A Lot More Than 9,210 Have Died Of COVID-19
Distorting the data to minimize the effects of COVID-19 undermines the cause of ending the lockdowns
An interesting story circulated around the internet this weekend. The CDC released an analysis of death certificates that revealed that only 6% of those who died of COVID-19 had the virus as the sole cause of death.
The CDC updated the provisional counts on deaths that have occurred from COVID-19 on Aug. 26, and in the section on comorbidities, they revealed that only 6% of the deaths were caused by just the virus. That information has been seized on by those who believe the total deaths and the severity of the pandemic have been greatly exaggerated as an effort to undermine the President during an election year.
Among those who seized on the data was none other than President Trump himself who retweeted a tweet about the finidings. The tweet was later deleted by Twitter.
Many of those who seized on the data were other opponents of the lockdowns. They saw the CDC data as proof that COVID-19 was not as deadly as reported.
But that is not the correct way to read the data. The reality is that the other 94% of those who died from COVID-19 had other conditions that contributed to their death.
This means 94 percent of people who died of the virus in the US had other conditions, which contributed to their death in addition to COVID-19.
This echoes information public health doctors have shared since the pandemic began that people with underlying health conditions are at higher risk of complications and death due to the coronavirus.
These include older people and people with chronic breathing problems, diabetes and high blood pressure, among other health conditions.
The CDC statistic does not mean that 94 percent of people listed as COVID-19 deaths are listed incorrectly. It means 94 percent of people died of COVID-19 and something else.
Many of the people who took part in the misinterpretation of the data are people who want the lockdowns to end. It’s a cause that I can sympathize with. Many of the restrictions that are still in place as a result of COVID-19 seem to have little basis in science and only serve to allow government officials to exercise power.
Opposing the remaining lockdowns becomes much easier when you have wannabe tyrants like New York City Mayor Bill De Blasio say that indoor dining was not going to come back until there was a vaccine. It is also easy to oppose lockdowns when you see hypocrites like Philadelphia Mayor Jim Kenney dine indoors in Maryland while banning indoor dining in his own city.
But misrepresenting data such as was done with the CDC death certificate data does not help end the lockdowns. In fact, it likely makes the lockdowns more severe and lengthens them. It only reinforces the narrative that those who oppose the lockdowns only care about making money and frivilous things such as haircuts and dining out over those who are vulnerable to the virus. It gives the image to the American people that we don’t care who dies from COVID-19.
The truth is there is now ample evidence against lockdowns. There is some evidence that this March and April’s lockdowns did not save lives. In addition, more and more public health experts have come to believe that lockdowns are too blunt and too costly of a tool to be deployed.
Finally, we have the successful COVID-19 outbreak management strategies of Arizona and Florida. Both states managed a surge of cases this summer without shutting down their economies. Georgia and Texas are also showing success in managing their summer case spikes without resorting to shutdowns.
There is already plenty of evidence to oppose shutdowns. We need to encourage those with low risk of COVID-19 to return to work, resume their lives, and build the necessary herd immunity to beat this virus. We need to encourage mask wearing because they reduce the viral load that is both transmitted and received, thereby making infections less severe.
But there is no excuse to misrepresent COVID-19 data as was done this weekend. It is not only a bad faith and ignorant argument, but it decreases the liklihood of more rational policies being adopted.