Matt McGrath Trumpets The Latest Hurricane Junk Science


By Paul Homewood

h/t Ian Magness

More from the clueless Matt McGrath:

Climate change will expand the range of tropical cyclones, making millions more people vulnerable to these devastating storms, a new study says.

At present, these cyclones – or hurricanes as they are also known – are mainly confined to the tropical regions north and south of the equator.

But researchers say that rising temperatures will allow these weather events to form in the mid-latitudes.

This area includes cities such as New York, Beijing, Boston and Tokyo.

The study has been published in the journal Nature Geoscience.

The scientists involved say their work shows by the end of this century, cyclones will likely occur over a wider range than they have for three million years.

When subtropical storm Alpha made landfall in Portugal in September 2020, the relatively small scale of damage caused by the cyclone made few headlines.

But for scientists this was quite a momentous event.

Dr Studholme is the lead author of this new study, which projects that a warming climate will see the formation of more of these types of storms in the mid-latitudes, where most of the world’s population lives, and where most economic activity takes place.

Quite what is unusual about a subtropical storming hitting Portugal eludes me.

But the idea that tropical cyclones don’t already affect places like New York and Tokyo is absurd. If anything, the numbers are actually declining.

Between 1950 and 1991, nine hurricanes made landfall in New York state or further north. Since then the only strike was Sandy in 2012. (Even the inclusion of Sandy is debatable, since it was officially classified as an extratropical storm at landfall)

As for Japan, the mainland is hit by an average of three typhoons every year:

 About 30 typhoons form each year over the Northwest Pacific Ocean, of which an average of about seven or eight pass over Okinawa Prefecture, and about three hit the Japanese main islands, especially Kyushu and Shikoku. But any region of Japan, including TokyoOsaka and Hokkaido can be visited by typhoons.

And apart from the record year of 2004, they are not becoming more frequent:

Finally, let’s return to that storm in Portugal. This was the meteorological coverage at the time:

Winds at sea were estimated at 50 mph, declining to 35 mph overland. This is hardly unprecedented.

Significantly the above link from the Weather Channel, which gives a good explanation of the difference between subtropical and other storms comments:

Subtropical storms were not officially recognized until the beginning of the satellite era, and they weren’t named until 2002.

The naming of subtropical storms only since 2002 explains why the number of named storms, including hurricanes, has ostensibly gone up.

The NWS also elaborate:

The NHC began naming subtropical storms in 2002. Between 1968 and 2001, subtropical storms were simply given numbers (“One”, “Two”, etc). Before 1968, subtropical storms were never classified as such, but were sometimes called “Unnamed storm”. A landmark study performed by Herbert and Poteat (1975) led to a substantial increase in the identification and naming of subtropical storms in the late 1970s and early 1980s. However, when Bob Sheets became director of the National Hurricane Center between 1987 and 1995, he declared that subtropical storms should not be recognized, and very few subtropical storms were classified during this period. Prior to 1968, there are many systems that were subtropical in the Atlantic that should have been included in the official HURDAT database. I’ve seen estimates that 5-10 storms were missed in the 1950s, and ten storms between 1969 and 1999. A reanalysis effort is underway to include these “missed” storms into the database. However, it will be several years before this process is complete.

And as NWS show, subtropical storms typically form in the mid-latitudes already.

This is no more than the usual junk science intended to scare the kids. It makes no attempt to use actual data to justify its assertions, which are all based around modelling.

And, naturally, it is faithfully trumpeted by the BBC, without any attempt to challenge the findings, or even bother to ask hurricane experts for their opinions.

4.7 12 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Gordon Weir
December 30, 2021 10:06 pm

Never mind subtropical storm Alpha — it’s Omicron that you need to fear.

michael hart
Reply to  Gordon Weir
December 31, 2021 3:21 am

Strange to say, I think the human race may have got off lightly this time. But there will undoubtedly be other new diseases in the future which are worse. If only they would ditch this climate twaddle and plan for real threats.

paul courtney
Reply to  michael hart
December 31, 2021 6:20 am

Mr. hart: I agree. This is the first national (USA) and international full-court-press against a pandemic, and it is a failure. Thankfully, covid is not the threat it seemed to be out of the gate, but the medical folks are refusing to admit that; refusing to admit that certain things are NOT WORKING; and refusing to see that they launched this full-court-press against a mild illness (except for easily identified at-risk groups) to test out their preferred method to fight this. IMHO Collins/Fauci/Walensky have destroyed the credibility of gov’t medical experts. If the next pandemic is really dangerous (say, the Wuhan lab combines covid and measles), great harm will occur as a direct result of the fact that many like me will assume that Fauci (or his successor) is lying. Again. The boy who cried wolf will be deja vu all over again. This is the worst part of the failure.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  paul courtney
December 31, 2021 9:12 am

The Wuhan virus should be taken seriously.

“Raina MacIntyre, professor of global biosecurity at the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia, told Bloomberg that the research “provides a warning about being blasé about mass infection in children and adults.”

“MacIntyre told Bloomberg that the findings also support previous research that shows that the virus directly kills heart muscle cells — and that surviving patients suffer cognitive deficits.”

““We need to start thinking of SARS-CoV-2 as a systemic virus that may clear in some people, but in others may persist for weeks or months and produce long Covid — a multifaceted systemic disorder,” he added.”

end excerpts

And then there is this:

““Increased oxidative stress and reduced glutathione levels are associated with a number of conditions including ageing, diabetes, HIV infection, neurodegenerative disorders, cardiovascular disorders, neurometabolic diseases, obesity and others,” said corresponding author Dr. Rajagopal Sekhar, associate professor of medicine in the section of endocrinology, diabetes and metabolism at Baylor. “We suspected that COVID-19 also might be affecting oxidative stress and glutathione, and in this study we confirmed this in adults hospitalized with COVID-19. We found that these defects occur in all adult age groups, including young people, and worsen with increasing age.”

end excerpt

The Wuhan virus is a serious health problem for some people. We don’t know who is going to be hit hard by the virus, and who won’t be hit hard.

The key to getting over this virus is Early Treatment.

The longer this virus stays in your body, the more damage it can do, so the objective should be to treat the virus with therapeutic drugs as soon as possible after discovering you are infected.

Many therapeutic drugs can clear the body of the Wuhan virus within about five days of taking the medications. This should be the focus.

Even if you do not show serious symptoms from getting the Wuhan virus, you should still take therapeutics as soon as the infection is detected. This is the best way to try to prevent serious complications from the Wuhan virus. Get it out of your body as fast as you can.

Reply to  Tom Abbott
December 31, 2021 11:09 am

But Tom, Trump is now saying the vaccine is one of the greatest scientific achievements in history and that it is safe and effective. In the light of this, should that not be the first thing peoples get?

Last edited 1 year ago by Simon
Tom Abbott
Reply to  Simon
January 2, 2022 5:46 am

Trump is just recommending people get vaccinated. Some are criticizing Trump for doing so, presumably because they don’t want anyone, including Trump, telling them what to do. They seem to have missed the part where Trump says vaccinations should be voluntary. Trump is not forcing anything on anyone.

Now that effective therapeutics are available, there is no need for a person to get vaccinated. If they get infected with the Wuhan virus, they take a pill and are over it in about five days. And after that, they have acquired natural immunity to the virus.

The only holdup is the time it takes to make these therapeutics available to everyone.

In the meantime, there are a lot of drugs available already that can effectively treat the Wuhan virus. Unfortunately, these drugs don’t make the drug companies much money, so they are not promoted as a Wuhan virus treatment.

Benadryl, a common over-the-counter antihistamine, is the latest drug to show effectiveness against the Wuhan virus. It’s about as effective as the new therapeutic drugs coming out, which means it is very effective.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Tom Abbott
December 31, 2021 2:57 pm

Here’s an article on another therapeutic treatment for the Wuhan virus:

Reply to  Tom Abbott
December 31, 2021 4:32 pm

Hopefully it works, but there is along way to go before trials are complete. In the mean time I still think Trump is right…. if you haven’t got it already, get the vaccine.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Simon
January 2, 2022 5:55 am

I’ve had all my shots.

I’m going to do everything I can to avoid this virus for as long as possible. I assume I will eventually get the disease, but I’m hoping that by that time, I can treat it quickly and have a good a chance of avoiding long-term effects.

The Wuhan virus is a very nasty virus. It directly kills heart, kidney, liver and brain cells and it probably does the same to every organ in the human body.

The longer this virus stays in the body, the more damage it does, so the goal should be to eliminate it from the body as soon as possible.

The damage the virus does to various organs is repaired by the body, but the repairs are inferior to the organ’s original state, so the organ does not function as well as it did before the infection.

We are probably going to be seeing a lot of people with long-term adverse health effects from the Wuhan virus.

The vaccines and therapeutics should help in reducing the number of long-term sufferers.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Tom Abbott
January 4, 2022 1:53 am

I have solid info on how much risk we are at if we get infected, given a three shot status, and general health and age group.
I will post more here, including a summary of how and why it matters to be boosted, the effect of infective dose, the benefit of having layered immunity, especially vaccine and natural immunity.
We that are boosted have high probability of asymptomatic or oligosymptomatic cases.
I am recently boosted, and I can tell you I am trying to get mildly exposed to omicron, knowing that layer of additional immunity will lessen the chance a new strain can overcome my vaccine immunity.

I can start with a post I wrote to a lay person a few weeks ago.
Because of my target audience, it is not written to the same standard of rigor and technical language as If I was writing for WUWT..but I do not have time to redo it right now.
Almost no one is writing about immunity in general, how out immune system works, how virus invades and immediately targets cell for infection, and what happens next depending on immune status, infective dose, lack of key vitamins and minerals, and general health, as well as factor relating to the relative virulence of each strain.”
Tired now, but I will fill in gaps and answer questions if anyone would like:
 Most people are not aware that the ideal interval for booster doses of any vaccine is 6 months at least.
The FDA and NIH knew this of course last year when it was decided to instead give the second dose after only 3 or 4 weeks.
This was done for a specific and logical reason: The virus was spreading so fast that it was deemed to be a greater benefit to get immunity up as far as possible as fast as possible, instead of waiting for the second dose to be after 6 months which would be the most efficient in terms of immunogenicity (how strong of a response a person has) per dose given.
So it was well known that giving two doses a month or so apart was not ideal, and it is best to wait longer.
The reason our body responds more strongly to widely separated doses is because after only one or a few months, we are still responding to the first dose to some degree, and we are at most risk from infection when we get exposed to a virus a long time after having it the first time.
So our immune system has evolved to respond very strongly when we have immune memory cells to a given antigen (virus protein), and are then exposed to it again in the future.
There are also reasons related to the specific mechanism by which our immunity ramps up after initial exposure…a process called clonal expansion, which takes place when memory cells are stimulated by cytokines to an antigen we have been exposed to before. The memory cells take a while after they form to mature into their most active and most alert configuration.
Once in this configuration, if alerted to the renewed presence of that specific antigen, those memory cells specific to the virus then travel to the lymph nodes and undergo the process of clonal expansion, wherein they multiply in vast numbers.
There are two basic kinds of memory cells: One kind, B lymphocytes, churn out antibodies that are specific to the antigen/virus and can do so in vast profusion when appropriately stimulated; and another kind, T lymphocytes, that target and destroy cells that are infected with the virus and/or that display the antigen on the surface of the cell.
The best immunity comes with repeated exposure to a given antigen/virus. Because every time our immune system sees some specific one of them, the memory cells get freshly stimulated and undergo another round of clonal expansion and churning out antibodies.
Best of all is the kind of immunity that comes with getting infected AND being immunized via a vaccine.
This is particularly the case with viruses that attack and infect the cells that line the airways, the cells of the respiratory epithelium. When we have a virus infect these cells, there are antibodies and memory cells residing forever after in these specific tissues. So they are right there already when the virus invades.
In the case of vaccination based immunity, we have memory cells and antibodies in our bloodstream and spleen and lymph nodes, which must then travel to the site of an infection when it occurs.
So there is a slightly longer delay when we only have bloodborne immunity to a respiratory virus.
No matter what kind of immunity we have, or how we got it, or how strong the immunity is, when we are exposed to a person with a virus, it WILL get into our body. Nothing can stop that except a very good kind of barrier protection like a face mask or respirator. And once a virus gets into our body, it will try to make it’s way into cells that it likes to infect and when it does it will start to reproduce.
It is what happens next and how fast it happens that makes all the difference.
If and when it is a virus (or any other infectious organism) gets into our body for the very first time, or when we get a vaccine for the first time, it takes our immune system about 8 to 10 days to invent a set of instructions for antibodies to that specific thing.
If this initial exposure is a virus that can reproduce inside our body quickly and efficiently, it therefore has a 8 to 10 day head start before our body has much of a defense against it. There is no specific immunity…no antibodies, no virus specific T cells to seek out and destroy cells in our body that have been hijacked and are churning out massive amounts of new virus particles every minute of every day.
All we have is our innate immunity at that point, which works by producing a massive inflammatory response. This type of response works but is slow, makes us feel very bad, and cannot ever keep up with the rate a virus can multiply. Inflammation also kills a lot of healthy cells, because it is very nonspecific.
So we get watery eyes, runny nose, coughing, swelling, redness, and rawness as massive numbers of healthy cells are destroyed in the lining of our airway…which we need to work well to breathe.
And the infection can spread down the airway to the lungs. In the lungs, inflammation is very dangerous. Swelling inside out lungs, cells being killed there, is very serious and leads to a buildup of fluids and dead cells and the debris from the battle, and is called pneumonia. This can easily be quickly fatal.
But, if we already have been exposed to a virus or a viral protein (antigen) by way of inoculation with a vaccine, there is very often none of that out-of-control viral replication going on, at least not for long.
Not for long because we do not have that 8 to 10 day delay. We have cells and antibodies that are immediately alerted to the presence of an infection, and they rapidly reproduce in huge profusion and travel to the site of the infection, cutting off viral replication and wiping out the cells that have been infected before they can crank out much virus or do it for very long.
This is where the amount of virus we ingest is important, and where the amount of antibodies and memory cells is critical.
If we ingest a large amount of virions (individual virus particles), and we have a relatively small amount of memory cells, there can be a far more significant amount of viral replication before the B and T cells can reproduce in sufficient numbers and travel to the site of the infection rapidly enough with those numbers. So it is still possible to get sick if we have prior immunity, but it is far less likely to ever get out of control…and out of control is what it takes for us to get sick. In fact, there needs to be many hours and usually days of replication before enough virus is present to be detected on a test.
All of these factors are why there is such a large disparity in how sick someone can get from any particular pathogen.
Some people have a very robust innate immune system, and some do not.
Some people have plenty of the vital mineral and vitamins that our immune system needs to do what it does, and some do not. Vitamin D for one example, is required to be present in order for any of our immune cells to do anything at all: Before an immune cell can carry out any of it’s functions, it must first have a molecule of vitamin D attach to it’s surface. A second example is zinc: An atom of zinc is central to over 1000 different enzymes our body and in particular our immune system needs to operate properly. Immunity requires a vast number of signals get sent around our bodies, and each of these signals requires a specific enzyme, cytokine, co-factor etc.
So being deficient in any of the essential vitamins and minerals can inhibit our immune system from operating properly, but having plenty of them cannot cure an infection…they just let our immunity operate as well as it is otherwise able.
Also, many medicines and medical conditions can wreck part or all of our ability to generate an immune response.
Measles turns off the immune system.
So do many cancers, and so do many cancer treatments, and so do many treatments for other diseases such as lupus and rheumatoid arthritis.
Corticosteroid drugs turn off parts of our immune system, and a lot of people take these for all sorts of stuff.
Chemotherapy wrecks the immune system, because it tends to destroy all rapidly reproducing cells.
And as we age our immune system becomes less effective.
So at any given time, as many as 10% of younger people and a far larger number of older people do not have the ability to generate a robust immune response, either innate immunity or acquired immunity (antibodies, B and T memory cells, etc).
Covid is now known to invade our fat cells, and can hide from our immune system there, especially if the cells are loaded up with fat (when we gain weight, our fat cells grow in size, we do not grow more of them, and so the immune system cannot get to them as readily).
Covid can severely tax our bodies’ resources, and so people that have other existing conditions are at especially high risk of severe effects before we they overcome it. A strong army loses fewer wars than a weaker army.
So, between the effect of the infective dose, (the actual number of virions we ingest into our body) which directly affects how many cells become infected, the state of our general health, which determines how much resources we have to fight with, and our prior exposures, which affects how rapidly and strongly we can mount sufficient defenses (and offenses) to overcome the infected cells, wipe them all out, and mop up every last live virus particle from inside our bodies, we can have a huge range of noticeable results from ingesting some covid virions, anything from no effect at all except a stronger immunity going forwards, to a severe response.
Prior exposure, whether by inoculation with a vaccine or having had the virus already, strengthens our immunity greatly and reduces the chance we will have a bad outcome.
First exposure primes us, subsequent exposure makes us more immune…every single time.

Reply to  Gordon Weir
December 31, 2021 7:16 am

Only idiots who refuse to get vaccinated and pretend that COVID is a dangerous viral disease have anything to fear from omicron. Of course guys like you are too stupid to fear it or take intelligent actions to avoid serious illness.

Over 1,500 a day in the US are dying right now if the “fake news” disease.

Citizen Smith
Reply to  Duane
December 31, 2021 8:01 am

Duane, I see that you are angry but don’t understand what you are saying. A little less CNN might help you clear your thoughts.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Duane
December 31, 2021 8:49 am

Over 1,500 a day in the US are dying right now if the “fake news” disease.”

But… masks work!

Reply to  Jeff Alberts
December 31, 2021 11:10 am

““Over 1,500 a day in the US are dying right now if the “fake news” disease.”
But… masks work!”
But being unvaccinated doesn’t.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Simon
December 31, 2021 2:26 pm

It is very simple really.
Three graphs tell the tale…death rates, hospitalization rates, and case rates.
First deaths:

Your chance of being killed by COVID are reduced by a factor of 20x or more if you get vaccinated with 2 doses of Moderna or Pfizer.
The graph below shows that the risk of death if you are unvaccinated is, as of October 30th, 6.03 per 100,000 of population, for all ages.
If you are vaccinated but not boosted, your risk of death goes way down, to only 0.53 per 100,000 of population, or about one out of every two hundred thousand people.
If you also get the booster, your risk of dying goes down more, to only 0.14 per 100,000 of population, or about one out of every seven hundred and fifteen thousand people.
Vaccinated reduces risk of death by a factor of about 12X.
Boosted reduces your risk by a factor of 43X over unvaccinated, and a factor of 3.5X over vaccinated but not boosted.
A separate study shows a somewhat smaller but still very large benefit you are also boosted. In that one, your chance of being killed by this virus are 30 times lower than if you are not vaccinated at all.
These are the overall risk for everyone in the US. Your specific risk will be higher or lower depending on your age and health status, but will not be zero no matter how young and healthy you are.
Young and healthy people who get vaccinated have the largest overall benefit in percentage terms, even though they are at low risk to begin with.
IOW, if you are young and healthy and are also vaccinated, your risk goes from relatively small to extremely small.
Vaccinated makes a lot of sense no matter who you are.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
December 31, 2021 2:28 pm

And hospitalizations:
Chance of being hospitalized with COVID in vaccinated vs unvaccinated people between 50 and 65 years old is 3.2 per 100,000 of population for fully vaxxed people, and 49.5 per 100,000 for unvaccinated people.
Here is the graph.
This is as of October 30, 2021.
These rates are very close to the rates for the entire population of the US. People older than 65 have higher rates in both categories, and people younger than 50 have lower rates in both categories.
Note that these are rates of hospitalization only.
So the bottom line is, you are 15 times more likely to wind up in the hospital with severe COVID if you do not get vaccinated.
For the younger age groups that overall have lower hospitalization rates, the difference between vaxxed and unvaxxed is even more stark.
I will show those graphs in the comments section.
More graphs coming, of death rates for vaxxed and unvaxxed, and case rates for vaxxed and unvaxxed.
Also now available are graphs showing death rates and case rates for those who are vaxxed and have also had a booster dose: Boster doses greatly reduce the rates of cases and death by another huge increment.
Bottom Line: If you have gotten vaxxed but not boosted, you have a far greater chance of a bad outcome than if you do not get boosted, although no where close to as great a risk as people who have not had any vaccine.
Summary: Being vaxxed reduces your risk of getting a detectable cases of COVID by 5x or more; it reduces your risk of being hospitalized by a factor of 13x or more; and it reduces your risk of death by a factor of 20x to 30x than if you are not vaccinated at all. How much more depends on age and health.
Getting a booster dose reduces your risks of all of the above outcomes, a detectable case, being hospitalized, or being killed by it, by another huge percentage above the benefit of the first two doses of vaccine.
Moderna works best, Pfizer is a close second, and J&J and Jannsen are not as good but still way better than nothing. If you got J&J, get a Moderna booster or maybe two.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
December 31, 2021 2:29 pm

And finally, the risk of getting any infection which leads to a positive test:
If you are vaccinated, your chance of getting a detectable COVID infection is greatly reduced than if you are not vaccinated.
If you are also boosted, your chance of getting a detectable case of COVID is reduced even more than if you are vaccinated but not boosted.
IOW, every shot of these vaccines up to the third one has a huge incremental benefit for you.
The numbers stack up like this, and note this is for getting any detectable case of COVID, IOW testing positive, regardless of how mild or severe your symptoms (for a breakdown of case severity and death, see posts below):
If you are NOT vaccinated at all, your odds of testing positive for an infection with the COVID virus are, as of November 20th, about 450-475 per 100,000 of population.
Note that this rate is the DAILY RATE! You have this same chance every single day.
Everyone is gonna get COVID unless you are a hermit and also very lucky.
If you are vaccinated but not boosted, your chance of testing positive for COVID are about 99-133 per 100,000 of population. Every day. About 4 or 5 times less than if you are unvaccinated.
So YES…the vaccines can and do prevent a person from getting the virus and having it reproduce enough to give a positive test. By about 5X.
This statistic indicates that if you get vaccinated and then are exposed to someone who is shedding virus and you get the virus inside your body, you have an 80% chance of it not being able to reproduce enough to even give a positive test, let alone a symptomatic illness.
You will still get COVID eventually, IMO. But for the vast majority of the vaccinated, it will reproduce only very weakly in your body and you will not even test positive even though you have it. Your odds of feeling sick are even lower, and your odds of winding up in the hospital are even lower than that, and your odds of dying are very low.
If you are vaccinated and get a booster dose, your odds of testing positive go down even more.
As of November 20th, if you are vaxxed and boosted, your chances of testing positive, (having the virus be able to replicate inside you enough to show on a test) are far lower than if you are vaxxed but not boosted.
The numbers are, if you are boosted, your chance of testing positive go down by 67%, about two thirds, to only 48.02 per 100,000 of population.
If you are over 65 years old, the benefit of boosting is even higher.
Boosting reduces your chances of testing positive, reduces your chances of getting sick, reduces your chances of winding up in the hospital with a severe case, and reduces your risk of death by a huge amount.
So if you are vaxxed, go get boosted.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
December 31, 2021 2:32 pm

I have plenty of more graphs and text on my FB page.
I copied these from some stuff I wrote for Facebook, which is why there are some references for stuff that does not appear here.
If anyone wants to see more, or my sources, just ask.

Last edited 1 year ago by Nicholas McGinley
Citizen Smith
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
January 1, 2022 8:05 am

Blah, blah, blah. I prefer my doctors advice. Politically driven evangelists give me a pia.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Citizen Smith
January 1, 2022 10:47 am

I can tell you are not a regular here, or you would know 100% for sure I am not politically driven nor an evangelist.
I am a hardcore conservative scientist.

Trying to Play Nice
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
January 3, 2022 5:27 am

Where did you get your data? I have not found a table with vaccination status and hospitalization/death.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Trying to Play Nice
January 4, 2022 12:21 am

I thought I posted links.
CDC data pages.
Start here.
I am on a Kindle now, will send links to exact pages I got screenshots from, and that I used for the numbers I mentioned.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Trying to Play Nice
January 4, 2022 2:02 am

Here is the link to the graph regarding deaths by vaccination and booster status.
You have to scroll down and wait a few seconds for it to load.
Once loaded, you can mouse over a point on any graph for specific numbers.
Graphs are interactive and sourced.
CDC is not original source:
CDC COVID Data Tracker

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Trying to Play Nice
January 4, 2022 2:04 am

Source page for middle graph, hospitalizations:
CDC COVID Data Tracker

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
January 4, 2022 2:06 am
Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Trying to Play Nice
January 4, 2022 2:13 am

And here is the one for cases: CDC COVID Data Tracker

And seroprevavence. It is on a tab on teh left:
CDC COVID Data Tracker

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Trying to Play Nice
January 4, 2022 2:15 am

There is oodles of info.
Try just searching for the keywords in your question to me is another way.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Citizen Smith
January 1, 2022 12:30 pm

It was very bad when the left politicized science to advance their effed up agenda via the vehicle of climate panic induced end of the world alarmism.
It is debatable whether it is as bad, not as bad, or even worse when the Right and the Left politicizes medical issues for whatever agenda they have in mind.
I am doing neither.
I go where the data leads me.
You might consider why you jump to a(n erroneous) conclusion about my political leanings based on my having posted plain as day and clearly sourced information.
Climate change activists and end of the world alarmist maniacs live in a world of fact free assertions.
You should not emulate them.

Last edited 1 year ago by Nicholas McGinley
Trying to Play Nice
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
January 3, 2022 5:29 am

Your graphs do not have a source. Please post it for us.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Trying to Play Nice
January 4, 2022 12:47 am

Start here.
I will get you specific links to the exact pages I used when I get to a computer.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Trying to Play Nice
January 4, 2022 2:27 am

Let me know if you need more or what like more discussion of anything here.
There are plenty of things to be irate about in all of this.
Such as, we could and should all have a test for immunity status, which tell us a lot of things, like if we have prior exposure immunity and how strong, and if we had a proper response to the vaccine, since many are immunodeficient for one or another reasons.
If everyone had a test to measure immunity levels of both all types of immune cells and antibodies, we would quickly be able to correlate those findings with who is and who is not subsequently getting sick at all, getting very sick, etc…and what level makes one completely safe.
If we knew that, those people can stop all the worrying.

For decades in Universities, we have had to prove immunity level, not vax status, for a whole panel of infectious diseases. Serum titer is definitive for immunity status.

The current nitwits and liars and confederacy of dunces running the country and public health have prevented this type of testing from being done!
If we know our exact immunity level numbers, we could dispense with this lunacy of the vaccinated being told to be afraid of unvaccinated.
Which is probably why they will not let doctors order those tests.

Tekov Yahoser
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
January 1, 2022 9:08 am

Your chance of dying of COVID is slim if you are vaccinated.
Your chance of dying unvaccinated is also slim.
BUT 20X!!!”
If I buy 10 Powerball™ tickets, my odds of winning increased 10X!!!
Only a 30 million to one chance now!

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Tekov Yahoser
January 1, 2022 10:45 am

Last time I checked, there was not 800,000 Powerball winners in the US.
I gave the numbers, and they are nothing like what you said.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Tekov Yahoser
January 1, 2022 11:22 am

Easy enough to make a valid lottery comparison, since you brought it up.
The first lotteries in the US were called The Daily Number.
Pick a 3 digit number. Odds of winning are 1000 to 1.
Payoff was 500 to 1.
Bad odds, but better than the numbers racket games that the mob controlled that the pottery replaced.
Here in Florida we have that same type of game, called Pick 3.
Also another one called Pick 2.
Odds of Pick 2 are 100 to 1.

So, the US has, according to WorldMeters and as of yesterday, 2,536 deaths per million of population.
No one can say how many of these are deaths With Covid and not deaths OF covid, but most agree that this number is in the ball park of the actual number.
2500 out of 1 million is about 400 to 1 odds.
1 out of every 400 people in the US have died of covid in under 2 years.
But only about 100 million out of 330+ million have been infected so far as of October 31, 2021 (source: CDC seroprevalence tracker page, National Commercial Laboratory Seroprevalence Surveys, Estimated SARS-CoV-2 Seroprevalence in the US as of September 2020 | Global Health | JAMA Internal Medicine | JAMA Network).Screen shots of the CDC page, (CDC COVID Data Tracker) included below.
Death rates are of course declining rapidly, but it is for sure that ultimately the number will be higher by the time everyone has had to have their immune system deal with this virus.I for one prefer to deal with it with my immune system NOT naive to the covid antigens. You do you.The difference is only in the 8-10 days it will take an antigen naive immune system to invent some antibody and antigen specific B and T cells to this specific virus. Most people can and do survive having the virus replicate out of control for those 8 to 10 days, but a lot of THOSE individuals will get viral pneumonia and some will end up dead.
So, about 1 in 400 have died despite only about one in three having ingested the virus so far.That is not like Powerball odds, which are close to 1 in 300,000,000.If those were the odds, only one person in the whole US will die after every single person is exposed.It is not even like the pick 3 lottery, which has odds of 1000 to 1.It is in fact closer to the odds of picking a number between 1 and 100 and getting it right.I for one do not fear getting into a car and driving, despite being in a near fatal wreck when I was younger.But I am careful when I am driving.I would not get into a car if I knew I had a one chance on one hundred of being dead before I got where I was going.Few would survive a year of driving every day with those odds.
This is a science site.For you to say the odds of dying from this virus are akin to the odds of winning Powerball lottery is as jackass as it gets, IMO.Plus, and more importantly, just plain wrong, and badly so.

Seroprevalence CDC page screenshot.PNG
Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
January 1, 2022 11:36 am

BTW, those seroprevalence numbers are for antibodies that only come from getting infected…the so-called nuclear capsid protein antibodies.
Vaccine antibodies are tracked separately, since they are spike protein antibodies.
Here below is a graph that combines those datum, vaccine and infection induced antibodies, into one view.
Seroprevalence, for anyone not familiar with the term, means the percentage of people who have detectable antibodies in their bloodstream.
Also BTW, it should be noted that combined seroprevalence as of this study data a few months ago was over 92%, according to a study done by the people that accept blood donations in the US.
About 63.1 % of people in the US over 16 years old have had at least one vaccine dose and hence have spike protein antibodies induced by the vaccines (disregarding the ones who were unable to generate an acquired immune response due to an impaired immune system. As many as 10% of the population have at least some degree of immune system impairment), and about 31% have immunity due to having been infected and subsequently recovered.
Of course, there is substantial overlap in these populations, and so total seroprevalence cannot be a simple mathematical sum of these two numbers.
In any case, the number of people with some immunity is very high at this point, and 90%+ is not an unreasonable ballpark number to consider.
Especially since those with natural infection induced antibodies have a wide range of such antibodies, including spike protein antibodies in at least some of these individuals.
Source for this information is here:
CDC COVID Data Tracker
Original research study page is here:
COVID-19 – Recipient Epidemiology and Donor Evaluation Study REDS-IV-Pediatric (

Blood donor seroprevalence screen grab.PNG
Last edited 1 year ago by Nicholas McGinley
Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
January 1, 2022 11:44 am

Here is a screen shot of my source for the assertion that some 1 in 400 people in the US have died of or with covid so far:

Worldmeters covid tracker page.PNG
Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
January 1, 2022 12:13 pm

I said “Here below is a graph that combines those datum, vaccine and infection induced antibodies, into one view.”

But then posted a screen grab of a table and a map of the data.
Here is the graph I was referring to, below, and the source, here:
CDC COVID Data Tracker

Covid seroprevalence graph.PNG
Trying to Play Nice
Reply to  Tekov Yahoser
January 3, 2022 5:35 am

Over half the US population is vaccinated, yet more people died in 2021 than in 2020 when there were no vaccinations for most of the year. With the huge numbers quoted for the difference in death rates that would mean that the unvaccinated are dying at more than twice the rate of the year before, even after the virus already selected the low-hanging fruit and half the people should have little to no viral load to spread. My BS meter doesn’t like that idea. It seems to me that the statistics are accurate sort of like the global temperature statistics. Does this make sense to anyone else or am I missing something huge?

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Trying to Play Nice
January 4, 2022 12:40 am

Way too simple to look at it like you suggest.
Almost one died until March of 2020, and the virus started from zero in that year.
Plus lockdowns, and no one going outside for months at a time?
We started 2021 with vaccines but almost no one vaccinated yet, and the virus widespread, and everyone decided they were done hibernating.
So we have a lot vaxxed now, but it took most of last year to get to this point, and many places have low rates of vaccine uptake even now.
Have you been following the data as it has accumulated?
Or did you get an idea you knew all you needed to know a long time ago and stop reading research and new studies and trends?
There is a gigantic Niagara Falls sized fire hose flow of info at this point

Do you really doubt that exposing your immune system to covid antigens by inoculation causes a human to make antibodies and T cells and B cells that are targeted at the virus, thereby eliminating the 8-10 free head start a novel virus has when it gets into a person’s body who has no prior exposure?
Is immunology a junk science to you?

What makes you doubt hundreds of years of proof that we generate an acquired immune response when exposed to an antigen?

Get a new BS meter, yours seems defective.

Last edited 1 year ago by Nicholas McGinley
Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Simon
January 4, 2022 2:30 am

Mods, I seem to have a comment from several days ago still not cleared moderation.
Could you please check on that for me?
Thank you in advance.
Nick M

To bed B
Reply to  Duane
December 31, 2021 10:55 am

If we’re going to bring up stupidity.

You confuse the lack of trust with stupidity, then reinforce the lack of trust with childish propaganda.

Reply to  Duane
December 31, 2021 5:59 pm

I resent being called an idiot. For your information I quit buying government bullshit when I left Viet Nam the second time 54 years ago. I sure as hell ain’t buying it this time around & especially not with all of the lying & coercion that is rife today that is coming from the government & their lap face jockeys. I wasn’t afraid of the original Chinee flu & I’m not afraid of this omicron. That doesn’t mean I’m stupid & go looking for it, but I do take care of myself & am careful with what I do.
So you can take your “idiot” remark & put it where the sun don’t shine & the next time you decide to throw that bomb take a look in the mirror when you say it.

Reply to  Gordon Weir
December 31, 2021 9:24 am

#@&% off topic Gord, you should be ashamed…

Mike Dubrasich
December 30, 2021 10:40 pm

The cities named are not my favorites. In fact, if God decides to wash them into the sea, I wouldn’t blame him. I would accept zero responsibility for it, but I wouldn’t have any hard feelings about it, either.

December 30, 2021 10:49 pm

I love these studies that predict disasters long after the authors are dead.

Reply to  Damon
December 31, 2021 7:43 am

What else have they gotten right? Zippo.

Zig Zag Wanderer
December 30, 2021 10:54 pm

But researchers say that rising temperatures will allow these weather events to form in the mid-latitudes.

I’m pretty sure that the Coriolis Effect will have something to say about that

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
December 30, 2021 11:49 pm

Tony Heller had a few things to say about McGrath’s piece. “The BBC writes some pretty awful stories about climate, but it is difficult to believe their recent one about cyclones could be anything but parody.” … and he does mention the Coriolis Effect c/w illustrations.

BBC : Worst Climate Story On Record – YouTube

Reply to  Rory Forbes
December 31, 2021 12:12 am

subtropical storm Alpha made landfall in Portugal

Is this the same Alpha that infected Bojo or was it beta or gamma ?

michael hart
Reply to  pigs_in_space
December 31, 2021 3:24 am

and “Winds at sea were estimated at 50 mph, declining to 35 mph overland.”

That’s called a stiff breeze in many Northern latitudes.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  michael hart
December 31, 2021 8:50 am

We get those wind speeds on a regular basis in the Pacific Northwest, west of the Cascades.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  michael hart
December 31, 2021 9:29 am

Nothing to write home about.

John VC
Reply to  michael hart
December 31, 2021 10:26 am

Looking for that or stronger starting tomorrow here in NCTexas

Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
December 31, 2021 6:23 am

Nah….the coriolis effect wasn’t even able to block CFC’ s pathological migration to the poles to damage the ozone layer,
therefore a much bigger force should easily pass it too (and in 10 years those winds will then be the reason for the ozone holes – just give science 10 years more wokeness and it will become reality)

Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
December 31, 2021 7:21 am

Exactly! Often missing from discussions such as this is the fact that warm air rises, and the warm air at the equator is mostly moving with the surface at more than 1000 MPH. The air from the North replacing it isn’t moving that fast, and the air where it’s moving towards isn’t moving that fast either. This creates a huge energy imbalance, generally called ‘weather’. This unbalance is greatly reduced at higher latitudes and goes to zero at the poles. A degree or two temperature change is nothing compared with the momentum in the air.

December 31, 2021 12:05 am

What was the storm that sunk the Spanish armada and saved England in 1588

Joao Martins
Reply to  H B
December 31, 2021 1:45 am

It was an unprecedented storm.

michael hart
Reply to  H B
December 31, 2021 3:26 am

No one expects the Spanish Armada.

John V. Wright
December 31, 2021 12:23 am

Of course it is ‘faithfully trumpeted’ by the BBC. In 2006, as readers of this blog know well, the BBC held a secret seminar in cahoots with left wing/Marxist/Green/Eco-loony organisations from across the globe and decided – formally – NOT to report global warming issues in an even-handed, balanced manner.
This decision, not disclosed to the British public who fund the entire institutionally-socialist broadcasting organisation, has made the BBC completely untrustworthy. Indeed, many see it as irrideemably politically corrupt.

Reply to  John V. Wright
December 31, 2021 1:28 am

@JVW and here is the list of names of the “best scientific experts” (the BBC Trust’s own words) who attended the 2006 seminar on the basis of whose advice the BBC decided to bias it’s reporting of climate change:
Robert May, Oxford University and Imperial College London
Mike Hulme, Director, Tyndall Centre, UEA
Blake Lee-Harwood, Head of Campaigns, Greenpeace
Dorthe Dahl-Jensen, Niels Bohr Institute, Copenhagen
Michael Bravo, Scott Polar Research Institute, University of Cambridge
Andrew Dlugolecki, Insurance industry consultant
Trevor Evans, US Embassy
Colin Challen MP, Chair, All Party Group on Climate Change
Anuradha Vittachi, Director,
Andrew Simms, Policy Director, New Economics Foundation
Claire Foster, Church of England
Saleemul Huq, IIED
Poshendra Satyal Pravat, Open University
Li Moxuan, Climate campaigner, Greenpeace China
Tadesse Dadi, Tearfund Ethiopia
Iain Wright, CO2 Project Manager, BP International
Ashok Sinha, Stop Climate Chaos
Andy Atkins, Advocacy Director, Tearfund
Matthew Farrow, CBI
Rafael Hidalgo, TV/multimedia producer
Cheryl Campbell, Executive Director, Television for the Environment
Kevin McCullough, Director, Npower Renewables
Richard D North, Institute of Economic Affairs
Steve Widdicombe, Plymouth Marine Labs
Joe Smith, The Open University
Mark Galloway, Director, IBT
Anita Neville, E3G
Eleni Andreadis, Harvard University
Jos Wheatley, Global Environment Assets Team, DFID
Tessa Tennant, Chair, AsRia

Reply to  Stoic
December 31, 2021 2:18 am

Yes, even the BBCs head of comedy was there.

Last edited 1 year ago by strativarius
Reply to  fretslider
December 31, 2021 2:38 am

I think the BBC should make an episode of Fawlty Towers where Basil turns up at the meeting and causes chaos. For Germans, see “climate experts”. “Don’t mention the Medieval Warm Period. I mentioned it but I think I got away with it.”

Reply to  Alba
December 31, 2021 3:58 am

If only alarmists had ingrowing tongues

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Alba
December 31, 2021 8:56 am

They could incorporate the garden gnome as well. After it was extracted from O’Reilly, of course.

Reply to  Stoic
December 31, 2021 4:07 am

Hard to believe Exxon wasn’t invited.

Reply to  Stoic
December 31, 2021 9:17 am

There are very few people on that list that could give you a number for the solar constant…

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  John V. Wright
December 31, 2021 7:06 am

When I was a child in the ’50s, I’d listen to the BBC on my grandfather’s ancient FM radio- one of those 4′ tall furniture pieces- probably made in the ’30s or earlier— I’d listen to the extremely serious sounding British dude sounding like the voice of God – you’d really believed what he said…. apparently the Great War knocked the silliness out of the Brits- which is now so dominate…

which reminds me of how Peter, the main character in The Family Guy cartoon once did a skit about listening to the BBC, as it was way back- it was extremely hilarious the way the British accent was exaggerated- that show has often made fun of the Brits, along with everyone else

December 31, 2021 12:24 am

35mph winds on land?? WTF?
This was some major event which made scientists wet their pants??

They should come up to us in the Baltic states we get these “sub tropical storms” every week especially in winter months mixed with blizzards.

It’s why tourism in jan/feb in St Petersburg is not exactly flavour of the month!

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  pigs_in_space
December 31, 2021 8:58 am

The Germans had a good time, though.

December 31, 2021 1:11 am


I suppose that makes a change from “could”.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  fretslider
December 31, 2021 9:47 am

It was necessary. English has a shortage of conditionals.

Jim Veenbaas
December 31, 2021 1:31 am

How many people died from storms 70 years ago? How many die from storms now? Do we seriously think this number will be higher 70 years from now?

December 31, 2021 2:10 am

And the Michael Fish hurricane of ‘87? A tad stronger than the Portugal one and a bit further North!

Reply to  AngryScotonFraggleRock
December 31, 2021 4:02 am

“ Earlier on today apparently, a woman rang the BBC and said she’d heard there was a hurricane on the way,”

“Well, if you’re watching, don’t worry, there isn’t.”

As correct as any climate scientist

Last edited 1 year ago by strativarius
Ron Long
December 31, 2021 2:20 am

Matt McGrath has a Master of Arts in Journalism, which is training to lie like a politician. Science Degree? Not.

Reply to  Ron Long
December 31, 2021 4:54 am

well guess why those w..nkers that run the BBC never made any problems for Savile, Harris, Hall and all the other paedos..

Sure as anything Mcgrath would never have seen any problem with Top of the pops, it’s a KNOCK OUT and “Tie Me Kangaroo Down, Sport”!

Trained to lie – shame on them, during the war the French resistance relied on them.

December 31, 2021 4:37 am

last fall in bermuda , a low which formed off the carolinas ( well outside the tropics ) went north of bermuda into the mid latitudes and became named storm wanda , one of many “ fish storms “ . just normal weather in the north atlantic in late fall which is known for its stormy weather . but it became part of the hurricane count for 2021 . might as well count winter storms too as hurricanes , for that matter .

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  garboard
December 31, 2021 9:00 am

What really explodes my boiler is when they say “winter storm” when it isn’t winter.

December 31, 2021 5:11 am

I believe there is going to be a full retraction made on BBC tonight.

The BBC will also include that they would like other false extreme weather claims to be taken into consideration.

H. D. Hoese
December 31, 2021 6:18 am

Poleward expansion of tropical cyclone latitudes in warming climates
You only have to read English with some ability to see the contradiction problem. Usually have to read late in the paper to find this. Last line of abstract, paywalled.
“ We conclude that twenty-first century TCs will most probably occupy a broader range of latitudes than those of the past 3 million years as low-latitude genesis will be supplemented with increasing mid-latitude TC favourability, although precise estimates for future migration remain beyond current methodologies.”

As a few journal editors are starting to recognize the peer review system is increasingly failing.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  H. D. Hoese
December 31, 2021 9:02 am

How much do they really know about TCs over 3 million years??

Gunga Din
December 31, 2021 6:23 am

“increase in named storms”
Technically true but deliberately deceptive.
Aside from beginning to name subtropical storms in 2002, when did they begin to name hurricanes?
In the early ’50s.
Before then, like blizzards and tornado outbreaks, they were only “named” because of the damage they did.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Gunga Din
December 31, 2021 9:53 am

Dangers seem far more threatening when they have a name.

Reply to  Rory Forbes
December 31, 2021 1:47 pm

Yes. Absolutely.
My neighbours sheltered for 48 hours because of Passing Shower Greta, which actually dampened my drive.


Rory Forbes
Reply to  auto
December 31, 2021 2:11 pm

🙂 how dare you …

Mumbles McGuirck
December 31, 2021 6:25 am

From the Abstract of the paper…
“Simulations of past warm climates, such as the Eocene and Pliocene, show that TCs can form and intensify at higher latitudes than of those during pre-industrial conditions.”

How is the Pliocene a ‘warm climate’ like the Eocene??? The Pliocene was marked by numerous glacial periods and it’s interglacial periods were rarely warmer than the Holocene Optimum. The Eocene Optimum was some 10-12 C warmer than that. There were redwood forests growing in northern Nunavut, for Pete’s sake. The authors of this paper seem to lack a serious understanding of climate.
However, the kicker is the final sentence if the abstract…

“although precise estimates for future migration remain beyond current methodologies.”

In other words, it’s all computer-generated guesswork.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Mumbles McGuirck
December 31, 2021 9:04 am

Again, they claim to be able to simulate past climates (and weather, since they’re talking about storms), something they know f-all about, but still can’t predict the weather today with any real accuracy.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
December 31, 2021 9:55 am

but still can’t predict the weather today with any real accuracy.

… and absolutely no precision at all …

December 31, 2021 7:13 am

Ever heard of a nor’easter? The people living in the North Atlantic seaboard in the US and Canada certainly have, for thousands of years in fact.

Steve Case
December 31, 2021 7:46 am

comment image

Reply to  Steve Case
December 31, 2021 6:16 pm

gotta hand it to Rogers, he hasn’t caved to the screechers

December 31, 2021 7:55 am

It’s too bad it’s not true, it would be a step forward in climate equity.

Rather than having typhoons and tropical storms hit highly populated places with insufficient infrastructure like the Philippines, Indonesia, Bangledesh, etc. redistributing the storms hit temperate locations like Australia, Spain, France, England, Ireland, New England, and California would be a huge victory for climate justice.

Old Cocky
Reply to  Kazinski
December 31, 2021 1:44 pm

Quite a bit of Australia is in the tropics, thank you very much. We typically get a couple of cyclones most summers. They aren’t much fun for the areas where they make landfall as cyclones, but provide a good (sometimes too good) source of summer rainfall for much of inland Queensland and northern New South Wale.

Pillage Idiot
December 31, 2021 8:06 am

Comment deleted.

Last edited 1 year ago by pillageidiot
Pat from kerbob
December 31, 2021 9:00 am

Hurricane Hazel hit Toronto (famous ocean tropics coastal city) and killed many people in 1954.

I guess it didn’t actually happen

Scott snell
December 31, 2021 9:07 am

Matt McGrath? Must be Titania’s brother.

Chris Nisbet
December 31, 2021 9:21 am

“Climate change will (insert catastrophe)
IOW, climate change hasn’t …
Or maybe it’s another way of say the climate hasn’t changed

Last edited 1 year ago by Chris Nisbet
Nicholas McGinley
December 31, 2021 2:21 pm

How do these jackasses get published anyhow?

Brooks H Hurd
January 2, 2022 8:37 am

In 2004, I was living in Taiwan as I had been off and on since 1992. I lived through many typhoons during my time in Taiwan. 2004, however, was an anomaly. That year the jet stream shifted in a way that pushed the typhoon trajectories further east than normal. This meant that Taiwan had a typhoon drought. Almost all of the 2004 typhoons that would have dumped huge amount of rain on Taiwan, were pushed north to make landfall in Japan.

I checked the number of Western Pacific cyclones and found that 2004 had a normal number based on the satellite data.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights