.

That could be the worst possible thing for a winter wave.
Where are you getting 300K-500K from? The first wave was the worst by far and now deaths are nowhere near that level long term now. Corona deaths are around 700/day and dropping. Excess mortality is tiny:



And most of these excess deaths are people on their way out soon - very ill, very old, etc, so they're borrowed from the near future which should see a death decline below averages once corona clears up.

The US burn through at ultra low death rates through has inoculated far more than Europe got for their deaths. It's hard to look at Texas and Florida data and not see what an amazing position they're in now:



Hospitalizations are at 1/5 of their peak now and still declining:



That's a state of 21 million people, with large old communities.

In Western & Northern Europe life is moving to mostly indoors in October, it's essentially the same as Winter without the flu starting from October. Getting R below 1 without restrictions is about to get really hard.

What, you are going to extrapolate USA summer mortality across the whole year? There is a little more than 150 days left before we have had 1 year of COVID in USA. At 700/day average for these 150 days, that's more than 300k. I expect Winter to be tough on USA as well, which is why I made it 300k-500k.

FYI, Belgium is at 10% of its hospital peak and has less people in hospital per capita than Texas. France is at about the same level as Texas. UK is lower.

Belgium, France & UK death rates are significantly lower than Texas.

Now you'll say but "Texas is decreasing while the other countries are increasing" and just hide behind that without acknowledging that Texas figures are not good at all.

The excess death graph looks the same as all countries who were heavily hit, the difference being in USA it's more spread out while Europe saw higher peaks and lower excess death post W1. Majority of Europe is still not seeing any material excess death right now.

There are reasons for this. But I don't think you fully understand those reasons or else you wouldn't be reaching the conclusions you are reaching.

Nope. You aren't looking to learn, you are looking to argue, just like TS. So if you can't figure it out, I won't help you.

What's you estimate? The US will have 2 million deaths this winter? So that's likely to be 20 million deaths worldwide if China completely locks down. Why don't we wait until we see how that prediction turns out. If you turn out to be completely wrong, I will explain it to you then. If you are right, chances are one of us won't be around anyway.

Yeah what the hell is wrong with jsb? He endlessly parrot-posts geriatric oncologist truther theories from Twitter with no filter, then refuses to even look at at the overwhelming evidence against them. Claims everyone "doesn't understand", then like a child says "well if you can't figure it out I'm not going to tell you". What a fraud and complete waste of space.

Shuffle,
This is false; the worst thing is a high R. Are you forgetting that corona came from 10 cases in February to over 10 million cases by April? A high R did that, not a high baseline. The spread rate is the most important thing by far on every level; a high baseline is almost irrelevant. I've explained why in detail before.

You have it backwards, the US has gained an immense advantage from having it go through the population in summer. R is greatly reduced, which is the most valuable thing you can have.

Zero flu cases is a positive for this winter compared to the last, in which there were many flu cases.

And your characterization is wrong. There weren't over "200,000 deaths in the easiest part of the year." There were about 110K deaths during the worst months of year. There have been about 90K deaths during the easiest part of the year, creating a nice partial immunity effect that will mean much lower R going forward. This isn't even debatable; if you disagree you need to read my posts explaining this until you understand. 20-30% of the population in many areas has received a vaccine thanks to getting infected; this greatly reduces spread.

You seem not to realize in your analysis that winter has already played out in a completely non-immune population all over the world. We know what it looks like. There is no basis to think a repeat of that with lower R will be far worse. Especially since distancing, isolation of the old, proper monitoring, experience with the first wave, etc enable escalating restrictions before things get out of hand in hospitals.

There really aren't. The above is an example of idiots on Twitter who can't think claiming conspiracies. All that's happened here is that the statewide weekly summary has gone to once a week. The counties and hospitals still report daily data. There's nothing being hidden or obfuscated.
That's not a fair comment. I think winter is likely to be a mess (more in Europe than the US), but I don't subscribe to the doom porn you're putting forward. The data doesn't support it.

For example, I'll state this unequivocally: there will be fewer than 500K dead in the US by the end of winter and many parts of the US will not even need to go to full lockdown to achieve this. You predict "millions" (plural), which means you're predicting at least 2 million dead.

Also, for a bit of perspective on your winter claims: Apart from the first wave Northern Hemisphere data, we can look at how countries in the Southern Hemisphere fared through the winter cycle from start to finish. Australia, South Africa, Argentina are the main Southern Hemisphere winter countries, all had reasonable death rates over the winter (about 1% of those that got infected) and total infections were bad but not terrible; population corona death over the entire winter ranged from 0.003% in well controlled Australia to 0.03% in places like Argentina and South Africa. If you adjust for age in Argentina and South Africa (they're both quite young countries) you end up with around 0.1% of the population dead over winter if they had an equivalent age structure compared to developed countries. Basically comparable to what we saw in the first wave in the Northern Hemisphere.

Asked some family members yesterday how they wanted to handle holiday get-togethers in Nov/Dec

For them it's full on normal. No interest in discussing any changes or options that could form a safe consensus, it's 100% inside, mask free, completely normal and that's that for them

Little doubt this is how a huge number of people feel

There's no doubt people like me are being overly cautious

There's no doubt people like them are pretending asymptomatic transmission doesn't exist and that they themselves/people they come in contact with don't then come in contact with 70+ year olds who are far and away the most vulnerable

Yes holiday season in the US will likely be a s***show. Huge numbers of people will be gathering as usual. Parents are already complaining about trick or treating being cancelled as if it's child abuse. There's no way they are not having their usual Thanksgiving and Christmas.

Any thoughts on the supposed ICAM "cure" developed by Florida doctors?

I googled it and came across a few articles that all appear to have been written by children, and they cite some pharmacist who talks like a dimwit, and from what I can gather from my skimming of the drivel, ICAM just refers to the standard protocols that have been in use for months to treat patients in a clinical setting. It's possible I missed the novelty that "Florida doctors" are bringing to the table that's having such a dramatic (although strangely unquantified) effect, but it looks like a totally empty press release.

Is it now safe to assume that Rickroll volunteered for the mandatory Chinese vaccine?

Or didn't comply
Probably similar results

It's quantified. Under this protocol, 94.6% survived hospitalization. Which isn't that great I think given that it's overwhelmingly young people in Florida getting corona. If 0.2% on average of under 50s die, and 4% get hospitalized (and only hospitalized die), you would expect 95% to survive hospital.

One thing I am surprised I haven't seen more of is better quantifying of comorbidities, age stratified, with poorer Covid outcomes. We've heard from the beginning that obesity, hypertension, diabetes, etc. lead to poorer outcomes, but I am sure those folks would like to know more detail. Even as someone who follows this pretty closely it isn't clear to me if you are say 40 and obese with diabetes you are 2x more likely to have a bad outcome vs average health, or 50, 100x more likely? It's just not remotely clear.

The Chinese vaccines are hot commodities in China. People are calling in favors to get those shots.

The attitudes toward experimental drugs/vaccines are very different in China than in US/western European countries.

I'm probably not looking in the right places, but would certainly be good to read up on if it's out there and folks know about it.

It seems to me that this data would be relatively fuzzy, due to the lack of uniformity in treatment techniques, from doctor to doctor, hospital to hospital, and from March to September.

Then you have the difference in viral load which seems to directly affect how severe each case is.

I haven't seen this anywhere, but it would be easy to extrapolate back. In each age group, adjusted for population prevalence, the large majority of deaths happen with preexisting conditions (death rates are a lot closer to flu for people without them). So the death rates for a 40 year old would look something like:

- Preexisting condition: 0.4-1% death rate
- Healthy: <0.1% death rate

The CDC says this:
But age probably amplifies this effect (if you've got preexisting and you're old it's often gg), so I imagine the multipliers are lower for younger. Just a guess though. Either way it's like to be a high multiplier (4-12+ times) more likely to die.

it's actually not easy, which is why we don't have these stats

jsb235's silly T Cell truth theory is dead (it was DOA but he thought it was alive, weirdly). I wonder when he'll own up to being fooled by a geriatric oncologist on Twitter despite being explained in detail why it was wrong?

Manuas had very high infection rates (probably around 30-50%), but we don't know what the actual number is. There hasn't been robust testing like there has been in say, Queens (which is also over 30% and breaking out). The infection rate was simulated which is a bit of a clown show (whenever a scientist uses a model instead of hard data you should say "cool story bro"):
So I think it's not evidence of immunity dropping or herd immunity not working. Remember that herd immunity is estimated to be at >70% and Manuas's R might be even higher given the craziness of its first wave. The trend also seems not bad at all:



This is an R almost at 1. At herd immunity levels (70%), R = 1. Below herd immunity levels, with no behavioral modification, R>1. So the results here are exactly what we'd expect if they had 55% (the midpoint of the range) immune.

So basically this is exactly what's expected under the assumption that herd immunity is 70% and that immunity persists forever. Doesn't stop idiots with arts degrees (journalists) making clickbait headlines though.

Burnout... he was pouring a ton of time and effort in and not making any $ from it, among other reasons (this is what he says, not me). It sucks as it was my go-to model but I can't blame him.

Here's a key quote from that story you probably missed.

"Manaus Mayor Arthur Virgilio blamed right-wing President Jair Bolsonaro, who has minimized the gravity of the pandemic, for encouraging a return to normal life and work instead of waiting for a vaccine to be developed."

It's funny that a story you are using as evidence as a rebuttal to herd immunity doesn't quote a single scientist as saying that. Instead it has the mayor blaming the president for his policies. I have learned to tune out that noise in the US, and the same is true for this. I would think you would have the intelligence to do the same, but apparently not.

Show me data, not political hit jobs. There have been less than 400 deaths the last three days in Brazil. That alone makes me question whether things are getting a lot worse anywhere in the country.

It should also be noted that Manaus has an estimated IFR of .017 percent to .028 percent. So why TS is wanting to bring up a place that completely disproves his theory of IFR being 1 percent is beyond me, but I have a hard time understanding his logic, so this is par for the course for him.

The rebuttal is straightforward and conclusive:

1. Theory: You claim that herd immunity is reached 15-20% because about 50% already have T Cell immunity.

2. Fact: There are multiple places with >30% antibodies/infection rate who have R>1

3. Fact: (2) destroys (1)

Your response to this is to go to Twitter to search for scientists who've made the same argument, and when you can't find them, declare that it's not debunked.

You're off by a factor of 10.

Manuas has a population of ~ 2 million. Manaus has registered 2,462 deaths from Covid-19 (the real number is likely higher from excess deaths). It's claimed about 50% of the population has been infected.

2462/(2 million * 0.5) = 0.24%.

This is in a population with an average age of 26. The known death rate among under 40s is 0.2% (with a 1% IFR). Manuas is a very young area:



1% IFR is for developed countries with an average age of about 40. This has always been the case since March (because it kills mostly old people). Manuas shows that nothing has changed.

Rather than "completely disproves" the theory of 1% IFR, it does the opposite and proves it.

You are misrepresenting how T cells offer protection for individuals and how it would ultimately impact herd immunity. T cells don't prevent infections, so when you keep bringing up infections as evidence that there is no T cell immunity, it is confusing.

Your lack of knowledge of the basic function of T cells is why I can't discuss this with you. It's like we are talking about poker and you keep claiming the pot because you have blackjack, and wondering why I didn't split my pocket sevens.