television and claiming that because of “community spreading” the number of coronavirus cases may be as many as 100,000 in his state alone. Although neither he nor his Director of Medical Services explained how they arrived at this astonishing number, it was probably the result of an exponential equation that assumed that every infected person spread the disease to 2.6 others within a few days after showing symptoms of the disease.
A Rate of Infection (ROI) of between 2 and 3 is what the CDC is currently using to track the spread of the Chinese coronavirus. At an ROI of 2.6—which is an extraordinarily high ROI—it would take only a dozen “transmissions” from Patient Zero to reach 100,000 cases.
But exponents are tricky things. What if the real ROI was actually closer to the 1.3 characteristic of the seasonal flu? In that case, every infected person would only spread the disease to 1.3 others. And the resulting number of infections after the same dozen “transmissions”? Only Twenty-four (24)!
You see what I mean about exponents being tricky things. Very small differences in the ROI can produce huge differences over time. And people can change the ROI by changing their behavior. This is what washing your hands, coughing into your elbow, and self-quarantine is all about.
But even common sense tells you that Ohio simply cannot have 100,000 cases at the present moment. Why? Because to date Ohio has only confirmed 37 actual cases of the Chinese coronavirus, and is testing 361 more. Well, you say, this is only because the rollout of the test kits has been so slow.
But if that is the case, then why have there only been 7 hospitalizations and not a single death? That’s zero fatalities as in zero, zip, nada.
That leaves only two possible explanations. Either the estimate of 100,000 cases is a gross exaggeration or the Chinese coronavirus is much less dangerous than we have been told. Or both.
To illustrate this, let’s do some even simpler math. We are told by Dr. Fauci that the CDC estimates the mortality rate for the virus at around 1%. But if this were true, and there are 100,000 cases in Ohio already, then we would have 1,000 deaths in Ohio alone by the time the disease had run its course in those currently infected. Even assuming that, because these are early days in the “community spreading” that Governor DeWine has been told is going on, there would still be hundreds of deaths recorded to date. Literally dozens of people would be dying every week. The funeral homes would be filling up. They’re not.
Even if we assume that the Chinese Coronavirus is no more lethal than the seasonal flu, with a mortality rate of 0.1%, the state would still be facing a hundred deaths. But right now we don’t … have … a single … fatality. In fact, as of Sunday, March 15th, we only had 62 deaths in the entire United States.
You see what I mean about the numbers not adding up?
There are the even more ominous projections being bandied about. A number of doctors have suggested that we are facing hundreds of thousands, or even millions of deaths from Chinese Coronavirus. John Nolte, summarizing these alarming prognostications for Breitbart, warns that the experts are suggesting that the U.S. may see up to 1.5 million deaths from the Chinese Coronavirus.
Such projections are based on an even simpler equation: Number of Chinese Coronavirus Cases times Death Rate (Percent of Those Infected Who Die)
I don’t want to pick on Nolte, whose columns I read and enjoy. He has been told that 150 million Americans may get Chinese Coronavirus and that 1 percent of these will die. He simply plugged these numbers into the above equation and was taken aback by the result.
Now it is a mathematical certainty that if 150 million Americans become infected and if one percent of those infected die, then we are looking at a staggering 1.5 million deaths. But are we?
Where do these assumptions about the rate of spread and lethality of the Chinese Coronavirus come from?
Unlike the Chinese Coronavirus itself, they don’t come from China. Or at least they shouldn’t. No one, least of all epidemiologists—those who study how diseases spread and can be controlled—should take Beijing’s statistics on their viral epidemic seriously. The reported numbers of dead, infected, and recovered are sheer fabrications intended, above all, to make the regime look good.
Many epidemiologists are, however, looking at South Korea or Italy’s epidemics as approximations of what we are facing in the U.S. in terms of the rapid spread and lethality of the disease.
South Korea, for example, is a developed country that has done fairly widespread testing, so we can trust the numbers. To date, 66 South Koreans have died, 7869 have been infected (some of whom will still die) and 333 have completely recovered. That gives you a mortality rate of about .9 percent.
The numbers from Italy are in flux, but are at least as bad.
But I think that these two countries are both—for somewhat different reasons—very imperfect analogies to our situation here in the U.S. Speaking as an anthropologist, a number of cultural factors come into play. Both South Korea and Italy have populations that are much older, live in much more crowded conditions, and have much smaller “personal bubbles” than your average American. At the same time, because of declining marriage and fertility rates, elderly Koreans and Italians are much more socially isolated than we are as well, which means that they are going to suffer more consequences from the coronavirus because of a lack of close relatives to help care for them should they fall ill. These are all factors that increase the spread and deadliness of the epidemics of these countries.
Add to these factors several additional ones:
First, if the Chinese Coronavirus behaves like previous viral epidemics, it will become less lethal as it spreads farther afield. The virus reached South Korea and Italy before it reached our shores.
Second, in Italy, China and even to a certain extent in South Korea, the medical system simply broke down under the weight of a massive wave of severely ill patients arriving in these nations’ ERs all at once. In China, this resulted in people being left to die in their homes and on the streets. In Italy, it has led to a triage system where the elderly may be admitted to the hospital but are given only minimal care. Scarce ventilators, for example, are reserved for younger patients. Obviously, survival rates for elderly Italian patients have dramatically declined. Septuagenarians and up are basically being given only palliative care and left to recover on their own. Many don’t.
Finally, I believe that Americans have modified their behavior in ways that reduce the spread of the infection without the kind of draconian quarantines that other countries have imposed. This will in turn help to limit the rate at which the disease spreads.
After all, aside from spoiled snowflakes and aging socialists like Bernie Sanders, Americans have never been inclined to simply wait for the government to come and save us. Be watchful, take precautions, and wait. This too shall pass.
I will talk about the cultural, behavioral, and demographic factors that will help to mitigate the American epidemic in more detail in Part II
Steven W. Mosher @StevenWMosher is the President of the Population Research Institute and the author of Bully of Asia: Why China’s Dream is the New Threat to World Order.
Follow Steven Steven Mosher is an internationally recognised authority on China and population issues as well as an acclaimed author and speaker and founder and head of the Population Research Institute. He was the first American social scientist to visit mainland China in 1979 where he witnessed women being forced to have abortion under the new “one-child-policy” which he then exposed to the world. Mr. Mosher was a pro-choice atheist at the time, but witnessing these traumatic abortions led him to reconsider his convictions and to eventually become a practicing, pro-life Roman Catholic. Mosher has appeared numerous times before the US Congress as an expert in world population, China and human Rights abuses. He has also made TV appearances on Good Morning America, 60 Minutes, The Today Show, 20/20, FOX and CNN news, as well as being a regular guest on talk radio shows across the nation. He is the author of the best-selling A Mother’s Ordeal: One woman’s Fight Against China’s One-Child-Policy. His latest book is Bully of Asia, exposing the threat of China to the entire world at this time. Articles by Steve have appeared in The Wall Street Journal, Reader’s Digest, The New Republic, The Washington Post, National Review, Reason, The Asian Wall Street Journal, Freedom Review, Linacre Quarterly, Catholic World Report, Human Life Review, First Things, and numerous other publications. Steven Mosher lives in Virginia with his wife, Vera, and their nine children.
Share