COVID: Analyzing the stats

In her My Turn, Ms. Sweney does a good job digging deeper into the available statistics. My questions go beyond and try to determine how meaningful the statistics are. You do not need to be a COVID-denier or anti-masker to ask questions.

If “confirmed cases” are based on the testing criteria established, it seems the infection rate numbers are too high to apply to the general population. Testing has been limited, for the most part, to those with symptoms, residents of senior centers, those preparing for elective procedures and hospital admissions. That is far from a broad sampling of the general population. I would expect confirmed cases among those being tested under these criteria to be higher, maybe far higher than for the general population.

What is the accuracy of the numerous testing methods being deployed? Is any one test clearly more accurate than another?

In previous years, as many as 60,000 deaths have been attributed to annual/seasonal flu. Are deaths from annual flu being differentiated from those attributed to COVID-19 or added to the death toll? What were criteria in previous years for attributing deaths to seasonal flu? Are they the same this year for COVID?

Early on, it was reported New York City was attributing any “unaccompanied death” to COVID-19. Did this skew numbers?

In previous years, have comorbidities been handled and reported differently in attributing deaths to seasonal flu?

Policy is being driven, as it should, by the science. However, given the huge impacts on people’s lives and livelihoods, it is appropriate to be sure the science is accurate and that questions be asked.

JOHN McTEAR

Coeur d’Alene