US virus cases falling, or just tests?

There have been state shutdowns of various degree to stop the second wave:

But there is also this:

The peaks coincide.

I can’t find material suggesting this is the result of the supply of tests being limited, despite President Trump declaring he wanted just that at his Tulsa rally. Perhaps Republicans took him at his word and have stopped getting tested.

Or the broader US citizenry has.

If the falling virus count is impacted by poor testing then we’d expect the death rate to stay higher as the case count falls. So far, that is happening:

But the death count lags to virus count by about a month so it’s too early to tell.

If the US is now registering false readings of virus spread, the risk of policy error at the macro level rises.

David Llewellyn-Smith
Latest posts by David Llewellyn-Smith (see all)


  1. kiwikarynMEMBER

    You are missing one important graph – that of hospitalisations. That graph is also falling in line with the fall in new cases and new tests. So you can expect deaths to start falling soon as well (the 7 day average has been dropping since Aug 1)

  2. There is growing evidence from multiple independent sources that the herd immunity threshold for this is closer to 15-20%, and not the 60% we originally predicted.

    Much of the USA is now approaching this 15-20% level, so we will soon see if it really is a threshold. NY reached this level months ago, and there is no apparent 2nd wave to date.

    Also understand that the dates deaths are reported by the CDC are very different to the dates in which the deaths occurred. There is a large lag. So some of the recently reported deaths actually occurred weeks ago.

    I have been maintaining a graph of deaths reported V deaths occurred based on the CDC weekly updates. Some weeks the CDC has added thousands (literally) of deaths into previous weeks (e.g. in July, they added 2,000 more deaths into the dataset for weeks in April and May). Of course the mainstream media doesn’t get this – they see “reported deaths” and assume they are all recent.

    This guy is an anti-vaxer. Which is fine – he clearly states that is his position.
    And although I don’t generally agree with his position on vaccination, I am willing to play the ball and give his argument here some thought.
    But you can reject it out of hand and play the man instead if that is easier.

    “One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.” Carl Sagan

    • Ronin8317MEMBER

      15-20% is enough for ‘herd immunity’ defies logic, and it has just been shown a person can get COVID-19 more than once.

      • Multiple independent studies show 20-50% of people have T cells that cross-react with COVID. Some blood samples stored from 2015 show these T cells. If these confer immunity (and yes, thats a big if), then that would be g good start on 60% herd immunity. Another 15-20% might do it.

      • it has been shown that a person can test positive more then once. pcr tests react positively to dead virus fragments. since the person in question had no symptoms whatsoever, it is actually a proof that the immunity works – the virus entered the body and was destroyed.

    • Carl Sagan quote would be used by either side because the anti-vaxers believe the science is a hoax and the rational folk accept the science and view the anti-vax stuff as a con, and the anti-vaxers as victims.

      And I am sick and tired of the conspiracy garbage and anti-vax stuff … making stuff up is like the Dark Side … quicker, easier and seductive, but I prefer the tough love of the Jedi side of the Force where perceptions are altered to reflect reality as opposed to the other way around.

      • Actually, there is a fair bit.

        Perhaps start with some of the math work by Gabriela Gomes and her colleagues.
        Their work describes WHAT has happened.
        The pre-existing T cell information may be the missing WHY or HOW.

      • I’m not saying I agree with his overall antivax philosophy. In fact, I Specifically said that I did not But he does have some valid points here.

        If you want to ignore everything he say because of that philosophy, that’s your call.

        • His points are pretty much dismantled one by one in the link. This is a classic example of the unbearable asymmetry of bullsh!t. He writes well and it all sounds good, except it’s not.

  3. There’s ample evidence now that lockdowns and masks work to contain the virus, at enormous social and economic cost. As cases come down, States will re-open and then infection rates will begin to climb again; rinse and repeat.

  4. “As Voltaire wrote during the Enlightenment — when society still had time away from the screen to reflect on philosophy, morality, and fundamental truth — “those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.”

    This has never been more true than in the age of social media, when information and opinions constantly bombard us from all sides, isolating us from our own thoughts and values. We have a moral duty to critically examine our beliefs — especially our belief in “lockdown,” the most oppressive and universally destructive public policy implemented in our lifetimes. ”

    • Ah yes, the AIER. That well known bastion of scientific medical knowledge and research.

      Oh, apart from when they are actually attacking science and the scientific method itself.

      The comments section here is becoming depressing.

    • We have a moral duty to critically examine our beliefs — especially our belief in “lockdown,” the most oppressive and universally destructive public policy implemented in our lifetimes.

      LOL. Yet more hysteria from the kinds of people who call others “snowflakes”.

  5. BoomToBustMEMBER

    Dictator Dans legislation change is smoke and mirrors, it will give the CHO unlimited power even once CV19 is gone

    (2) After section 3(3) of the Public Health and
    Wellbeing Act 2008 insert—
    "(4) Without limiting the definition of serious
    risk to public health in subsection (1), for
    the purposes of Division 3 of Part 10
    COVID-19 may pose a material risk of
    substantial injury or prejudice to health of
    human beings even when the rate of
    community transmission of COVID-19 in
    Victoria is low or there have been no cases
    of COVID-19 in Victoria for a period of

    We need to be very afraid of this legislatation.