25 Comments

Thank you for taking the time to write this article.

Expand full comment
author

You are welcome. I definitely stayed up all night doing it...so. hope it was worth it :)

Expand full comment

Yes - it was worth it! Seconding Gerridoc - thank you for doing it!

Expand full comment

Think of it as a “labor of love.”

Expand full comment

This made my blood boil. At best Dr Wen was lazy in her consideration of data analysis and at worst is incapable or not interested in correcting her initial incorrect position. As you point out there are logical fallacies involved in her analysis. Basically she is free to maintain her beliefs on excess mortality and COVID, but her stated reasons for this are not based on a sound analysis of the best available data. Thank you for taking the time to do this. Keep up the “good fight”.

Expand full comment
author

Thanks, John. Yes, logical fallacies run amok.

Expand full comment

Mic drop! Thanks for writing this!

Expand full comment
author

Had to be done! Thx for reading.

Expand full comment

It's disconcerting to me that the disinformation spread by Drs. Wen and Doron receives large platforms like the Washington Post, CNN (and NBC in Massachusetts), while Jeremy's factual points - based in his own research - are in substack and an 18-minute segment of MSNBC. It's they who are shaping the public narrative, not Jeremy.

I'm very concerned that minimization of the impact of the pandemic is preparing the ground for further neglect of protective measures, like improving ventilation, encouraging indoor masking, and improving access to vaccines and Paxlovid for those that still have massive barriers to both.

On that front - the Biden administration is planning to stop federal funding of vaccines and Paxlovid, and turn them over to the market ("commercialization"). This will have a devastating impact on frontline communities who still have disproportionate access barriers to both, even under the current system. If, as Drs. Wen and Doron claim, people aren't really dying much because of COVID anymore, maybe this is less of a problem? - If, however, COVID is still causing a 9/11 every week, or even every month, it is so clearly morally indefensible.

Expand full comment
author

Yes, this is an area that the Biden admin is working on. They can't stop the move to commercialization if there is no funding. And so they're at the mercy of Congress. How hard they are lobbying and what tactics they are using is less apparent to me.

Expand full comment

Thanks for this detailed analysis.

Dr. Wen may be a wonderful person, but a considerable amount of her opinion columns have been downright dangerous with respect to public health since the earliest days of the pandemic. I don't generally cancel subscriptions to news organizations out of pique, but the fact that the Post continues to feature her "analysis" makes me consider it.

Expand full comment
author

The editorial process at the Post is uneven. I've been fact checked up the wazoo when I've written for them I the past. But then I see things slip by that make no sense. It's frustrating.

Expand full comment

I was thinking that Dr. Wen is also guilty of confirmation bias. Although she probably is, for much of her argument no data is cited.

“Although not strictly logical fallacy, confirmation bias is simply the tendency for individuals to favor information or data that support their beliefs. It is also the tendency for people to only seek out information that supports their a priori, or pre-existing, conclusions, and subsequently ignores evidence that might refute that pre-existing conclusion.

Technically, confirmation bias is a type of cognitive bias and a form of selection bias, which seeks data that confirms the hypothesis under study. It is utilized in arguments all the time, especially by those who do not accept or understand scientific methods.”

Expand full comment
author

Yes I also fear that the conclusion is predetermined and from there the cherry picking commences.

Expand full comment

Thank you! I’m incensed as well by the doubling down of Dr. Wen-- as she uses her forums at the Washington Post and CNN. Your factual analysis is greatly appreciated.

Expand full comment
author

Thanks so much. That's what I'm here to do :)

Expand full comment

Bravo! It’s essential to counter fuzzy thinking. Thank you.

Expand full comment
author

Glad it was useful! I could do this format from time to time (the line-by-line takedown) if people find it helpful. (It's a ton of work, but I don't mind that as long as the reader gets something out of it)

Expand full comment

PS (and this time I promise to post a short comment!). I also prefer not to scoop myself, as for the past few weeks I've been trying to publish an article on this very topic of Covid deaths (and once again running into the same resistance I mentioned earlier, to any new but potentially "contrarían" ideas on the part of the media; several major outlets seemed interested but the whole idea that perhaps 400 people aren't actually dying every day in the US from Covid was apparently too out there, politically if not so much scientifically, at least until Leana Wen may have calmed the waters a little more recently?..)

In the meantime, in case anyone is interested in reading a bit more about this, beyond what Jeremy and I have already written, FYI here are a couple of thought provoking (and short) pieces on the issue of overcounting of Covid deaths:

https://thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/3622402-mandatory-hospital-screenings-fuel-inaccurate-covid-death-counts/

https://open.substack.com/pub/alexberenson/p/a-veteran-medical-examiner-who-reviewed?utm_source=direct&r=1udzzw&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-60000391

Cheers, Daniel

Expand full comment

Wow! Am I surprised, yes! Am I shocked, no. The Washington Post and Dr. Web, Ugh...! Not cool! This reminds me of the time the CDC put out wrong information and then retracted. Talk about devastation! I just couldn’t believe it! I even called the Dean of the nursing school I graduated from, Loma Linda University to inquire. Due to the fact we were taught the CDC was a “safe” reference. One would think with all the education behind us all, we’d all be in the same page. So very disheartening! I’m with you! #OnTheData #Covid19

Expand full comment

P.S. I got an “A” in epidemiology!

Expand full comment

Dear Jeremy,

Ok, it looks like once again my comment is going to be something of an outlier here. With all due respect (and I do still really mean that, despite the perhaps blunt tone ahead), there is so much in your critique of Wen's article that I question that I'm not really sure where to begin? But this time, I am going to try to keep my remarks shorter, as you (like many people) seem to perhaps have a tendency to only respond to certain issues that are raised while ignoring other ones? (And I take at least partial blame, for writing too much in these comments!)

Alright, for starters there is a certain kind of, to be blunt, arrogant certainty in your comments that I find not only concerning but alas typical of the "dominant paradigm" since the beginning of the pandemic. (While many of your readers seem to feel that voices like Wen's are those that predominate in the mainstream media, I believe that in fact the voices of alarmism have been much much louder all along.) In my own experience, for what it's worth, whereas in the past I have published many op-eds on other infectious diseases, particularly HIV, in venues such as the New York Times, Washington Post,etc, in contrast when it comes to the ultra polarized topic of Covid 19, after a May 2020 article in the Post advocating for reopening of schools (which led to my being accused of being a "baby killer," of being an agent of Donald Trump, and even worse), since then - and other than several peer reviewed articles on the subject - the voices of people like myself have been shunned by the mainstream media and so I've been forced, for the first time in my 4 decades career, to publish popular pieces in much more conservative venues like the Wall Street Journal or even the New York Post...)

Anyway, regarding the rather intense self-certainty I mentioned, right in the second paragraph, for example, you assert that "I KNOW [my emphasis] the column is factually incorrect because I study “excess mortality,” the most relevant field to the question at hand... I have data from as recently as last week showing that the opposite of what the Post column purported is ACTUALLY TRUE; In FACT, we are still undercounting Covid-19 deaths."

Again with all due respect, Doctor Faust, I am sure you must be a fantastic - and I can tell very caring and compassionate - medical doctor to your patients. However, the issue at hand is not clinical care or even medical knowledge, it's EPIDEMIOLOGY. And I have very little doubt that if you were to poll 100 leading epidemiologists and ask them the following question that all (or at least nearly all) would respond with a resounding NO: “Do you believe that the level of excess mortality currently (as opposed to back in 2020) definitely reflects the true number of Covid-19 deaths?"

Rather, I believe that all or nearly all of the epidemiologists would concur with Dr Wen that such a straight line correlation is far too simplistic, for various reasons... Now, just because almost all epidemiologists would disagree with your assertions (stated in a tone of absolute certainty) doesn't mean that there isn't a possibility that you are actually correct and they are all wrong! (When I argued in The Lancet medical journal in 1999 that male circumcision could be important for HIV prevention, almost all the experts said I was crazy or worse. So I've been there...)

However, whereas the tone in Dr Wen's articles tends to be more of a questioning or pondering nature, as I mentioned it seems to me there's a kind of arrogant, I Know The Truth attitude that runs throughout your commentary. You may be right that excess deaths currently automatically equal Covid deaths, but at least to my mind you have yet to make a more compelling case, including that you have yet to explain some basic contradictions, some of which I raised earlier, such as why are so many COVID-19 deaths still happening in places with high levels of vaccination, such as Massachusetts?..

As I intimated, there's much more I could say, but I think I'm going to refrain for now, including because I sense you may just brush off much of what I would bring up? But before concluding, I would like to ask a more fundamental question, one that kept coming up for me as I read your latest response to Wen.

Let's say you're right, and there are still a vast number of people dying out there from Covid, including many cases where someone is in extremely fragile condition and likely to pass away shortly, and then the virus "tips" them into a somewhat earlier death than would have occurred otherwise.

Alright, so let's assume for the sake of argument that such events are a major reason for the currently observed excess deaths. (I myself am not convinced it's still a major factor, but as I said let's just assume so for now.) Alright then, so now we get into some really thorny questions that are not just scientific in nature but also deal fundamentally with ethics and morality, yet in fact also address what I would call a core public health perspective.

It's really a kind of age old (difficult) question , and as a medical doctor you've surely had to wrestle with it even more than myself on a human level?: Is it the same thing when a 90 year old person with end stage cancer dies a little sooner, from something like Covid, then when a 19 year old, with most of their expected lifetime still well ahead of them, dies from something like a drug overdose?

Reducing everything to just a raw tabulation of total death numbers would seem to preclude such an (admittedly difficult) discussion. When we talk about a 747 worth of people dying from Covid (whether that's supposed to be occurring every day or every week), it causes the listener to conjure up a huge airplane full of ALL KINDS of people suddenly getting wiped out: children, families, teenagers, working adults, etc.

Of course, if we turned on the news and heard that a 747 had just crashed with everyone aboard having died, and almost all of them were very elderly and virtually all of them also had serious chronic diseases (and, as you have been arguing, many of them were already very close to death anyway), well I'm sure that none of us would react by cheering and saying that's wonderful. But I also wonder whether this kind of a 747 crash would evoke quite the same intensity of grief and alarm?

Indeed, epidemiologists (and others) have wrestled with such issues for years, and in fact - or at least until Covid 19 - a very important (and rather uncontroversial) principle and metric in public health has been that of "Years of life lost from mortality" (YLL). Thus, if in a given country or population the average lifespan is, say, 70 years, than if a 68 year old person loses their life to some disease or other cause, the resulting YLL would be 2, whereas if a 2 year old baby dies from, say, malaria, the YLL would be 68. Therefore, it would take 34 persons of age 68 dying to result in the same total YLL as one 2 year old dying of malaria...

For this reason, some epidemiologists I know have been essentially crucified (attacked as not caring about the elderly or chronically ill, etc) for pointing out that if we were to use a methodology like YLL to compare the impact of certain other problems, such as the fentanyl epidemic, with that of Covid 19 then clearly the actual impact might look much differently... And of course, this is not about denying that both problems are important, but perhaps about gaining some greater PERSPECTIVE (the title, actually, of one of my past New York Times op-eds 😁...)

Alright, I better stop here!

Expand full comment
author

Hi Doc,

I didn't read all of this now (sorry, just slammed here) but I did see one thing that caught my eye that I wanted to reply to.

"Let's say you're right, and there are still a vast number of people dying out there from Covid, including many cases where someone is in extremely fragile condition and likely to pass away shortly, and then the virus "tips" them into a somewhat earlier death than would have occurred otherwise.

Alright, so let's assume for the sake of argument that such events are a major reason for the currently observed excess deaths. (I myself am not convinced it's still a major factor, but as I said let's just assume so for now.) Alright then, so now we get into some really thorny questions that are not just scientific in nature but also deal fundamentally with ethics and morality, yet in fact also address what I would call a core public health perspective.

It's really a kind of age old (difficult) question , and as a medical doctor you've surely had to wrestle with it even more than myself on a human level?: Is it the same thing when a 90 year old person with end stage cancer dies a little sooner, from something like Covid, then when a 19 year old, with most of their expected lifetime still well ahead of them, dies from something like a drug overdose?"

You are right that it is not the same, though it's not a "game" one can so easily play, except at the extremes. Someone who is 35 but who was "bound" to die by 40 due to opioid use disorder is not any less worth saving than someone who is 80 who has 10 years to live. At the extremes, yes, we would obviously triage. Think of a lightning strike. If I saw two dead bodies needing CPR, one is 90 and one is 10, I'm going for the 10 year old every time, no questions asked. But that's not quite the situation we face. We can walk and chew bubble gum on this one.

In the case of Covid, I'm not making the arguments on overcounting to imply that we need to do shelter in place. (It would take an absolutely horrific new variant that rendered our vaccines ineffective on severe disease and death for me to even want to consider that; mainly I'm into "circuit breakers" and targeted mitigation, which I've discussed before; but I digress).

In fact, when I talk about excess deaths, I am rarely advancing a particular policy prescription. Rather, I'm saying, let's make policies with the actual real data in mind.

In terms of policy, we can now much more easily figure out who is at risk of dying of Covid than we once were (Leana basically implied this in her piece, and that's correct). So to me, it argues for boosters for the frail and at risk, and doing what we can to reasonably protect those people. That does not mean staying home like its March 2020; but maybe it means testing before a big holiday gathering or something. I worry that people hear "we are overcounting" and then think that means there is nothing we can do to eliminate preventable deaths. That's what I'm fighting against.

-J

Expand full comment

Dr. Halperin -

- Many of us love 90+ year old people whose every moment we treasure, whose presence in the world is deeply meaningful for many others and for themselves. It is your misfortune if you have no deeply beloved old person in your life, but many others do.

- There is no need to argue over death "from" of "with" COVID. Over a million people in the UNited States have died *because of* COVID. That shameful fact remains whichever approach to calculation you use. This country's deaths per capita are over threefold those of Canada. Why?

- Long-term disability *because of* COVID - whether it is a direct sequela of the viral infection or the consequence of disrupted medical care - will parallel the number of deaths in each country in the coming decades.

Expand full comment