LP

[LP @JOG412]

@simon_faire @R9_Fury @PatientPersists @rubenivangaalen @mzelst @mkeulemans Okay that makes sense. I was thinking it was an average or random non first line vulnerable 80 year old projected to live to 85.

[LP @JOG412]

@simon_faire @R9_Fury @PatientPersists @rubenivangaalen @mzelst @mkeulemans Agree with almost all of that. Just 1 minor quibble: the 80 year olds that died who were not first line vulnerable were expected to live longer than 85. Probably at least 90 so it takes longer for the death rate to normalize.

[LP @JOG412]

@AlleBurgers @PatientPersists @rubenivangaalen @mzelst @mkeulemans Elderly population isn't growing at a linear rate. Growth rate is far higher now than it was in 2015-2019.

[LP @JOG412]

@PatientPersists @rubenivangaalen @mzelst @mkeulemans The elderly population in the Netherlands isn't growing at a linear rate. 80+ population increased by 65k between 2015-20 and 132k between 2020 and 2025. Death rate was really bad everywhere 2021-23/24 but it's actually good now most places. Below pre- pandemic levels.

[LP @JOG412]

@yadannofreeze @hey_itsmyturn They are the relative moderates. Kill them and IRGC decision making power increases.

[LP @JOG412]

@LongDesertTrain @SolidEvidence @Lee_CrollPhD And here's UK. (from gwladwr's work)

[LP @JOG412]

@LongDesertTrain @SolidEvidence @Lee_CrollPhD Here's Ontario. Far lower earlier wave burden than US and UK.

[LP @JOG412]

@gwladwr Association between imprinting/exposure to pre-BA.1 antigen & protection from BA.3.2 is too strong to ignore. Large difference btw 1-4 and 5-14 in UK bc 5-14 had very high early wave exposure. Much less diff btw 1-4 and 5-14 would be expected in places like Japan & even Germany.

[LP @JOG412]

@SolidEvidence I'm not understanding at all. When JN.1 came along all age groups susceptible. This suggests immune naivety was not a factor then. When BA.3 came along only certain ages susceptible. This suggests immune naivety could be a factor now.

[LP @JOG412]

@SolidEvidence But they weren't similar to each other. One caused a change in age distributions the other doesn't. A plausible reason for the change in age distributions is immune naivety.

[LP @JOG412]

@SolidEvidence I wasn't arguing. I was asking in good faith why those 2 facts would suggest immune naivety is not the explanation?

[LP @JOG412]

@SolidEvidence When JN.1 replaced XBB there was no significant change in age distributions. When BA.3.2 replaced JN.1 (in some pops) descendents there was a significant change in age distributions. I don't understand why these 2 facts would even suggest that imm naivety is not the explanation?

[LP @JOG412]

@SolidEvidence @Lee_CrollPhD There is an obvious explanation. 3.2 is closer to wuhan than other recent variants on antigen map. Adults first exposure antigen imprinting is 90%+ wuhan or similar in most countries. Children it's 0% for age 0-5 and well below 50% for 6-18.

[LP @JOG412]

@akarlin Mossflower is my all time childhood favorite.

[LP @JOG412]

@SolidEvidence @LongDesertTrain @snpoehlm @JosetteSchoenma It's omicron imprinting. 100% in age 0-5. And a high % for age 6-18 because vax uptake for kids was poor everywhere (except china). Higher 6-18yr omi imprinting in countries that missed the worst of early waves (Japan, Australia, maybe Germany).

[LP @JOG412]

@JEFFWH75 @joshrogin Yes we are back at square one. Actually further from regime change than before the war because we have succeeded in uniting Iran. What have we accomplished?