During the COVID-19 pandemic some public figures and social media users attempted to downplay the danger of COVID-19 by comparing the number of deaths caused by the virus to other causes of deaths. For example, a common example noted that 21,297 people died from 1/2/202 to 3/25/200 from COVID-19 but that 113,000 people died from the flu during the same period.
Downplaying is a rhetorical technique used to make something seem less important or serious. These comparisons seemed aimed at dismissing claims made by experts that the virus was a serious threat. The comparisons were also often used to persuade people that the response was excessive and unnecessary. While comparing causes of death is useful when judging how to use resources and accurately assess threats, the death comparisons must be done with a critical eye. That was true in the last pandemic, and it will be true in the next one.
Before even considering the comparison between pandemic deaths and other causes of death, it is important to determine the accuracy of the numbers. If the numbers are exaggerated, downplayed or otherwise inaccurate, then this undermines the comparison. Even if the numbers are accurate, the comparison must be critically assessed. The methods I will discuss are those I use in my Critical Inquiry class and are drawn from Moore and Parker’s Critical Thinking text. When an important comparison is made, you should ask four questions:
- Is important information missing?
- Is the same standard of comparison being used? Are the same reporting and recording practices being used?
- Are the items comparable?
- Is the comparison expressed as an average?
While question 4 does not apply, the other three do. One important piece of missing information in such comparisons is that while the other causes of death tend to be stable over time, the deaths caused by COVID-19 grew exponentially. On March 1 the WHO reported 53 deaths that day. 862 deaths were reported on March 16. On March 30 there were 3215 new deaths. On April 8 the United States alone had 1,997 deaths and 14.390 people are believed to have died in the United States since the start of the pandemic. The death toll kept rising. In contrast, while seasonal flu deaths fluctuate, they do not grow in this exponential manner. As such, the comparison is flawed. We can expect similar comparisons to be made in the next pandemic and should be on guard against erroneous comparisons of this sort.
Another flaw in the comparison is that the flu and many other causes of death are well established. The COVID-19 virus was still spreading when the comparison was made. It would be like comparing a fire that just started with a fire that has been steadily burning and confidently claiming that the new fire would not be as bad as the old fire.
Death numbers are also most likely an estimate from past yearly death tolls. What the numbers reflect is the number of people who probably died of those causes during a few months based on data from previous years.
While the death toll from COVID-19 was high, COVID-19 deaths were also likely to be underreported. Since testing was limited for quite some time, some people who died from the virus did not have their cause of death properly reported. Even in the early days of the death comparison, the deaths caused by COVID-19 were most likely higher than reported. This leads to two problems with the comparison. One is that if the other causes of death are accurately reported and COVID-19 deaths were not, then the comparison is flawed. The second is that COVID-19 deaths might have been recorded as being caused by something else (such as the flu/pneumonia) and this would also make the comparison less accurate by “increasing” the number of deaths by other causes.
While the comparison to other causes of death might have seemed persuasive early in the pandemic, the exponential increase in deaths is like to have robbed the comparison of its persuasive power. In mid-April, COVID-19 was killing more Americans per week than automobile accidents, cancer, heart disease and the flu/pneumonia did in 2018. Somewhat ironically, a comparison of COVID-19 deaths ended up showing the reverse of what the comparison was originally intended to do.
We can expect similar death comparisons in the early days of the next pandemic. While these comparisons can have merit, they are often used as rhetorical devices to downplay the seriousness of a pandemic. As such, we should be on guard against this tactic during the next pandemic.
Comparison is akin to generalization. They are fish, in the same pond. Or, ocean. Or, river. The Amazon River is a home to the piranha. Or, it was. As I understand it, the Amazon is now a creek. At best. So, should we COMPARE the survivibility of those little carnivorous fish, with a then-and-now analysis, things don’t look good. Additionally, land-based wild life in Brazil doesn’t have good prospects either. So, if potential prey for that voracious little fish disappears, and their aquatic home does likewise, extinction will extinguish the fish as well. Species come and go. I never knew if piranha attacked and ate other FISH. I don’t operate much on speculation. D’autrement, if we GENERALIZE, we can say, things do not look good for the Amazon, that hungry little fish,or anything else in the Amazon basin . I am guessing indigenous people are mostly gone, too…when an ecosystem dies, everything there dies with it…except, maybe, trees..but, loggers are taking care of that contingency. Water is essential for life. Is this about philosophy? I think so. Follow the reasoning, if you wish…Thanks.