Media's Misleading COVID Data To Indict Trump

Democrats and their candidate Joe Biden have pounced on the opportunity to turn the presidential election into a referendum on Mr. Trump's 'bungling' of the pandemic.  The theme taps into a rich vein of public anger over the never ending outbreaks, lockdowns, job losses and work-from-home issues. 

Understandably,  the patience of Americans is all but exhausted.  The nation's citizens feel imprisoned by a virus they initially thought would be no worse than garden-variety flu. Tragically, some Americans have lost loved ones to the virus.  A return to normalcy appears to fade with each passing day.

Americans can at least agree that doctors, nurses and staff on the front lines at hospitals are the genuine heroes in the fight to provide urgent healing in the midst of chaos, along with the scientists who have waged their own battle in labs to unravel the mysteries of the virus.

However, public angst has been heightened by sometimes conflicting scientific theories and hypothesizes.  For example, on February 28, Dr. Anthony Fauci, Centers for Disease Control Director Dr. Robert Redfield and a colleague published an analysis in the New England Journal of Medicine

In an analysis of widely reported global death rates for COVID-19, they wrote the disease's fatality rate was "more akin to those of a severe seasonal influenza." Their report influenced Mr. Trump's perspective.   Hindsight has proven their assessment was flawed, but scientists were grappling with a novel virus.   

Scientists' work was complicated by the lack of cooperation from China, where the Coronavirus originated.  No one blames scientists who worked feverishly in labs to solve the secrets of COVID-19. But when scientists are confounded, it opens the door for the media to create its own narrative. 

The media klieg lights shine on infections (cases) and deaths.  The numbers make scary headlines: Death toll surpasses 210,000! Coronavirus cases soar past 7 million! Instead of putting the figures into perspective through meaningful comparisons, the media flaunts the numbers to fuel public outrage. 

News outlets make no secret their mission to pin the blame on the president for the pandemic. Pundits regularly cite as 'evidence' of the administration's epic failure the following statistic: the United States has only five percent (4.29%) of the population but more than 20% of global COVID-19 deaths.

Your fact-checker can confirm these statistics are true as verified by the Centers for Disease Control and Johns Hopkins Research. However, it is not a useful measurement of success or failure of the administration.  The data point is skewed by the size of the U.S. population, the world's third largest.

Using the same metric (global population percentage and COVID deaths), Belgium's death count is seven-times greater than its population percentage.  Chile, Spain and Britain are five times greater.  Italy and Sweden have recorded fatalities that are a smidgen under five-times their population percentage.

It is a meaningless statistic if you a serious journalist determined to make apples-to-apples comparisons.  But let's acknowledge critics' argument there are countries, such as Germany, who have done a better job in terms of managing the worse effects of the pandemic. Let's test that premise with data.

The statistics listed are from the following sources: World Health Organization, Johns Hopkins Research, Centers for Disease Control, Statista, a global provider of data.   All numbers and percentages are as of October 2 reports.  

• The United States has conducted 111 million Coronavirus tests. That is second only to China's 160 million, a country three times the size of America. The U.S. has conducted 336,250 tests per one million population.  Israel (402,619) and the U.K. (368,471) are the only countries that rank higher than the U.S. on that metric, which is the fairest comparison. Germany ranks below the U.S. in tests per million (202,724).
• The U.S. ranks 48th in the world in fatality rates for the virus. The U.S. death rate as a percentage of confirmed cases is 2.87%.  Italy, for example, is 11.2%. The United Kingdom is 9.2%,  Germany (3.14%) and France (5.2%) are among the 47 countries with worst fatalities as a percent of confirmed cases.
• To adjust for population differences, it is fair to compare the data on deaths per 100,000 population.  The U.S. ranks eleventh in the world on this metric (64.11 per million) with the United Kingdom only slightly behind.  Belgium, Brazil and Mexico all rank higher. Germany has reported 15.21 deaths per million population, a lower rate than the U.S. 
• The U.S. ranks seventh in the world in the number of confirmed cases per one-million population: 25,554.  That means about 2.5% of America's population has been infected with the virus.  Germany's rate is 3,703 confirmed cases per one-million with an infection rate of less than 1%.  The U.S. has four times the population of Germany and America is more than 20 times larger than the European country in terms of land mass.  

Even those comparisons do not take into consideration differences in culture, democracies, healthcare systems  and domestic freedoms. However, it is fair to point out that some countries have done better than the United States on a few metrics.  That begs the question: What did those nations do differently?

Since Germany is often singled out as a model, it is interesting to learn their protocols were not significantly different from the United States.  Here is what Germany's Federal Minister of Health wrote on the World Economic Forum website about how his country contained the Coronavirus:

"First the German healthcare system was in good shape going into the crisis; everyone has had full access to medical care.  With an excellent network of general practitioners available to deal with milder COVID-19 cases, hospitals have been able to focus on the more severely ill.

"Secondly, Germany was not the first country to be hit by the virus, and thus had time to prepare.  Accordingly, the country's ICU capacity was increased by 12,000 to 40,000 (beds) very quickly."

"Third, Germany is home to many laboratories that can test for the virus and to many distinguished researchers in the field, which helps to explain why the first COVID-19 test was developed here."

To summarize, Germany used its hospitals for the worst cases; with more advance warning than the U.S., it increased its ICU capacity rapidly; and the country was blessed with more private labs than the U.S. to do testing needed to staunch the virus.  Germany's advantages had little to do with its political leadership.

Germany managed its health crisis much the same way as the U.S., allowing its 16 federal regions the latitude to make local decisions based on the seriousness of the outbreak in each territory.  Even these measures have not spared Germany from a second wave of infections now hitting Europe.

With an uptick in new cases, German Chancellor Angela Merkel recently vowed to avoid another national lockdown.  In addition, she announced the country plans to improve its testing and contact tracing system, including levying fines of 60 euros ($58 US) for individuals providing false information.

Ms. Merkel made a political calculation that most world leaders are embracing.  Opening the economy, even a crack, likely will spur more social contact and infections.  However, countries can no longer remain locked down without risking the collapse of their economy, hindering a recovery for many years.

Like Mr. Trump, the German chancellor also has critics who accused her of not doing enough to halt the virus and reopen the economy. Virtually every nation's leader has faced harsh criticism.  It is an outgrowth of the natural despair, anxiety and frustration people are experiencing in every country.

Indulging in political gamesmanship during a pandemic solves no issues and serves to polarize the population.  President Trump can certainly be faulted for his optics (not wearing a mask) and his narcissist bravado.  Many object to the president's preening and exuberant optimism during crisis briefings.

These optics have shaped perceptions instead of data.  Information about the virus is constantly evolving as the world's scientific community increases its knowledge of the virus. Throughout the pandemic, there has been an evolution of treatments, protection protocols, data reporting and testing regimes.   

Perhaps another American president would have made faster decisions that could have mitigated the virus. Realistically, hindsight is a luxury leaders cannot afford during the midst of a mushrooming health crisis. The history of the COVID-19 pandemic is too recent to be fairly and definitively assessed. 

Presumptions about the virus based on politics are unreliable. But regardless, numbers of  Americans will be motivated to cast their ballots for a change in direction in the handling of the Coronavirus. Today perceptions matter more than factual data on most issues. That's just the world we live in.

Why Data Is Critical To Arresting Coronavirus

An increasing number of scientific studies shedding new light on the Coronavirus are raising doubts about previous assertions the pandemic is far deadlier than seasonal flu.  While it is still too early to make a definitive call, the evidence should trigger a reassessment of how data is compiled.

The studies, conducted by two universities and New York, reveal far more people may have contracted the virus than official reports of confirmed cases.  In Los Angeles County, for example, a sample discovered an infection rate 40 times more than the cases reporting from testing results.

For some, the research will not sway their opinions about the steps taken by the government to deal with COVID-19.  But data matters when a nation is dealing with an infectious respiratory virus.  Without credible data, how can hospitals and states act responsibility to take precautionary measures?

An analogy would be investing in the stock market with limited or contradictory data about listed firms.  Inevitably it would lead to poor decisions, the kind that empty your bank account.  In much the same way, data is the most important tool for effectively dealing with a pandemic.

Let's start with the three recently released studies.  A study from the Stanford University School of Medicine as of April 1 found that infection rates for northern California were 55 times higher than the official confirmed cases count.  The study was based on 3,000 blood samples taken from volunteers.

The samples were tested for antibodies to COVID-19 using a test made by Euroimmun.  Based on the data and modeling estimates, the researchers estimated that the infection fatality rate was between 0.1% and 0.2%.  The death rate for seasonal influenza in the U.S. is 0.1%.

Another study released by University of Southern California (USC) unearthed similar results.  Using parallel methodology to the Stanford study, researchers estimated the number of infected people in Los Angeles County may have been 28 to 55 times higher than the reported confirmed cases.

On the heels of these findings, New York Gov. Anthony Cuomo announced the state's first survey shows that 13.9% of those tested had Coronavirus antibodies in their system, meaning they had contracted the virus and recovered.  That suggests 2.7 million people statewide had been infected.

That number is far higher than 134,824 cases that had been reported at the time the governor made the results public.  What this study and the two from California suggest is that virus is not as lethal as has been previously reported by health officials but is far more infectious than scientists suspected.

Another factor raises suspicions about current data.  Some states are counting COVID-19 deaths differently than others.  For instance, the Pennsylvania State Health Secretary reduced the fatality toll by 200 in a single day.  The official reason was to reduce "confusion" around the death count.

A California scientist believes some states are diagnosing patients with the virus AFTER they have entered the hospital for another disease.  If the patient succumbs, the cause of death may be the virus or the underlying disease.  It is a judgment call based on no universal standards.

For perspective, in the 2017-2018 flu season, 79,400 people died. There were 48.8 million people infected, requiring 959,000 to be hospitalized.  Those numbers are higher than today's COVID-19 figures. No one should take comfort, however, because COVID-19 continues to spread.

Now that research is piling up the scientific models produced by experts are quietly disappearing from the Internet.  The one estimate that sparked the panic predicted 2.2 million deaths in the U.S.  This same model projected 500,000 fatalities in the United Kingdom.

It was done by a respected authority, Professor Neil Ferguson, director of the MRC Centre for Global Disease Analysis at Imperial College in London.  Prime Minister Boris Johnson ordered a lockdown of the country based on this data.  This is why credible data matters. It drives decision making.

As data evolves, we are seeing a familiar influenza pattern.  Exactly 80% of the deaths have been people 65+ years. The highest percentage are those 85+. Those 65 and older are 22 times more likely to die of the virus than those 55 and under, according to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC).

Deaths in nursing homes and long-term care facilities for the elderly haven't generally been tracked by the CDC or other health organizations, which is odd considering the first outbreak occurred in a nursing home outside Seattle. The Wall Street Journal investigated and uncovered startling details.

At least 4,800 nursing home facilities in the country have been hit by the virus, the Journal reported. The number of people infected, including residents and staff, totals more than 56,000.
The number of deaths at nursing homes and long-term care facilities have topped 10,000.

In some states, the nursing home deaths account for most fatalities.  In Minnesota the Journal reported a state health care spokesperson acknowledged that 131 of its 179 total deaths were linked to long-term care facilities.  In Massachusetts, 55% of COVID-19 victims were nursing home residents.

The Journal's numbers were developed by contacting state officials across the country.  Many states did not have the data.  It begs the question:  "How can you stop a pandemic when there is no data to document where urgent testing needs to be concentrated?"  There is no excuse for the lapse.

There are other statistics that have not appeared in any media that offer perspective.  These may surprise some of you because it illuminates a different way to view this virus and its impact:

Percentage of Americans of who have died from the virus: 0.0001352602033%
Percentage of Americans with confirmed cases of the virus:  0.00243353907%

That means 99.9% of Americans have escaped infection and death. The news media would infer your writer takes the current pandemic too lightly.  Facts do not represent an opinion.  If facts offend people, then the country is lost.  Today's journalists fight facts with anecdotal evidence.

There are breaking news alerts each time pandemic fatalities cross another milestone number.  Someone should be asking: "Is this more deaths than previous pandemics?" It is akin to reporting traffic deaths monthly without any comparison to previous years.  Context is essential.

And finally: Percentage of all U. S. confirmed cases in just three states: New York, New Jersey and Connecticut:  45.3% By demanding tests in every state, precious testing kits were dispatched elsewhere when the most pressing needs were in three states. Facts matter in allocating resources.

In times of crisis, the country needs more data, facts and analysis.  If these outbreak teaches the country nothing else, it should be that we need accurate, standardized data collection and improved modeling.  These are essential for policy makers to conceive informed decisions.