Yes, quite interesting.
The editorial comments (in italics) do themselves point out some of the question marks. It is difficult for one of the great unwashed like me to read items like this and be sure we understand the scientific basis of it. For example this chap is not an epidemiologist and admits that what he did originally was 'probably out of ignorance'. Now either epidemiology as a discipline has disappeared up it's own fundament and a simple numerical comparison like this chap has done is all you need to work out what will happen, or he simply does not understand all the factors that might be involved. I don't know which of these might be true, but I am always a little suspicious of an 'outsider' to any discipline who announces he has suddenly and by chance found something that makes him better able to understand an subject than those who have been studying it for years. It's not impossible of course, but fairly unlikely.
Reagrding deaths in the USA he does say "Right now it is around
155,000 in the U.S., and I am expecting it to end up under 170,000 or maybe 175,000." - it is already nearly 198,000 and the deaths have not stopped. That doesn't engender much confidence!
Also (given that he seems to have a radical view not widely shared) I would be interested in his own politics, so we could be sure that he isn't deriving possible courses of actions to fit what he thinks should happen anyway!
