Problem is that we do not know if these were deaths with Covid or deaths by Covid.
There is always talk about “protect the vulnerable”. Which means old.
What is generally envisioned is locking down the old and erasing their retirement bucket lists so that the young can carry on with whatever made them happy, and because they announce they are “protecting the vulnerable”, provide them conscience balm for how their behavior increases cases, thereby increasing the odds of it reaching the vulnerable.
Lockdown everything to save some elderly lives? Seems extreme, doesn’t it. Find a politician who tells you he’s going to sacrifice those elderly lives (after all, they aren’t losing that many years) so that the economy isn’t harmed.
Maybe he’ll explain how “the economy” is defined by a substance created by the Federal Reserve in an entirely whimsical way out of sheer nothingness — aka money. That’s the substance that he will have to defend protecting at the risk of low year total lives.
I don’t give this hypothetical someone high election odds.
Indeed, See CDC Covid-19 case and death criteria