Is the Official Covid-19 Death Toll Accurate?

Guest post By James D. Agresti

Overview

Roughly two-thirds of U.S. residents don’t believe the CDC’s official tally for the number of Covid-19 deaths. This distrust, however, flows in opposing directions. A nationally representative survey conducted by Axios/Ipsos in late July 2020 found that 37% of adults think the real number of C-19 fatalities in the U.S. is lower than reported, while 31% think the true death toll is greater than reported.

The facts show that neither side has an airtight case, but the evidence is more consistent with the theory that less people have died from C-19 than the official figures indicate. Nevertheless, the extent of the possible overcount is unknown, and even if it were as high as 50,000, it would not make a marked difference in key measures of the pandemic’s severity. Hence, debates over the accuracy of the death toll distract from other issues with much greater implications.

Excess Deaths

The main argument of those who claim that the official C-19 death tally is an undercount is based on a factor called “excess deaths.” This is defined as the total number of deaths from all causes during the pandemic minus the number of deaths that would normally occur at this time of the year.

In the words of the Government Accountability Office, “Examining higher-than-expected deaths from all causes helps to address limitations in the reporting of Covid-19 deaths because the number of total deaths is likely more accurate than the numbers of deaths from specific causes.”

U.S. death certificate data shows that the rise in deaths during the pandemic has indeed been greater than the number of reported C-19 deaths. Some jump to the conclusion that these additional fatalities must be C-19 deaths that were not recorded as such, but a broad array of data indicates that the bulk or all of them are caused by societal reactions to C-19—instead of the disease itself.

For a prime example of how people misconstrue this issue, CNN’s chief media correspondent, Brian Stelter, reported on August 16:

We are likely to see the 170,000 mark crossed today—confirmed deaths from Covid-19. But researchers have looked at the actual number of excess deaths in this country—estimated deaths above the norm—and they say it’s closer to 200,000 so far this year. So the real actual death toll from Covid-19 is around 200,000. We have to constantly remind viewers that it’s even worse than we know. It’s even worse than the data indicate.

First, Stelter is wrong that this figure is for “confirmed” deaths. It is actually for “confirmed” plus “suspected” deaths. Those exact words come from the CDC’s official guidance for certifying C-19 deaths, which was published on April 3. On the same day Stelter made this claim, the CDC’s website stated that its C-19 “case counts and death counts” have included “both confirmed and probable cases and deaths” since April 14. In other words, Stelter misrepresented the essence of the data even though this accounting change was in effect for four full months.

The impact of including probable deaths in the count is evidenced by how the CDC altered its website when it adopted this methodology. Two days after the new method of counting deaths was implemented, the CDC updated its website twice (instead of its usual once-per-day update) to incorporate this revision. The changes it made on that day (April 16) provide a rough sense of scale for how the new policy modified the death toll:

  • Before any updates, the CDC reported that 24,582 people had died from C-19 as of April 14.
  • On the first update, the CDC reported that 27,012 people had died from C-19 as of April 15, including 22,871 “confirmed” and 4,141 “probable.”
  • On the second update, the CDC reported that 31,071 people had died from C-19 as of April 15, including 26,930 “confirmed” and 4,141 “probable.”

Taken at face value, the second update shows that CDC’s insertion of “probable” cases raised the death count from 26,930 to 31,071, or by 15%. From a more skeptical standpoint, the difference between the 22,871 “confirmed” deaths on the first update and the 31,071 “confirmed and probable” deaths on the second update amounts to a 36% rise caused by these bookkeeping modifications.

More significantly, Stelter failed to reveal that scholars who conduct research on excess deaths have found that multitudes of them have been caused by lockdowns, panic, and other responses to the pandemic. In July 2020, the Journal of the American Medical Association published a paper regarding this matter by researchers from Virginia Commonwealth University and Yale University. An article about the study from Virginia Commonwealth University summarizes its findings and quotes the researchers as follows:

  • Some excess deaths “may reflect under-reporting” or “patients with Covid-19 who died from related complications,” “but a third possibility, the one we’re quite concerned about is” the “spillover effects of the pandemic, such as delayed medical care, economic hardship or emotional distress.”
  • In the five states that that had the most Covid-19 deaths in March and April:
    • stroke deaths were 35% above normal.
    • Alzheimer’s deaths were 64% above normal.
    • heart disease deaths were 89% above normal.
    • diabetes deaths were 96% above normal.
  • “New York City’s death rates alone rose a staggering 398% from heart disease and 356% from diabetes.”
  • “Still others may have struggled to deal with the consequences of job loss or social isolation.”
  • “A number of people struggling with depression, addiction and very difficult economic conditions caused by lockdowns may have become increasingly desperate, and some may have died by suicide. People addicted to opioids and other drugs may have overdosed.”
  • “The findings from” the “study confirm an alarming trend across the U.S., where community members experiencing a health emergency are staying home—a decision that can have long-term, and sometimes fatal, consequences.”

Numerous other facts corroborate the ones above, a small sampling of which includes the following:

  • A scientific survey commissioned by the American College of Emergency Physicians in April 2020 found that 29% of adults have “actively delayed or avoided seeking medical care due to concerns about contracting” C-19.
  • A California-based ABC News station reported in May:
    • “Doctors at John Muir Medical Center in Walnut Creek say they have seen more deaths by suicide during this quarantine period than deaths from the Covid-19 virus.”
    • Mike deBoisblanc, head of the trauma unit at the hospital stated that he’s “seen a year’s worth of suicide attempts in the last four weeks,” and “mental health is suffering so much” that he says “it is time to end the shelter-in-place order.”
  • A scientific survey conducted by the CDC in July 2020 found that about 32% of U.S. adults had “symptoms of anxiety disorder” as compared to 8% around the same time last year. The perils of this are underscored by a 2015 meta-analysis in the Journal of the American Medical Association Psychiatry, which found that the overall risk of death among people with anxiety is 43% higher than the general population.
  • A study published by the American Medical Association in September 2020 found that 27.8% of U.S. adults had symptoms of depression during the C-19 pandemic as compared to 8.5% before the pandemic. The same 2015 meta-analysis found that depression is associated with a 71% higher risk of death.
  • An article published by the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco estimated that “more than 20 million jobs” were “swept away” in the early months of the C-19 pandemic. A 2011 meta-analysis in the journal Social Science & Medicine about mortality, “psychosocial stress,” and job losses found that “unemployment is associated with a 63% higher risk of mortality in studies controlling for covariates.”
  • A study published by Just Facts in May 2020 found that anxiety related to C-19 will ultimately destroy at least seven times more years of life than can possibly be saved by lockdowns. With regard to this study, the accomplished psychiatrist Joseph P. Damore, Jr. wrote that it “thoroughly answers the question about the cure being worse than the disease.”

Thus, many or all of the excess deaths that Stelter and others attribute to C-19 are caused by the actions of governments and media outlets. These include but are not limited to stay-at-home orders, business shutdowns, and pervasive misinformation that fuels ill-informed decisions, panic, and depression.

Evidence of Overcounting

Several lines of evidence prove that some deaths included in the official C-19 tally were, in fact, not caused by C-19. However, the combined weight of this evidence is not enough to prove that the reported death toll is significantly greater than the actual one.

Four weeks after the World Health Organization declared C-19 a pandemic, Dr. Deborah Birx, the coordinator of the White House Covid-19 task force, stated that the U.S. is taking a “a very liberal approach” to counting C-19 deaths compared to “some countries.” She then explained that “if someone dies with Covid-19, we are counting that as a Covid-19 death.” Notably, that standard does not distinguish between dying from Covid-19 and dying with Covid-19.

In the wake of Birx’s statement, various government officials revealed exactly how they were implementing this “very liberal approach”:

  • A Michigan news article reported in April:
    • “In Macomb County, Chief Medical Examiner Daniel Spitz had a recent case in which an individual died by suicide. Because they had a family member in the hospital suffering from Covid-19, Spitz had a postmortem test done and found that the individual who died at home was positive for Covid-19. The virus wasn’t their cause of death, but the individual is counted as a Covid-19 death.”
    • In Oakland County, “every individual who has died while infected with Covid-19 has counted as a coronavirus death, according to Dr. Ljubisa J. Dragovic, the county’s chief medical examiner.”
  • Ngozi Ezike, director of Illinois Department of Public Health stated during a April press conference:
    • If “you were in hospice and had already been given a few weeks to live, and then you were also found to have Covid, that would be counted as a Covid death. It means that technically, even if you died of a clear alternate cause, but you still had Covid at the time, it’s still listed as a Covid death.”
    • “So everyone who’s listed as a Covid death doesn’t mean that was the cause of the death, but they had Covid at the time of death.”
  • A month later, Ezike said that the Department of Public Health was partly unwinding its previous policy but some of it would remain in place:
    • We are “trying to remove those obvious cases” from the C-19 death tally “where the Covid diagnosis was not the reason for the death. If there was a gunshot wound, if there was a motor vehicle accident, we know that that was not related to the Covid positive status.”
    • If “someone has another illness, like heart disease, and then had a stroke or other event, it’s not as easy to separate that and say Covid didn’t exacerbate that existing illness. That would not be removed from the count.”
    • “Even if somebody was very elderly and they were maybe in hospice, we still can’t say that their Covid infection didn’t hasten the death, and so it’s relevant that Covid-19 maybe had a chance to accelerate that process.”
  • A Colorado-based CBS news station reported in April:
    • The “Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment has reclassified three deaths at a Centennial nursing home as Covid-19 deaths, despite the fact attending physicians ruled all three were not related to coronavirus.”
    • A spokesman for the state explained that it “follows the CDC’s case definition of Covid-19 cases and deaths,” and “when a person with a lab-confirmed case of Covid-19 dies, their death is automatically counted as a Covid-19 death unless there is another cause that completely rules out Covid-19, such as a fatal physical injury.”
  • The same CBS news station reported in May about a death in Colorado where C-19 was completely ruled out, but the state counted it anyway:
    • A man was found dead with blood alcohol content about twice the level that is potentially fatal, and Montezuma County Coroner George Deavers ruled that he died of alcohol poisoning.
    • Colorado’s Department of Public Health and Environment classified the case as a C-19 fatality because the man tested positive for C-19 after his death.
    • The coroner stated: “Yes, he did have Covid, but that is not what took his life.”
  • In Florida during July:
    • A local Fox news station asked Dr. Raul Pino, the health officer of Orange County, if two people in their twenties who had allegedly died of Covid-19 had any preexisting conditions. Pino replied: “The first one didn’t have any. He died in a motorcycle accident.”
    • Two days after the news station published this story, Pino’s office said the case “was reviewed,” and the person “was taken off the list for Covid fatalities.”
  • Officials of the Maricopa County, Arizona Public Health Department stated in August:
    • “Even if it’s not listed on their death certificate, anyone who has a Covid-19 positive test within a certain period of when they died, is also counted as a Covid-19 positive death.”
    • If a person dies in a car crash and tested positive for C-19 in the prior 60 days, “Yes, the death would be added” to the C-19 death tally because “it is important to understand who died WITH the disease even if the disease was not the CAUSE of death. Obviously, fatal accidents are a small subset of the total.”

Short of scrutinizing every alleged C-19 death or a truly representative sample of them, there is no way to tell how many cases like those above are part of the official tally. However, certain evidence suggests they are not a large portion of the total:

  • Contrary to Birx’s statement in March, the CDC issued guidance in early April that states: “Not all conditions present at the time of death have to be reported—only those conditions that actually contributed to death.”
  • The CDC posted that guidance on April 3 when the official C-19 death count was 5,443 people, or less than one-thirtieth of the current tally. Thus, whatever happened prior to then can’t have a major impact on the total.
  • Some states instruct people who fill out death certificates to exclude C-19 if it didn’t play an active role in the fatality. Mississippi, for instance, says: “If Covid-19 was unrelated to the cause of death and not a contributing factor, it should not be included” on the death certificate.

On the other hand, the CDC’s guidance and other government policies still incentivize or stack the deck in favor of including C-19 on death certificates. For example:

  • The state of Alaska instructs medical professionals to report C-19 deaths according to this standard: “Whether Covid-19 shortened a life by 15 years or 15 minutes; whether Covid-19 is an underlying or contributing condition, the virus was in circulation, infected an Alaskan, and hastened their death. This must be reported.” Given the impossibility of determining if C-19 shortened a life by 15 minutes, these instructions favor placing C-19 on the death certificates of people who died with or after C-19 but not necessarily from C-19.
  • The CDC’s guidance for certifying C-19 deaths provides three examples of how to record them on death certificates, one of which involves an 86-year-old female who was never tested for C-19, had a debilitating stroke three years prior to her death, and passed on with “a high fever and severe cough after being exposed to an ill family member who subsequently was diagnosed with Covid-19.” The guidance states the “underlying cause of death,” or the pivotal factor that led to her death, should be listed as “Probable Covid-19.” However, many other diseases can cause a fever and cough, and a recent CDC study shows it is not uncommon for people to display symptoms of C-19 but test negative for it.
  • The federal CARES Act, which became law in late March, pays hospitals a 20% premium for treating Medicare patients who are diagnosed with C-19. Until recently, a positive lab test for C-19 was not needed to obtain this money, but the federal government added this requirement in September “to address potential Medicare program integrity risks….” Note that C-19 need not appear on a death certificate for hospitals to receive these payments, so it may not influence decisions to include it.
  • The Mississippi Department of Health states: “If the patient was a confirmed Covid-19 case, but Covid-19 contributed to but did not cause the death, such as stroke,” C-19 should be listed in Part II of the death certificate. This again favors placing C-19 on death certificates, for as the director of Illinois Department of Public Health said: If “someone has another illness, like heart disease, and then had a stroke or other event, it’s not as easy to separate that and say Covid didn’t exacerbate that existing illness.” Note that the CDC includes in its C-19 death tally all death certificates that mention C-19, regardless of whether it appears in Part I or Part II.

A breakdown of how many C-19 deaths appear in Part I versus Part II might shed considerable light on the issue of C-19’s lethality. This is because Part I of a death certificate “is for reporting the sequence of conditions that led directly to death,” while Part II is for “other significant conditions that contributed to the death, but are not a part of the sequence of conditions directly leading to the death.” Thus, Just Facts requested such data from the CDC on September 11 and is awaiting a reply.

Summary

Media outlets have persistently reported on the number of C-19 deaths while ignoring vital facts that place them in context. A simple example of this is that 2.8 million people die in the U.S. every year, including about 170,000 from accidents. Also of great import, accidents rob an average of 30.6 years of life from each of its victims, as compared to roughly 10.8 years for C-19. Yet in contrast, media outlets don’t continually publicize the running death tally from accidents.

This focus on the raw number of C-19 fatalities—combined with the fact that the very nature of the disease makes these figures uncertain—has spurred controversy over the accuracy of the CDC’s death count. Adding fuel to the fire, the statements and actions of some public officials show clear evidence of overcounting.

But even if the real death toll is 50,000 less than the 200,000 deaths currently reported by the CDC, this 25% difference would have little effect on key measures of the pandemic’s severity.

Consider, for example, the infection fatality rate, which is the portion of people who die after catching the disease. In early March, the World Health Organization announced that “about 3.4% of reported Covid-19 cases have died” and that “by comparison, seasonal flu generally kills far fewer than 1% of those infected.” This 3.4% figure was widely reported, and many media outlets criticized President Trump for saying, “I think the 3.4% is really a false number,” and “I would say the number is way under 1%.”

As it turned out, Trump was correct, and the Center for Evidence-Based Medicine at the University of Oxford now estimates that the infection fatality rate for C-19 is “somewhere between 0.1% and 0.41%.” This is well below 1%, just as Trump stated, and within range of the flu’s infection fatality rate of 0.15%. So even if C-19 deaths are overcounted by 25%, and this exaggerates the fatality rates by the same amount, they would still be 0.1% to 0.3%—or practically unchanged.

Likewise, the CDC’s current best estimates for the infection fatality rate range from 0.003% for people aged 0–19 to 5.4% for people aged 70 and above. Again, a 25% change in these figures would leave them in the same ballpark.

Thus, debates over the death count are a distraction from more informative measures like the odds of dying from C-19 for those who catch it. In this case, the highly publicized figure of 3.4% proved to be off by about a factor of 10. That is a major factor that truly informs the big picture.

From an even broader perspective, the most comprehensive available measure of the threat posed by Covid-19 is the total years of life that it will rob from all people who were alive at the outset of 2020. This crucial measure accounts for the facts that:

  • there is a material difference between a malady that kills a 20 year-old in the prime of her life and one that kills a 90-year-old who would have otherwise died a month later.
  • Covid-19 is unlikely to have an ongoing high death toll because the virus that causes it mutates much less substantially than that of the flu and other contagious diseases. Thus, it is far less likely to keep taking lives in the face of acquired immunity and vaccines.

In the context of this broad measure, debates over the actual death toll amount to rounding errors in the relative threats posed by Covid-19 and other common scourges that take masses of lives every year:

In conclusion, the facts of this matter accord with a Government Accountability Office technology assessment published in July that found: “The extent of any net undercounting or overcounting of Covid-19 deaths is unknown.” More importantly, debates over the accuracy of this figure divert attention from other issues that have much greater implications for understanding the pandemic and how it should be addressed.

James D. Agresti is the president of Just Facts, a think tank dedicated to publishing rigorously documented facts about public policy issues.

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
0 0 votes
Article Rating
145 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
hiskorr
September 18, 2020 7:12 am

Why no reference to the recent CDC study that had the widely-quoted stats something like ” 60% of the studied cases Wuflu was incidental to the death, 34% Wuflu contributed to the death, and 6% Wuflu alone caused the death.” This study was front page on CDC’s web for a few days, then it disappeared. I wonder why. Seems like this study should be the basis for the author’s investigation.

James D. Agresti
Reply to  hiskorr
September 18, 2020 8:22 am

That’s not what the CDC study actually showed, and it is still on the CDC website. It states:

“For 6% of the deaths, COVID-19 was the only cause mentioned. For deaths with conditions or causes in addition to COVID-19, on average, there were 2.6 additional conditions or causes per death.” https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm

This correspondence I recently received from the CDC sheds more light on this issue:

“A physician, medical examiner, or coroner lists the cause or causes of death on the death certificate. Death certificates list any causes or conditions that contributed to a person’s death. However, each death certificate must identify only one underlying cause of death. This cause of death is the condition that began the chain of events that ultimately led to the person’s death. In 92% of all deaths that mention COVID-19, COVID-19 is the underlying cause of death.”

“In 94% (more than 9 out of 10) of death certificates with COVID-19 listed as a cause of death, other conditions are also listed. These causes may include conditions that occurred as a result of COVID-19, such as pneumonia or respiratory failure, or chronic conditions like diabetes or high blood pressure.”

icisil
September 18, 2020 7:48 am

Joe explains how simple(minded) it really is.

“Just look at the data. Look at the data.”

https://twitter.com/RealSaavedra/status/1306763697772085250

Jan Smelik
September 18, 2020 7:49 am

In the begin of the article is stated that there are 170.000 death due to accidents. In the bottom graph is says 13.5 million, resulting in 400 million lost life years. With that many accidents, plus 4 million suicides, the US is out of people within 22 years!

James D. Agresti
Reply to  Jan Smelik
September 18, 2020 8:23 am

You’re misunderstanding the data. Read the linked source for a fuller explanation: https://www.justfacts.com/news_covid-19_crucial_facts

Tropical Lutefisk
September 18, 2020 8:00 am

Forgive my ignorance, but why is this so difficult to determine? Shouldn’t there have been a standard for counting deaths? A standard that would be used for all infectious disease and has been in use for decades? How else could we compare COVID-19 against something like seasonal influenza? If there is no standard wouldn’t this be an indicator of poor methods and poor management at the CDC? What am I missing?

James D. Agresti
Reply to  Tropical Lutefisk
September 18, 2020 8:25 am

Per the article: “If someone has another illness, like heart disease, and then had a stroke or other event, it’s not as easy to separate that and say Covid didn’t exacerbate that existing illness.”

goracle
Reply to  James D. Agresti
September 18, 2020 9:43 pm

if you test for covid, but die from a stroke, what goes on death cert as cause of death? is this also the case if u test for flu but die from stroke?

Steve45
September 18, 2020 8:03 am

Who cares if granny dies?

Mark A Luhman
Reply to  Steve45
September 18, 2020 10:32 am

I do, your talking about my wife. /sarc Now at my age I don’t expect me or my wife to be alive in 20 years, that is life. I cannot prevent my death hiding at home afraid of what might kill me. COVID is a real slightly greater risk than the flu. In my case I have a clotting problem that a far greater risk than either.
Sitting around is not going to fix that either. Now the unwarranted fear that young people have over COVID is bad. The fear mongers that got them into that state of fear are criminals the are killing them with fear, far more young people will die form our media beating the fear drum the the CCP did with the virus.

Steve45
Reply to  Mark A Luhman
September 18, 2020 7:57 pm

“COVID is a real slightly greater risk than the flu.”

Ummm no, actually it’s in the vicinity of about 20 to 30 times more deadly than your typical flu, particularly if you happen to be old or have a pre-existing medical condition (as many Americans over about 50 or so do). If you let it rip through the US it’s going to cause a million or two deaths easy, overwhelm ICUs which will have flow on effects, and god only knows what sort of sequalae in the folks that survive. No one knows what the long term effects of this thing are, whether we develop long term immunity to it, or whether immunity is going to be useful after it mutates into new strains.

Most young people I suspect are less afraid of dying than of accidentally passing it on to an elderly relative and being responsible for their death or an extremely unpleasant visit to the ICU. In my country it’s called “not being a selfish asshole”.

goracle
Reply to  Steve45
September 19, 2020 7:04 pm

steve45…. covid is 20-30X worse than flu? that would mean 1,000,000 – 1,500,000 covid deaths… millions? you’re crazy and completely unimformed – except maybe br Twitter or facev
book. hospirals are not overwhelmed… and out side the tristate area and maybe other hotspots, they never were. you are wrong and your ilk was wrong about the deadliness of this virus. worse than flu yes, but 20X worse not even close.
how long must we put up with you and entertain your delusional thinking? the data is out there. read it. for those who have eyes to see, see.

Steve45
Reply to  goracle
September 19, 2020 8:58 pm

What a silly little man you are.

Seasonal influenza has a mortality rate typically below 0.1%.

COVID has a crude mortality ratio of about 3 to 4%. The infection mortality rate is more difficult to estimate but most estimates put it somewhere between one and two percent.

Funny how those with the least knowledge and no formal training often have the strongest opinions about things they know nothing about.

John Endicott
Reply to  goracle
September 22, 2020 6:31 am

Not according to the CDC you silly little troll.

John Endicott
Reply to  goracle
September 22, 2020 6:33 am

(last comment was in reply to the silly little troll, not to goracle. since the comments are too far nested, wordpress doesn’t allow directly replying under the silly little trolls comment)

niceguy
Reply to  Steve45
September 19, 2020 9:24 pm

“If you let it rip through the US it’s going to cause a million or two deaths easy”

Ah ah
Good joke

Steve45
Reply to  niceguy
September 19, 2020 11:28 pm

It’s already killed circa 200,000 of your countrymen and counting- and that’s only with 7 million of the population infected. Even if the true number of cases is twice as high, you’d make the million easy with Trump’s misguided “herd mentality” strategy. PS. It’s not a strategy- he just doesn’t give a crap.

That’s quite a startling combination of sheer incompetence and psychopathology.

It almost beggars belief that America has literality reached the stage where the Trump acolytes don’t care if their own countrymen (of any political persuasion for that matter) die so long as “their man” wins an election.

John F Hultquist
September 18, 2020 8:41 am

Check out the dust-up in Nashville.
“Country star John Rich slams Nashville mayor as ‘de Blasio of the South’ over COVID controversy”
During an appearance on Fox News’ “The Ingraham Angle” Thursday evening, Rich — who owns restaurants in Nashville — addressed reports earlier in the day that leaked emails appear to indicate Cooper’s administration purposely hid low coronavirus numbers steeming from bars and restaurants while ordering them to largely shut down during the pandemic, costing thousands of jobs and untold tens of millions in revenue.

September 18, 2020 9:14 am

Never believe CDC or any other bureaucrats.

Prior influenza deaths were computer model wild guesses. Flu was not a cause of death per CDC’s old 100+ causes of death list. In fact , flu is not a cause of death, only major organ failures are a cause of death. Whether a flu infection was mentioned on the death certificate may not be consistent. There were never lists of names and addresses of the people alleged to have died of the flu in past years. You suggest the CDC methodology has changed this year, which is even worse for comparisons with prior flu death wild guesses.

And now I will tell you why wild guesses of flu deaths, which may have political bias, are not very important:

Based on preliminary, perhaps overstated, data, it appears that only 1 of 1000 Covid infections leads to death. Why oh why does everyone focus on 1 of 1000 infections and IGNORE roughly 600 of 1000 infections with typical flu symptoms or worse than typical flu systems. Covid sends more infected people to the hospital than typical seasonal influenza, and especially more ICU visits . There’s a lot of pain and suffering that needs to be noticed. Covid is NOT a you lived or you died kind of disease, because 999 of 1000 will live.

Of the five people I know who were Covid infected, two were extremeley sick for two weeks and three weeks. The 60 something was sicker than at any other time of her life and considered suicide at one low point. She, a retired doctor, received 24 hour a day care from her son at home — he was a doctor reluctant to take his mother to his hospital in March where ventilators seemed to be the wrong answer. He got Covid too. Both survived.

Two other friends, one young and one old, only lost their sense of smell. Nothibg else.

Another friend about 70 was very sick and tested positive. I reminded her the tests were not reliable. She then tested negative two times in a row, proving my point. She’s still very sick with flu-like symptoms but not Covid flu. I wonder how many people with other strains of influenza are called COVID? The people I mentioned all tested positive for Covid.

I’ve read the 1918 flu counts were just everyone who died with pneumonia, rounded up to the nearest million. I lost my grandmother to that flu, in her early 20s, when my mother was only 2 years old. We should be very thankful Covid spares children, in the dawn of their lives. But that would be good news, so we can’t mention that before the election.

Steve45
Reply to  Richard Greene
September 18, 2020 9:12 pm

Thanks for the blathering word salad. And great that you have really strong opinions about things you know absolutely nothing about. Now tell us something about climate science. Moron.

John Robertson
September 18, 2020 9:38 am

The “official Flu Death ” numbers basically collapsed any reason to have faith in government covid fatality numbers..
For when the Covid Death numbers failed to reach the annual Flu Death rates,what were we told?
That we can’t use the Flu Numbers as the government just makes them up.

So lacking confidence in the bureaus,what numbers can we use?
Being from a large family,I can state that none of mine have died from covid,that I have heard of?
If the numbers are fabricated,this would be a real tell.
The New Terrible Plague,is deadly..just not to anyone I know.

Very much like how “Climate Change” is warming Canada at twice the rate of anywhere else,but only in regions where no humans go.

Cynicism is earned,the performance of Bureaucratic Public Health agencies during this “crisis”,has been truly amazing.
If you are amazed by industrial strength stupid,blatant self contradiction and professional grade incompetence, that is.

Ian Coleman
Reply to  John Robertson
September 18, 2020 8:02 pm

Hello, Mr. Robinson. My understanding is that the claim that Canada was warming at a rate of twice the global average was technically true. And so what? All land masses warm at twice the rate of the global average, because the global average includes the oceans.

I take your point that most of the stories we hear in Canada that global warming is having disastrous results cite conditions in places so remote that very few people ever go there. You could tell me a lot of phony stuff about the North Pole, and I’m not going to know anybody who has been there to set me straight.

Thomas Gasloli
September 18, 2020 9:45 am

If Democrat governors had not deliberately infected the elder care facilities because they didn’t want to “waste” their billions of federal COVID funds on paying what Medicare would not cover, the death rate would be far lower than it is. This is the BIG scandal of the epidemic. That governors and their “public health experts” deliberately infected the elder care facilities and the CDC & NIH were completely silent and complicit. Like the line in Fargo, “all this for a little bit of money.”

Kevin kilty
September 18, 2020 10:09 am

What a great article, Mr. Agresti! By coincidence I have spent part of my morning trying to get a reasonable measure of what is going on in my University town and state. Our state department of health, to their credit, plots an honest-to-god epidemic curve, with cases assigned as far as is possible to the day of symptom onset. It is not possible to reconcile their figures with those at USAFacts.org which has some relationship to the CDC as a source of data or perhaps just graphics. To their credit, USAFacts.org does spell-out how difficult it is to get consistent data across jurisdictions, and I think they are doing their best. Right now WDH has state-wide1,200 new cases over the past two months while USAFacts.org has 1,500. WHD tries to get to the bottom of cases without symptoms, but it appears they are getting further behind in this category with time.

The history of the 1918 pandemic is pretty much a guess, as you can tell from the retrospective that A.S. Fauci and Morens wrote some time back. No one, to my knowledge has written anything definitive about the 1957 or 1968 pandemics. I would hope that someone, perhaps Just Facts, can eventually write an objective history of what has occurred here.

Mark A Luhman
Reply to  Kevin kilty
September 18, 2020 10:38 am

No one though the 1957 or 1968 pandemics were bad, after all they had just come out of World War II that had killed 70,000,000. The survivors of the Spanish flu were still around and most people had lived pre vaccine and antibiotics. Their perspective on what matter was far more grounded that the snowflakes of today.

James D. Agresti
Reply to  Kevin kilty
September 18, 2020 11:33 am

Thank you for your kind words.

Max P
September 18, 2020 11:04 am

Going by the Criteria here in California for lifting the lockdown fully, it will never be lifted…ever. In fact, it may not be possible to achieve the least restrictive level of lockdown (yellow) that allows locked down businesses to open to 50% capacity. The reason it may not be possible to even reach the yellow stage of lockdown is because the positive rate for tests must be at, or below, 1 positive per 100,000 population. In a county like San Diego, that would be, roughly, 33 positive tests as a daily average of a 2 week period, if the local news reports are correct. That number is, effectively, impossible to reach. The false positive rate on daily testing will be higher than 1 positive in 100,000 population.

Max P

Robert Stevenson
September 18, 2020 11:47 am

Hands up those who believe only 3000 Chinamen died of the chinese vrirus. The Guardian for one and secondly Cambridge University swiftly follwed by the WHO

Max P
Reply to  Robert Stevenson
September 18, 2020 1:38 pm

3,000 is probably just the daily number of deaths if they were averaged out through the end of next year.

Steve45
Reply to  Robert Stevenson
September 18, 2020 2:03 pm

Hands up who believes the real estate agent over the epidemiologists, doctors, scientists and so called experts? Twelve more years! Twelve more years!

u.k.(us)
September 18, 2020 1:06 pm

Can we all admit that at this point it is all “armchair quarterbacking”.
Ventilators may have been a “cure” worse than the disease.
It has been an exponential learning curve.
The fact that you can’t trust any of the numbers being touted, reeks of….
Rant/

Robert of Ottawar
September 18, 2020 2:48 pm

For six months we have been promised a Second Coming (er, Wave) of the Evil Virus. Well here in Otawa now, there are more cases being reported and everyone is bowing down to the far-seeing priests of epidemological modelling. Meanwhile deaths remain low to zero.

But, the truth got out here in Ottawa this week on the radio. Yes, there has been a 30% increase in cases, but there has been a 60% increase in testing. I do not call that a second wave, except as a magician’s distraction of the audience.

And what is the recommendation of the all-wise government experts and mayor – more of the dsame failed policy of restrictions on the people. Power, it goes to their heads.

Philo
September 18, 2020 4:44 pm

Others can argue the with the CDC and other sources.
The Biggest problem in the handling of this epidemic was the attempted isolation of the healthy, as opposed to the sick. The result was perfectly expectable. Healthy people don’t do well when forced to stay inside, avoid outside contacts, and worry, worry, worry, about getting sick. Meanwhile they many lose their jobs and wages.

In every previous epidemic in the US that I’m aware of the sick people were isolated either at home or in healthcare facilities(not elderly nursing homes). The people with polio, primarily grade school children, in epidemis from around 1918 to the late 1960’s stayed home. It was a dreadful disease at the time, but the infection rate was similar to the current Covid rate-supposedly ~3%. So were the death rates.

I can just imagine the future books from doctors and public health officials castigating the huge mishandling of this epidemic. It the government weren’t generally immune to law suits we’d all be broke.

Reply to  Philo
September 18, 2020 6:17 pm

Philo
Isolate sick people?
That’s anti science.
Who would ever do that?
That’s unheard of.
We must isolate healthy people and let the sick people go free.What could be worse than to be sick AND isolated? Let the sick people go outside and have fun. The are already sick so could not get each other sick. Perhaps I will get another Nobel Prize for this? I already got one for my nuclear powered fans and nuclear powered spotlights that convert wind and solar farms to reliable 24 hours a day producers of electricity!

niceguy
September 18, 2020 6:36 pm

“the number of Covid-19 deaths”

Deaths from COVID (the disease caused by a virus) or the deaths from the crisis caused by the politics under the guise of the COVID crisis, aka COVID crisis crisis, aka COVID crisis²?

Note the death toll of the Fukushima Daiichi crisis is trivial.
But not one of the Fukushima Daiichi crisis².