I don't understand. Do you think the global death toll from covid is going to look better in that context? Or do you mean specifically when it comes to evaluating the lockdown approach?
Better or worse it’s the only way to provide context. My hunch is that there was initially a lot of underreporting going on, especially in March and early April when there was far less awareness, hence the NYT article, but at this point I wouldn’t be surprised if there are some hospital covid diagnosis based on symptoms that are inaccurate as well as some deaths of other causes particularly among those who already had very short life expectancy such as long term care residents that are incidentally covid positive.
If the three year daily average deaths in NY state for today is 400 and the State is reporting 220 covid deaths and 250 other deaths that is significant, since that is a good indication that the true covid death toll is far lower. Of course, the reverse would also be true.
Additionally reporting the average death toll gives context. In a country where the average daily death toll is 1200, a hundred fifty covid deaths bringing the total to 1350 is significant, but not nearly the same as in a country in which the average daily death rate is 300.
The bottom line is, numbers need to be depoliticized, and placed in context. Not cumulative positives, not a running total of deaths, but good actionable data. Random antibody testing. Current positives relative to testing trends broken down by locality. Recent emergency room and transport data on the local level. Breakdown of the above by the long term care population vs. the general population. Etc.
Otherwise we are flying blind and letting the numbers be manipulated by politicians for their own purposes. If the numbers show that I’m wrong and we have a bigger problem than I think so be it. At least we have objective, reliable, actionable data.