It's not nearly as deadly in the near term as the Spanish Flu, which took out 5% of the population, or the Black Death, which wiped out half of Londoners, but there are other changes in our lives that could make Covid more of a risk overall:
We might have relaxed with Covid knowing that it appears to cause fatalities in just one in a thousand people (about 7 million out of over 7 billion, although some places suggest it's at least four times as high). But T. Ryan Gregory explains why that's little comfort:
"Just a reminder that the following are unprecedented in all of human history and pre-history:
* 8 billion hosts.
* Global travel.
* Older population thanks to long lifespans.
* Repeated infections up to several times per year.
* Extremely dense populations, mostly indoors.This all means that past pandemics are, at best, a very weak guide for what will happen with this one. Yes, four of the human coronaviruses cause common colds. And three of them are deadly, two of which have caused pandemics within the past 20 years (SARS1, SARS2).
Consider the situation with the 1918 flu pandemic. In 1918:
* The human population was less than a quarter as large as it is today.
* There was no global air travel.
* Life expectancy was about half what it is today.
* Only about 30% of the population was infected.
Very basic evolutionary theory shows that population size matters a lot. Larger population of viruses means:
* More mutations added to the gene pool.
* More opportunity for recombination and within-host evolution.
* Stronger natural selection on fit mutations.
With 8 billion potential hosts who can be infected year-round and up to several times per year, that is a lot of virus. Like, a lot a lot. Enough that every possible point mutation is probably happening and being passed on every single day. Movement of infected hosts all around the world means that a variant that evolves anywhere will soon appear everywhere. With waning immunity and immune escaping variants, this means a high baseline and a lot of area under the curve even without huge peaks.
It's a myth that viruses must evolve to become benign lest they drive hosts extinct. Not when there are billions of hosts available. And it is a perfectly viable outcome to become less virulent acutely but take up residence in organs and do damage long term, after transmission. The answer is not people getting infected more so that the virus becomes benign or we finally get herd immunity. The answer is less virus.
It feels like we're still doing individual cost/benefit analysis calculations and assuming we're safe enough to go back to the way we used to live. But is that's along the lines of Niemöller's famous quote?
First the virus came for the Long Term Care homes, but I did not speak out because I was not in longterm care.
Then the virus came for the disabled, but I did not speak out because I was not disabled.
Then it came for the racialized and impoverished, but I did not speak out because I was neither racialized or impoverished.
Then the virus came for the infants and children, but I did not speak out because I was not a child.
Then it came for me -- and there was no one left to speak for me.
That what a cost/benefit calculation looks like when people only include themselves. If we want an entire civilization to work and to survive, then we need to have a system than harms the fewest number of people possible even if it means the majority of people have to be a bit inconvenienced. That's what living together should look like.
Wear an N95 to prevent transmission of a fatal and disabling virus. The more it spreads, the worse it will get.
***
Well-fitting N95s reduce transmission by about 95% - even higher if everyone wears them; cleaning the air helps by about 30%, and vaccines reduces hospitalization by 60%. Put together, we could ALL be 99.999% protected from this mess!
No comments:
Post a Comment