Thread by @kylamb8

James is lying (again). Oh, to be fair, in the context of this clip, Walensky is referring to a new study of vaccinated individuals. But the lie by James is one of omission, namely that this actually applies to ALL COVID-19 deaths.

Want evidence? See CDC weekly updates Table 3

https://twitter.com/JamesSurowiecki/status/1480615135425318918

Yes, Walensky was referring to a single study about vaccinated deaths. But that study is actually just corroborating what the data shows for all COVID-19 deaths.

See here:

cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr…

Walensky used the term "comorbidities" today. The CDC table shows the same term. Don't like that comparison or my definition? Well this is the CDC definition.

A final thought: even if we accept the paper's use of risk factors as separate from comoboridies, risk factors or underlying medical conditions are a subset of comobordities as are organ failures leading to death.

The CDC definition of comorbidities is presence of 2+ diseases

In this case, an organ failure constitutes a disease. While the assumption is COVID-19 is the cause of organ failures, often these happen because of conditions that may not have been known prior to COVID (like undiagnosed heart and other organ conditions).

But one thing is true, while the CDC paper is portraying risk factors as a subset of comorbidities (Walesnky used the latter term because risk factors are also comorbidities), one "risk factor" used in the paper is age, which is not a comorbidity.

The paper adds all people who died had at least one risk factor and four or more. But nearly 80% of all COVID-19 deaths are over 65+, which the paper is using as a risk factor. If 65+ were a comobordity used by the CDC, nearly 80% of deaths would have one immediately.

So bringing this back: even if you accept the paper as comparing a subset of risk factors that might exclude some organ failures, the concept of having multiple underlying medical conditions and risk factors is very much consistent with all COVID-19 deaths.

What Walensky said: 'these people were not well,' is not unique to the deaths occurring in vaccinated people. This is true for a great deal of COVID-19 deaths. We absolutely have known that most deaths occur with multiple underlying conditions or "comorbidities." That's a fact.

So as I said last night, Walensky was specifically referring to a paper assessing "risk factors." But risk factors are also comorbidities and that's why she labeled them as such. What she was saying is generically true for all deaths despite the singling out of one specific paper

All I'm saying, ultimately, is that if you want to provide context that she was citing a specific paper for deaths in vaccinated patients, that's fine. It's accurate. But to act like this isn't true in general is the height of dishonesty. The general pattern can be applied to all