I think you are mistaken on two counts. The data is certainly not so self-evident that you can simply assert the parent is wrong.

Deaths are rising in counties that hadn't had significant exposure to covid19 before, and already the trend is heading down across the board. Deaths will be climbing in a couple of hotspots for the next 2 weeks, but total deaths in the entirety of the USA shouldn't exceed 280k.

I agree the virus hasn't become less potent, but hospitals have gotten much, much better at treatment. Remdesivir in particular makes a big difference. Spread in long term care facilities are now tracked nationwide, with terrific results. So the CFR is down by a lot, even though the virus hasn't changed.

Nobody in the US is being denied care because the ICUs are full. Yes, some hospitals are strained but this is not at all unusual. You'll find similar articles about maxed out ICUs from 2018, 2016, etc. First hit on google from jan 2018: "Hospitals Overwhelmed by Flu Patients Are Treating Them in Tents" (https://time.com/5107984/hospitals-handling-burden-flu-patie...). Moving patients to hospitals with spare capacity isn't that big of a deal. Bear in mind that Hospitals are for profit and ICU beds are extremely expensive. As a consequence hospitals target 85%+ ICU utilization throughout the year, otherwise they're losing money.

Didn't the Texas Tribune just misreport the data? https://twitter.com/VanceGinn/status/1287940050752286721

>already the trend is heading down across the board

You mean the rate of increase of the increase in deaths is heading down...across the board?

> There may be some factors that are combating more severe symptoms

Even if we don't have a solid treatment plan, we have more knowledge now than we did before. Triage is about saving as many people as you can by not allocating resources on those who are too far gone, or not far enough. Surely we have better bounds on those conditions now.

We probably also have fewer people suffering from side effects of treatments that have been proven ineffective. Those complications could push some patients from critical condition to dead.

> > illnesses are less severe

> This is also false.

I agree it's false. One reason people think it's true is that very much more testing is happening, so we're seeing people with milder symptoms getting tested positive. Before they just wouldn't have been tested.

We've seen exponential growth curves of people dying before, it's not happening now. More tests or not, what gives?

It looks to me as though deaths in the US have been in an up trend since about July 1st (daily rate +70%), and globally since June 1st (daily rate +25%).

But the same thing is just not happening everywhere. People don't seem to accept that. You average in declining cases and deaths in NY, say, and it obscures what's happening in Texas. Same on an international scale.

> You average in declining cases and deaths in NY, say, and it obscures what's happening in Texas. Same on an international scale.

I am not. Look at the rate of change in daily deaths in NY versus Texas. It's a big difference.

> This is false. Deaths were down, but they have been climbing again for the last three weeks.

Deaths relative to cases are down...

> Mortality is a lagging indicator to infections, so what we're seeing right now is mortality from the earliest stages of reopening.

...even accounting for lag.

> There may be some factors that are combating more severe symptoms (e.g. greater vitamin D, if that turns out to be a real effect), but the virus hasn't recently become somehow less potent.

Then why are deaths down? Why is no other state repeating anything close to what New York went through?

> False again. In the current hotspot states -- Florida, Arizona, and Texas -- ICU capacity in many areas is strained or overwhelmed

Nowhere does it say "overwhelmed". At or near capacity is not "overwhelmed". It's better to ring the alarms sooner than later, of course.