See:
[cdc.gov]
You will see that all deaths from pneumonia and flu were combined with all possible covid 19 deaths.
However, look at the pneumonia data before 7 March. Those pre covid deaths (which are in line with previous years) are included! If you do the statistical analyses you come the clear conclusion that actual covid deaths are less than 22 000... almost four times less than claimed.

"The total claimed Covid 19 related deaths is 85 000"

No, the total claimed COVID-19 related deaths for the article is 65,841. I'm sure there are other problems with your math, but let's start there.

@WilyRickWiles
Did you even look at the CDC data?
Too hard for you?
The data gets updated all the time... it is moved to 90 000 for end of April. Look at the actual data.

The issue is that at the actual Covid 19 deaths are not reported. In the CDC own words, they used the upper bound estimates against observed data and then to calculate excess deaths, all negative values are made zero and only positive results are counted.

So all statistical negative errors are ignored and all positive statistical errors are included... they specifically state this so that anyone intelligent can immediately see these are their simplified worst possible and utterly unbelievable case. Then they include the actual data as well... which still include a large fraction of probable and not tested cases.

I know this is well above your cognitive abilities, however at least try to understand.

Oh my math? Yeah I have a master degree in modelling uncertainty analyses in physical systems.
And a PhD in modelling of physical systems utilising statistical methods.
But don’t let my credentials fool you, just have a look at the CDC data yourself and ask a clever person (if you know any) to explain it to you.

@Hanno "Did you even look at the CDC data?"

OK let's break down your argument. You said "The total claimed Covid 19 related deaths is 85 000... almost four times higher than the actual value." That sentence implies that you are comparing two data points: a "claimed" one and an "actual" one. Your previous context (e.g. "I have the CDC data right in front of me." ) implied that the CDC data was the "actual" data you were comparing to the "claimed" data of 85,000 in the article. So I countered with a correction, that the article "claims" 65,841 deaths, not 85,000. Your response was incoherent, irrelevant, and as usual, inflammatory. Your insecurity does not reflect well on your alleged intellect. Please clarify which numbers you are comparing, and from which sources other than your ass.

@WilyRickWiles still have not looked at the actual data hey?

If you did you would have found the data that WP reported there included you 65 841. Their data is just a week older. I used the latest complete data... and hence my numbers are larger. Same data set.

The CDC themselves claim their own best estimate at end 18 April was only 34037. Which include possible and not tested estimates. You WP claim 37 100 which is the upper bound limit that includes all deaths, not just from COVID19 tested and suspected... go on... have a look, it is all there.

WP here used data that the CDC themselves stated is not related to Covid 19 only.

Hey, but what does the CDC know hey? Ricky just read the WP, understood nothing and knows everything!

@Hanno OK, so whether we go with 65,941 or 85,000, from the article or the latest CDC data, it sounds like that is your "claimed" number. So where then are you getting an "actual" number of COVID-19-related deaths that is around 4x less? I've looked at the data and can reconcile numbers all day, but it will never reveal what argument you are making--what specific argument or numbers you are disputing. Only you can do that.

@WilyRickWiles
Very simple... the total number of deaths expected versus the actual deaths. Over this period the actual excess deaths are only 21 703. That is 21 703 more deaths than expected without Covid 19, that is according to the CDC statisticians.
The percentage are rounded, so the number may be a bit lower or higher. It does not change the argument.

Now this is where statistics come in... the “real” number is 21703 plus minus the uncertainty. Now that depends on how certain you want to be.
So if want to be 99,9 or 99 or 95 or 87,5% certain will affect your answer range as you will need a bigger uncertainty factor we call sigma included in the final answer. It works positive and negative.
So if the best estimate is 10, then the actual answer is 9, 10 or 11, if you want to be say 90% certain... ( the actual answer range depends on the size of the dataset to calculate 10, not the size of the number 10 itself).

So, if we assume ALL extra deaths are due to Covid 19, the total death rate should be 21703 plus minus the uncertainty in the original estimate, which looking at the data they list cannot be more than a few thousand... so the real number would be between 19703 and 23703, but I am guessing a bit. Again it does not change the argument.

Now of course there is a LOT of data you and I cannot access... and that may change the above number a bit.
However, my argument is simple:

Firstly, The data does not present actual COVID19 cases only. It includes significant other non-COVID19 deaths and the numbers are very skewed because of it. The CDC conceded that on their web page.

Secondly, a significant fraction of COVID19 deaths would have happened anyway over this period due to primary cause reasons. The too low total excess deaths point to that.

Obviously I do not know the true real answer, I can only look at the available data analyse it, and call bullshit, or that looks right.

And that is my third and most important argument. People knowingly misquote scientific data and ignore the printed explanation that goes with it and puts this in newspapers. Politicians take this and mislead the public further.
Scientists need to stand up and do the hard work and teach people the truth.

Cheers,
Hanno.

PS. My inflammatory comments... I have not forgotten the comments you made about NZ... insult me but leave my country alone.

Did you read the article?