Yesterday, U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson announced that a new strain of COVID-19 had emerged in the country late September which “might be as much as 70% more transmissible.” Today, the U.K. Health Minister called the new strain “out of control.”

This new strain has accounted for more than 60% of new cases in the past week in London (which are up 40% week-over-week), and “20% of viruses sequenced in Norfolk, 10% in Essex, and 3% in Suffolk.”

There is a lot we still do not know about this new strain and the data is still early and subject to review. Therefore, it is possible the new strain is not actually 70% more transmissible. And for context, the U.K. (and in particular England) recently relaxed their COVID restrictions.

However, given the rapid increase of this strain’s share of COVID cases in London and South East England, I believe it is highly unlikely that this new strain is not, to some substantial degree, more transmissible. And early analysis from NERVTAG — the British new virus advisory group — indicates as much.

Hopefully, scientists will be soon be able to determine the true threat of this new strain. But if true — if this new mutation of COVID-19 is 70% more transmissible — then the pandemic’s home-stretch will be a lot worse.

Here’s why.

70% Higher R0 = Disaster

The most obvious way in which a higher transmission rate would make the pandemic worse is by increasing the number of total cases which would thereby increase the total number of deaths.

Death by Transmission Alone

Using a Susceptible, Exposed, Infected and Resistant Model created during the early months of the pandemic by Gabriel Goh and others —designed to determine the effectiveness of lockdown durations — we can get a crude estimation of what a 70% increase of the R0 for COVID-19 mean.

Note: The model was used because it was the only interactive one I could find and was useful enough for illustrative purposes.

(Full disclosure: I am not an epidemiologist, virologist, public health expert, or master statistician. The following numbers and the analysis in this article should be taken as a rough estimation — an illustration. However, I have read a dozens of journal articles, government and intergovernmental reports and playbooks, and a few books on public health crises and SARS-COV-2. I also wrote my master’s thesis proposal on COVID-19 pandemic.)

A 70% increase in the base assumption of the model’s R0 (the number of people who will be infected from a single infected person) from 2.5 to 4.25 would increase the total number of projected deaths by 70%.

If this British strain of COVID-19 were the original one, then the United States would’ve reached 549,782 deaths yesterday instead of 323,401.

When Hospitals Break

The real concern is not the increase of total cases, however. The real concern is the damage this new strain would cause if the health care system were to collapse due to the increased number and rate of new cases.

And the if is more like a when should the new strain spread to a country. This is particularly the case for the United States, given I.C.U. beds across the country are already reaching capacity while cases continue to grow.

A 5% Death Rate

We know that as hospital capacity increases, the death rate of COVID-19 increases. (Although this trend has been offset by introduction of new therapeutics and better care techniques during the past few months of the pandemic.)

The increase in lethality is most drastic when the hospital system collapses. We saw this in Italy, Sweden, Spain, and Iran. In comparison to a current global average 2.2% case-fatality-ratio (CFR), these countries witnessed a CFR of 14.5%, 14.3%, 12.2%, and 7.8% respectively (12.2% average).

Given that a) 20% of COVID-cases are asymptomatic, b) in the initial months of the pandemic only symptomatic people got tested, c) therapeutics have gotten better, and d) hospitals will not always be past capacity, let us consider a COVID death rate of 4.88% if hospitals reach capacity — or 40% of the average.

(This number is to some degree subjective and might well be on the low-side, but it was chosen to account for the issues with early data, testing, care and therapeutics.)

Using the same model as before, a 4.88% death ratio with a 70% increase in R0 would mean an 8.25X increase in deaths (10.736M deaths vs 1.3M deaths in the model).

If Nate Silver is right and the United States will have an additional 460,000 deaths over the next six months, then should this new strain spread and takeover within the U.S. that additional number would soar to 3,800,000 deaths.

If you were to half the new strain’s death toll, there would still be +1.4 million deaths over the next sixth months over the current strains of COVID-19.

What’s Comes Next

All of this, of course, assumes that the new strain of the coronavirus will spread outside of the United Kingdom and that is 70% more transmissible. Currently there is no evidence the strain has spread to the United States, but we know it reached the Netherlands in early December, it is now in Australia and Denmark, a growing number of European countries have banned all flights from the Britain, and a similar strain has independently emerged in South Africa. And we know that this new strain spreads fast once it arrives: In only a month and a half, it managed to account for 60% of new weekly COVID cases in London. In South Africa, it accounts for 90% of sequenced viruses.

At the same time, experts seem relatively confident that the current vaccines for COVID-19 will work on the new strain.

In the United States, Dr. Anthony Fauci says the United States might be able to reach herd immunity through vaccination by the end of summer 2021. According to the editor of the Lancet, global herd immunity will take 2–3 years.

We can only hope the news from Britain is wrong, that my analysis is somehow super wrong, or that — somehow — the new strain stays confined to a select few, unfortunate countries. Otherwise, much stricter restrictions will need to be implemented to limit as much of the new strain’s destruction as possible.

If not, President-elect Biden’s “darkest winter” will be paradise in comparison to what’s to come.

Update

We Examined U.K. Flight Data: Here's Where the British COVID Mutation Might Be

Coronavirus — echoing the immortal words of Joe Biden — is a big fucking deal. The most recent developments would tell you as much.

Yesterday the British government announced a stimulus package worth 420 billion pounds — equivalent to 15% of the British GDP. The German government pledged $600 billion USD in economic aid. The European Union itself promised hundreds of billions in aid to support the bloc’s members. The amount of spending in Europe is colossal. By comparison, the Marshall Plan — the US aid package offered to Europe in the aftermath of WWII, hoping to starve off what historian Tony Judt described as desolation and societal collapse on the continent — was only worth $200 billion in today’s currency. In the United States, the Republican Senate and White House are poised to offer economic stimulus worth over $1 trillion USD, including direct financial payments worth $1000, a form of universal basic income — a policy proposed by former 2020 Democratic primary candidate Andrew Yang that was offered little if any attention during his run. Moreover, central banks across the globe are offering unprecedented levels of liquidity and interest rate cuts— far outpacing their response to the 2008 Great Recession. These are serious economic interventions that should give us all pause: Things are not normal — not even close.

The Situation at Home

The economic implications of the coronavirus pandemic and the domestic and international response to COVID-19, the disease caused by the virus, will be monumental.

Markets have already cratered, a recession is likely, and a depression is — unfortunately — not unlikely. But this pandemic goes beyond economics. The travel bans, lockdowns of countries, and the panic that has spread globally points to a larger threat. Coronavirus is much bigger than our pocketbooks or our retirement accounts: The virus threatens life.

A lot of life.

The U.S. Centers of Diseases Control and Prevention estimated that between 160 million and 214 million people could become infected in the United States alone — with between 200,000 and 1,700,000 people dead. By comparison: 58,000 Americans died in the Vietnam War; 117,000 Americans died in the First World War; 400,000 Americans died in World War II; and roughly 650,000 Americans died in the Civil War. Other reports on the pandemic offer different, but nevertheless, grim outlooks.

Imperial College’s March 16th report from their COVID-19 Response Team illuminated our new reality and triggered the recent extreme interventions. The study found that if no significant changes to social life and medical preparation are taken, 510,000 people will die in the United Kingdom and 2.2 million in the United States. If we follow “mitigation” policies — the same ones we hear governments discussing now to “flatten the curve” — the death toll will still be significant. More importantly, while mitigation will build some herd immunity, a second wave is likely once the mitigation policies are relaxed. The alternative approach would be to enact suppression policies. These are severe interventions — school closures, case isolation, home quarantine, and social distancing — aimed at suppressing cases and halting the pandemic’s spread indefinitely until a vaccine is tested, manufactured, and globally administered. Suppression would save the most lives, but only if we commit. Relaxing restrictions without a carefully planned strategy would make a second wave likely — one that will likely be worse than what we are experiencing right now. The virus is deadly. We have to treat it as such.

The most damning fact from the Imperial College report is that the pandemic surge has not occurred yet. The chaos in Italy, Iran, and other countries, and the fear that the chaos is spreading across Europe and America, is nothing in comparison to what is to come. The peak of cases and mortality will happen in three months barring immediate implementation of suppression-based government policies and individual behavior. Now is the time to make big changes in our lives. Things will not be normal for a while. It is time to get used to it because now is the time to act.

Of course, the situation could change. We have incomplete information about the virus, how it spreads, and what to do for those infected. The situation could not be as bad as I am projecting, however it would be unsafe and contemptible to live life under the assumption that the best-case scenario will happen. Even if we manage the cases, the strain on our health care systems will diminish other medical concerns. We need collective effort and decisive action.

Hard borders will need to be erected. Social distancing will have to be mandated and enforced. Our daily lives will change. Luxury goods — such as the upcoming Playstation 5 and Xbox Series X — will likely be delayed or in short supply. The import of cargo will still be possible, particularly once the immediate surge is contained. However, imports will likely be restricted to the most critical economic goods since any item will need to be disinfected or quarantined upon entry. Similar restrictions will likely apply to humans — international travel will only be used for necessary travel, meaning: Doctors, researchers, heads of state, diplomats, engineers, etc. It is possible we will see similar restrictions on domestic travel — at least for a period. These measures will be required to prevent a second wave of infections and repeating our current crisis and panic.

However, this pandemic reality has only been concerned on the wealthiest and most successful countries so far. This is a global pandemic. It threatens our national and international order and security.

A Global Crisis

Changes in the international economy will have dramatic consequences for the Global South. The restrictions on the international market will thwart economic growth and output in their manufacturing or primary goods-based economies. The impact will likely be, at minimum, of a similar magnitude to that felt by the West. However, many of these countries have far weaker social safety nets; far fewer competent governments; and, most critically, far worse medical resources. Therefore, for much of the world this pandemic could threaten society and life unparalleled to what we in the West will experience.

Many countries in the Global South have poor medical infrastructures. In Africa, the number of cases lag behind the West, but cases are on the rise. In response, African nations have taken drastic steps to curb a surge in cases. But what happens if their efforts are insufficient? Or, should their steps be sufficient, what happens until a vaccine is ready since many of their economies rely on exports? Even in areas that managed to temporarily contain the virus, such as Singapore, Hong Kong, and now China, significant interventions were required — ones that will need to largely hold until a vaccine is ready, otherwise risking a second wave of infection. Africa will either experience a lockdown for months to come or face a massive health disaster. Hardly a situation that would benefit global stability.

Moreover, what happens if the situation in North Korea worsens? While the North Korean government has claimed it has controlled the virus, reports have emerged that thousands in the military have been infected, and rumors have spread that the Kim Jong-Un dictatorship has killed people who break quarantine. More importantly, however: What happens until a vaccine can reach the country? This is a country that as of 2019 has nearly 40% of their population undernourished. This is a country that has nuclear weapons and an unstable and authoritarian leadership. What happens if a surge of cases occurs in North Korea? Or at minimum, what steps do we need to take globally to ensure the 11 million vulnerable North Koreans are safe? This is a serious global situation.

The threat is also not confined to North Korea. What happens as the virus continues to wreak havoc in Iran? Cases are surging, and if the government is unable to take extreme measures the death toll in Iran could reach 3.5 million people. While the virus has the potential to bring together and moderate the government of Iran, this is not likely to be an easy process. It is likely that Iran will need international support in fighting the pandemic. Is the world willing to offer it? Moreover, consider the West Bank. Today, Israel closed off Palestinian-controlled areas of the West Bank but the spread of the virus continues in the West Bank. Will the Israeli government be able to handle a growing pandemic in Palestine? Will tensions explode if Israeli does not? What happens when the viruses reaches numerous other weak governments or unstable situations — such as in Afghanistan where a recent peace deal between the United States, Taliban, and Afghanistan is threatened by the rise of COVID-19 cases in the country. What about Syria or the Congo? This pandemic is not contained within our homes. It is not contained within our borders. Coronavirus is a global threat. We need global leadership, otherwise we risk chaos.

Sweeping and immediate action is necessary. For the time being, normalcy will change. The economy will tank, social life will go digital, and many will unfortunately perish. By leveraging technology, implementing drive-through testing, providing unprecedented economic support, and making virus management paramount domestically and internationally, it is possible we achieve some return to normalcy. But life will be changed, and a new normal will last until a vaccine is created and spread— an effort that will take roughly 18 months. And even after the vaccine has been administered, we will emerge into a world shaped and morphed by our present and immediate threat. A global coordinated response will likely be required.

We each have to contribute how we can: Following government guidelines for virus management; contributing our time and energy towards public works; offering technical expertise; raising our taxes — particularly on the wealthy; rationing goods; and embarking upon unprecedented international and humanitarian programs aimed to protecting the most vulnerable. We have to work internationally to accelerate the timeframe for vaccine creation, production, and distribution. We have to work internationally to surge medical equipment development and medical personnel training. We have work domestically to support our front-line healthcare defenders. This is our new reality.

This feels like a lot. It feels unfair, it feels absurd, and we very well may feel angry. The governments of the world have failed us. The guiltiest party is undeniably China. The Chinese government suppressed coronavirus whistleblowers; took a slow response to the unfolding health crisis, with Xi hiding from public view; and ignored C.D.C. and W.H.O. offers for help. Now, China is expelling American journalists from the country who seek to expose and criticize the Chinese government’s response to the coronavirus crisis. However, China eventually suppressed their cases and, despite their condemnable initial response, bought the world months to prepare. We took those hard-earned months and did nothing.

It would be difficult to underestimate the failure that was the United States’ response. The Trump Administration downplayed the situation, failed to rally global leadership, focused attention to the stock-market and industry-specific bailouts, and performed non-existent preparation. The US response has been — to use a technical term — pathetic. However, the inability to lead is not exclusive to America. Across Europe, leaders failed in their response to the unfolding pandemic. Some places in Asia might have done well at initially containing the virus, but, as previously mentioned, their situation will be hard to maintain.

The majority of our governments have failed us. They fought for adulation and praise, playing their self-absorbed role in the drama of “politics” that has saturated our lives. In short, they failed to govern. As a result, we are about to experience a pandemic caused by incompetence and narcissism. This is a scary and, frankly, unfair time. But this is our new reality — and no complaining, tweeting, or downplaying of the situation will change it. Blame and punishment for our failed leaders will have to wait, because blame will not change our present reality. Now, we need to work together on getting out of this situation together. Now, we need action.

Our New Era

War. We are at war. One day, this may be referred to as World War III — but make no mistake, this war is not normal. You cannot argue or negotiate with a virus. You cannot reach an “understanding” or a conditional surrender with a virus. Until we know enough about the virus and how it will spread, we need to have a war-like mentality — focusing on preventing the worst-case scenarios. War conjures many emotions and feelings such as fear and animosity. But it also conjures unity and purpose. We need to harness the good — forming a new sensation of national and international unity. This conflict is different from any other we have faced in recent times: Our enemy is not a substance, our enemy is not a terrorist group, our enemy is not another nation. Our enemy is a virus that does not discriminate. We will either pull together and save lives, or we won’t — forever living in the shadows of those we slay because when the time came, we could not stand together.

This world war will require unprecedented levels of global cooperation. We need international leadership — leaders, medical officials, experts, and researchers working together. Even if we are able to suppress the virus at home, an international effort will have to continue until a vaccine is globally distributed — otherwise we threaten global stability. Now is time for the governments of the world to treat the situation for what it is and what it will be. Now is the time for them to act together: Declare war on coronavirus and COVID-19.

Wartime strategies will need to be invoked domestically. This has already begun in the United States, with President Trump invoking the Defense Production Act today. We also need an agile lawmaking system. This is no time to play for the cameras: Politicians need to put their heads down, stop fighting for attention, bring in experts, and get to work. Action will have to be taken, then retaken again and again as the situation develops. This pandemic cannot be solved in a weekend or a month, it will require a sustained, adaptable approach that will last from infection through recovery. This may seem like a daunting — even risky — task, especially when many of our governments have demonstrated little ability or competency. But these are unfortunately the governments we have. If they succeed in their response to the coronavirus pandemic — by bringing in experts and listening to the smartest, not the most “popular,” voices — they will earn a shot at governing in the future. Or they do a poor job and get voted out of office, either by election or a vote of no-confidence. It is time for government to do its job. We’ll decide if their efforts were sufficient.

War will mean a change in national campaigns as well. The 2020 Presidential Election is underway in the United States and it should not stop. All citizens should receive mail-in ballots and the debates should continue — although with no audiences. How will we judge Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, and Presidential Donald Trump? By how they will respond (or are responding) to the immediate crisis; how they will lead (or are leading) the international fight against the pandemic; how they will transition from suppression into some form of normalcy; and how they will lead a battered nation and world after we emerge from the immediate threat. The shift in campaigning has already begun: Joe Biden was the first to announce a plan fighting the virus, and focused on the immediate response in the most recent democratic primary debate. Bernie Sanders, who gave far less attention to the virus during Sunday’s debate, has begun to take the pandemic seriously — unveiling a $2 trillion emergency plan yesterday. Even President Trump has taken the threat seriously and is no longer downplaying the threat.

The pandemic will be the ultimate test for our governments and for those who seek to run our governments: Who can get us through the crisis and who can help us thrive afterwards? These questions will define our new wartime elections: For President, for House, for Senate, and for our local officials too. It is our responsibility as a public to aid in any way we can against this pandemic, but it is also our responsibility to have a representative government that has the correct plan to steer us through and out of this crisis, domestically and internationally. It is time for the governments to govern and for the citizens to hold them accountable.

Hope and Possibility

We can emerge from this crisis stronger. We can remember why we need a government; why we need our fellow countrymen; why we need international leadership and commitment; why we need a government that works by and for the people; and why we need our fellow humans across the globe. This situation will lay to bare our societies, and from that naked look we can build a better tomorrow. We will be testing policies that previously were unthinkable—such as universal healthcare and universal basic income in the United States. Our crisis will also break the years-long spell of perpetual political fighting. However, this is also a period of great risk. Many societies are fragile, and countries such as China may view this pandemic as the means to fundamentally alter the international order. Coronavirus has demonstrated the “Liberal World Order’s” weaknesses and we must act to correct these faults. At the same time, revolutionary change in the wake of disaster is risky — and there is much to fret about a Chinese-led world order.

What I have proposed may be an overreaction. Studies have indicated the situation may not get as bad in the Global South as it has in the Global North, and the worst-case or medium-case scenarios of the pandemic may never come to fruition. But even if we overreact, we will save lives — likely more than we would have otherwise. However, if we under-react, we doom millions to death. These are preventable deaths! This is a PANDEMIC. We must act now: Protect, defend, and improve.

Our effort will not end with coronavirus. If you think the pandemic is bad and caused extreme panic, then try not to contemplate climate change or the threat of automation and artificial intelligence right now. These are fundamental challenges to our society that we will require decisive action too. It is likely that this pandemic has inadvertently bought us time for both — but if COVID-19 has taught as anything, we cannot ignore threats until they became unavoidable.

Can we succeed in our war against coronavirus and against our future threats? Can we save our fellow human beings and our societies? Can we emerge from this crisis stronger than before? Yes. There is hope and possibility. We can and must achieve the best possible outcome based on our present reality. But that will only happen if we fight this war together, if we use our spirit, tools, technology, and knowledge together, and, most importantly, if we are collectively willing to give a damn. It is time to change our perception. It is time to get serious.

Can we make the possible and the hopeful our reality? Will hope and history rhyme? We’re about to find out.

Thanks for reading this article. I’d like to thank Scott Singer, Anna Chirniciuc, Jasmine Chia, Matt Mizbani, Jenna Weyant, and my mom for helping me edit this piece.

I am wishing everyone the best in the coming months and years to come.

— Clay Graubard

Note: This article was written during the afternoon of March 18, 2020 (GMT). This means that much of what is written here is subject to change — and likely will change in the coming days or even hours.

Today, my paper regarding the University of Pennsylvania’s Connection to Slavery was published. For nearly four months and over 400 hours, I have independently researched and documented the University of Pennsylvania’s connection to slavery and the slave trade. I have been to archives across the state of Pennsylvania and even the ones at Princeton to piece together this significant part of Penn’s history.

My paper has been finished since last Monday and was supposed to be published this past Thursday, April 19. This had been the plan for weeks — and the general understanding for months — but complications arose last Tuesday which prevented the paper’s release. Last Friday, a resolution was made and today my paper was published through the University Archives and Records Center.

I would like to thank the professional staff of the University Archives and Records Center. As an economics major with no experience in historical or archival research, the assistance and guidance I received from the University Archives and Records Center was invaluable. The archivists and professional staff of UARC supported my research, clarified issues, and helped bring my research to its conclusion.

The archivists viewed my research as “sophisticated and thorough work for an undergraduate. [And that] it is really good work of a remarkable nature.”

The goal of my paper has always been to present, in the most even-handed way possible, the facts regarding Penn’s connection to slavery. My hope is to facilitate an open dialogue dealing with this part of Penn’s history in a free and well researched manner.

I stand proudly behind the academic integrity of my research. The paper is a quality documentation of Penn’s connection to slavery, and I hope that its publication can help facilitate a dialogue on campus regarding this aspect of Penn’s history.

You can read the key findings below and find the paper HERE.

— Clay Graubard.

Key Findings:

Labor and Construction

The University paid Professor of English and Steward of the Dormitories Ebenezer Kinnersley for the service of his enslaved man for at least thirteen years.

• Kinnersley first received payment for this enslaved man’s service after the Trustees complained that the current Usher could not handle the heavy chores.
• During his tenure at the University, it appears that Kinnersley only owned one enslaved person.
• Based on my research, it appears that Kinnersley purchased and owned this enslaved man for the sole purpose of assisting the University.
• Kinnersley sold an enslaved female in 1742. He and his wife, Sarah Duffield, also received an enslaved woman after the death of Sarah Duffield’s father, Joseph Duffield, in 1747.

Many of the carpenters and craftsman associated with the construction of the early University were slave holders.

• Robert Smith made renovations to the building purchased by the Trustees to first house the Academy. He also designed and built the dormitory and Provost’s house. Smith owned at least three enslaved persons throughout his life, but likely owned more.

• Benjamin Loxley was another carpenter who did work on the early construction of the University. Loxley owned at least one enslaved person throughout his life (not including the ones he sold), but likely owned more. He also sold two enslaved people in 1760.
• John Coats was a brick maker who sold bricks to the University throughout its construction. Coats owned at least six enslaved people throughout his life, but likely owned more.

• Thomas Leech paid a “Negroe man to dig” in 1752. All other mentions of hired labor appear as: laborer, workmen, or man. This is not only true for the University’s account books, but others as well. Based on research into similar accounts regarding labor, it appears that this refers to a rented enslaved person — but to say definitively would be speculation.

Taking into account the research done by other scholars and the slave holdings of the carpenters and craftsman associated with the early construction of the University, it is highly likely that enslaved labor was involved in the construction of the College.

Financial Aspects

Between the years of 1771 and 1773, the University was in need of funds for the operation of the College. They decided to conduct two fundraising tours in South Carolina and Jamaica. They sought funds from wealthy individuals — most of whom were slave holders.

• A sample of the largest donors (49 out of over 300 individuals) highlights that these people owned a minimum of 14,133 enslaved persons.
• That number is the most conservative possible estimate, as many of the individuals examined were known slave holders but there were no documents providing counts of their holdings.
• Furthermore, for individuals I did get an estimate of, figures were only available for snapshots in time and not lifetime holdings.

The paper also examines eight Trustees — William Allen, Joseph Turner, Benjamin Chew Sr., Benjamin Franklin, Edward Shippen, William Shippen, James Tilghman, and Thomas Leech.

• Early in their careers, Allen and Turner sold enslaved persons. They also had a history of renting out their enslaved individuals to others.
• Benjamin Chew, Sr. owned many enslaved people. There are no accurate accounts for the number of enslaved persons that Chew owned over his lifetime, but it is reported that at one point he owned up to 175 enslaved persons. Chew not only exploited slave labor for his property and plantations, but he also sold and rented his enslaved individuals.
• Benjamin Franklin owned at least seven enslaved individuals in his household throughout his life — not including ones he bought and sold. It appears that Franklin sold at least four enslaved people over his life. He also sold advertisments in the Pennsylvania Gazette to other individuals selling their enslaved individuals.
• Edward Shippen owned and sold enslaved persons throughout his life. He owned at least three enslaved individuals and sold at least three other enslaved people.
• William Shippen owned two enslaved individuals, and James Tilghman owned four.
• Thomas Leech was given an enslaved girl from his father, Tony Leech Sr., in 1726. At the time of his death in 1762, Thomas Leech did not own any enslaved persons. However, the Leech family has a history of owning enslaved people. I found numerous records of this fact during my research, including documentation that Thomas Leech’s son, Thomas Leech Jr, and Thomas Leech’s brother, Toby Leech Jr, both owned enslaved persons.
• Between the trustees examined, they owned at least 213 enslaved people (175 were Chew’s).

The University raised at least £9,654, 7 shillings, and 11 pence from the Trustees mentioned above and all individuals associated with the fundraising tours. For comparison, the Trustees purchased the original College building for £755, 18 shillings, 11 pence, and 3 farthings.

An accurate number of enslaved persons owned by all individuals associated with the Trustees and fundraising trips cannot be estimated, except that it is undeniably much greater than 14,361.