Delta Variant

IIRC during the first months of the pandemic most deaths showed a pattern where, from onset of symptoms, the disease would be unpleasant for ~7 days then the patient would seem to recover, and then suddenly worsen around day 10-14. New cases were typically detected around onset of symptoms, so I'd guess that's where we get the general assumption that deaths will trail new cases by 2 weeks.

I'd be curious whether we're detecting noticeably earlier than symptoms now, in countries like Australia with very proactive testing and contact tracing.

As far as I understand, and I don't understand much. Also I am not endorsing vanden Bossche because I don't understand much. Furthermore, just as everyone else, he is just trying to sell his vaccine over others'.

The issue is selective pressure. Yes, the virus will mutate. But under an mRNA vaccine, only the spike protein needs to mutate for the vaccine to be render useless. In other words: mutating the spike protein will give the virus access to very broad unimmunized population.

Up to that it makes perfect sense to me and my limited evolutionary knowledge. I can't tell wether is right or wrong. But it makes sense.

He goes further saying that antibodies from vaccines are more affine to the virus, even with mutated spike protein, this compromises the natural immune system, given it will try to fight off infection with useless vaccine-learnt antibodies rather than with natural antibodies. This will make the virus more deadly.

This seems off to me. I can't see the logic, but I will be happy to be corrected. How can something be ignored by the virus and be more affine to it?

Again, he says that all these issues are solved with his vaccine, once he finishes it.

I honestly don't know how to feel about Tomas Pueyo.

He's very opinionated about what he writes, and has gained good readership and influencer status on this topic. It's clear in his writings that he fancies himself as an "amateur of expert insight". He may be 100% correct. He may also be 100% wrong. It's hard to tell (let alone without invoking the conditional fallacy).

However, the most lasting impression I have of him is when he was invited in one of those "both sides" TV programmes in the UK on the basis that his "Hammer and the Dance" blogpost at the time became very popular. He was invited to debate with a renowned epidemiologist, who was part of the COVID-19 team advising the UK government at the time, and who was there to discuss the rationale for the policy after copious simulations by his research team. The epidemiologist was considered an expert and leading figure in his field. Meanwhile, Pueyo's self-described title on his blogpage at the time was "data visualisation expert" or something along those lines.

Now, like I said, he may be 100% correct (or not). This is not about making an "ad verecundium/hominem" argument. But all I remember from that TV debate is that his main argument tactic on TV was effectively interrupting all the time by saying "wtf", "people will die because of you" and visibly eyerolling and audibly sighing an awful lot, without offering much counterargument except by referring to his blogpost and the "obviousness of his claims". All this to the dismay and visible frustration of the epidemiologist who was trying to remain civil, objective, and doing his best to remain calm, relay the science as clearly as he could, while trying to avoid unnecessary panic and drama. Honestly watching it made me feel like you had just pitched the dalai lama in a debate against trump.

Pueyo has now changed his blogpage's tagline from "data visulisation expert" (or whatever it used to be) to "Understand the biggest problems and how to solve them". Forgive me if that doesn't sound as vague and grandiose to you as it does to me, but at best it doesn't come across to me as very humble from someone who, at the very least, is not particularly qualified for that description (then again, who is).

So, good on him for writing these blogposts and taking a stand, but while he may (or may not) be 100% correct (if there is such a thing), after that TV performance I witnessed, I'm taking his (otherwise professionally edited) blogposts with a large pinch of salt.

It's not dishonest if it's literally true, as you already admitted. This is like saying "it's dishonest to say drinking water is essential for health when obviously you'll die if someone sticks a hose down your throat and forces you to drink until you die".