Hi Johan,
You didn’t have the patience to make heads or tails of my mosh mash of numbers? What you put to comment was a mush mash of numbers sir. What I put out was statistical analysis that tracked 100% accurately to my predictions. At its peak NYC hit over 240% of average deaths from all causes, and is still at 200% of deaths from all causes, despite the lengthened time period from the original analysis. What you spouted, has no relevance to the discussion

For a great perspective on effective lockdown vs no lockdown go to the link below, scroll way down to COVID-19 deaths, choose add country, and add New Zealand and Australia.

https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus/country/sweden?country=SWE~USA

Instead of responding to your lengthy mish-mesh of numbers and assumptions (sorry I didn’t have the patience to try to make heads or tails of it), correct or not, let me just throw a few back at you.
 
WHO prediction in 2017 for 2020 total worldwide deaths would be 60.2m (can’t be bothered to look up the source but it’s Googleable), so that makes 5m per month. Corona has been really active for, shall we be conservative and call it 3 months, and 408’000 people have died from it as of today. In that time, 15m people have died from all kinds of causes as per WHO average, and therefore Corona has killed just under 3%, but that’s assuming they are ALL excess dead, so it’s likely significantly less than that (I would guesstimate at the very least 80% are part of the original statistic and probaly more like 95-98%). How does a less than 3% “bump” in the statistic justify the draconian measures imposed on us? It is a complete non-event!
 
If you look at the number of dead and the progression in the graphs (all available here: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/) in Sweden (most open policy), US (significant lock-down), UK (significant lock-down), you will note that lockdown measures really have had no discernible effect at all. Technically, Sweden (and I am there right now) should have dead piled up in the street if the published numbers of contagion were accurate, but in fact our death rates per capita are lower than both US and UK.
 
Also, if you compare this to Spanish Flu which claimed between 15m and 100m lives (scientist disagree) in roughly one year, or 75m and 500m adjusted for todays population size, you would have to be mentally challenged to call Corona even a problem.
 
The simple truth is that Corona does of course claim lives in the same way a flu does, but nowhere near what was originally feared, and, I am sorry to be the one to say it, it is killing almost exclusively the terminally ill.
 
Personally, I think even the light Swedish measures of social distancing were excessive, albeit perhaps prudent. Even if you choose to argue that the numbers will go up significantly, let’s call it 5m at year end (which I think is grossly exaggerated, and also still less than 10% of the expected total for the year), it is not worth locking yourself up for a year of your life and collapsing the economy. It is time to end this farce, grow some balls, stop being naive and scared children, and start living again.
 
You take a risk every day you live, and life has a 100% death rate, so crudely about 1.25% chance per year. I’ll be damned if a slight increase of that risk this year will make me hide under my bed like a 5 year old child hiding from the Bogey Man.

@Val, influenza viruses and coronaviruses are quite distinct. Many “common cold” viruses are coronaviruses, but not all.
Also, reporters, being lazy, often not bright, and sensationalist, conflate the name of the virus (SARS-CoV-2) with its generic type (Coronavirus) and with the disease it causes (Covid-19). That’s okay for folks writing articles read by thousands, but we won’t stand for it here in the comments section, by golly. 😉

Substitute football hooligans with our politicians 😉

Vaccines will be used in the Great Culling, I believe. The link between HIV outbreaks among gay men in New York, and a Hepatitis B vaccine program have long been very suspicious.

Early tests were crap, delivering false positives and negatives. And antibody tests are not perfected yet, either.

Thanks for your interest in the article and for sharing the Chinese language link. When queried through webarchive, that link was not made available until 15 days after original publication, in late March. It is available now, however, as you shared, and can be translated online. Looking into the website “rhhz.net” might also be useful.

Why PubMed decided to not only remove the index to the article is unclear. The PubMed editor’s rationale that the paper “depended on theoretical deduction” is not valid, of course, because all such papers depend on theoretical deduction.

The NPR team that completed the investigation through contacting the author published its article a few days after that new Chinese link became available. Since neither the Chinese article nor the author of the paper has provided a legitimate reason for the PubMed indexing reaction, the mystery remains to be solved. As NPR stated, the author simply said it was “a sensitive matter.”

Obviously, the Chinese study has tremendous importance in the question of COVID-19 testing. Perhaps more important for the rest of us are the false positives being generated by the CDC kit, since it is being used to justify the unusual rates reported in the United States. Although those high rates are now being debunked by antibody titer data, an investigation into the scaremongering driven by the bad data from the CDC kit is needed.

The CDC kit that ostensibly identifies SARS-COV-2 originally used 3 genetic makers (N1, N2, N3), a bad design to begin with since it focuses on only one gene. The N3 marker was then removed and the N1 primers are not homologous to targets, as stated in the CDC method. Now CDC says that positive results don’t need to be confirmed. The CDC primers have been tested by other methods to verify and those tests have shown the lack of specificity.

These facts are of enormous importance to the international discussion, mitigating the fear and the subsequent destructive actions taken in response. Any investigators capable of helping are welcome.