I’m dumbfounded at your pseudointellectual attempt to rationalize the most bizarrely confident assertion. They do not mutate at a constant rate. Watching for a mutation is like watching for the nuclear shedding of a neutrino: There are rules for governing the chance a mutation will occur over a certain amount of time, but an actual event is purely random. So to look back over 2 years and predict that whatever strain proliferates next, let alone within two months, is likely to be deadly is just smash-your-skull-with-a-brick insane, unless he knows something he isn’t saying.
No this “something” doesn’t necessarily need to be a new lab release, but he will understandably fuel paranoia not acution if he’s correct.
“They do not mutate at a constant rate.”
I didn’t say “constant rate”, I said “fairly predictable rate”.
“an actual event is purely random”
Yes, but we’re not talking about one event, we are talking about the generalized, average rate of mutation, which is something that is known, and for a virus family as studied as coronaviruses, it is fairly well known.
“predict that whatever strain proliferates next”
He’s not predicting any particular strain that will proliferate. He’s simply speculating that over a known period of time, in a virus with a fairly well known rate of mutatation, there’s a good chance that ONE of the variants that arises by that time will escape immunity, and I think his prediction is based not on the nature of any particular variant, but based on his belief that the vaccines have done damage to people’s natural immunity. If natural immunity is damaged, and the vaccine-provided immunity is insufficient, then it doesn’t necessarily take a deadlier or more virulent virus to escape immunity. After a certain point, if the body’s natural ability to respond to a new variant is crippled, then ANY new variant that is sufficiently different from what the vaccine might protect against could be very deadly to those with compromised immune systems.