Pritzker's COVID-19 Positivity Rate 'Not Scientifically Founded'

Mark Konkol
Updated ·5 min read

CHICAGO — In case you missed it — and you probably did — Belleville News Democrat reporter Kelsey Landis pulled back the veil on Gov. J.B. Prtizker's biggest coronavirus crisis fib.

I'm talking about Pritzker's claim that his administration's coronavirus response has been "guided by science and data," a refrain he repeats so often that otherwise reasonable people believe it to be true.

[COMMENTARY]

Landis told me she didn't intend to unearth evidence that Pritzker's administration has been intentionally citing less-than-scientific statistics to justify executive orders implementing regional coronavirus restrictions.

But there it was, tucked in the scrappy downstate newspaper's story that Landis says aimed to help readers better understand the state's coronavirus "positivity rate."

In Illinois, the positivity rate is the running average of coronavirus test specimens that confirm a COVID-19 diagnosis. The governor cites that rate as empirical scientific evidence that requires him to enact restrictions on public gatherings, indoor dining and high school football, among other things.

When Pritzker shut down restaurants and limited the size of public gatherings in the Metro East region last month, for example, the governor said he was guided by the spike in positivity rates that the public could see for itself on the state public health department's COVID-19 website.

“Let me be clear: these are not decisions I make lightly, nor would I impose these restrictions if there wasn’t evidence of increasing spread of the virus in these areas,” Pritzker said at the time.

Illinoisans can see the data for themselves. Scientists, too. And many don't buy the logic that the state's positivity rate should be the determining evidence in economic shutdowns imposed by the governor, particularly in areas where testing isn't adequate.

Landis' report noted that Bond County, for instance, posted a positivity rate of 55.6 percent — 10 of 18 testing samples came back positive on a Tuesday in September. That's a huge positivity rate, and not nearly enough evidence to declare a dangerous coronavirus outbreak, even in a rural county of about 16,500 residents.

Some state lawmakers have pressed the governor to find a new metric to determine when to increase coronavirus restrictions.

Pritzker ignores them — and everyone who points out his coronavirus data doesn't jibe with reality.

MORE ON PATCH: Why Don't Coronavirus Testing Numbers Add Up? It's A 'Glitch'

For five months, I've called out Pritzker for fudging coronavirus test totals, and using misleading data to grab headlines while governing by executive order during the pandemic.

I'm not against the state mandating restrictions to slow the spread of COVID-19. I am, however, consistently unnerved by the Pritzker administration's brazen lack of transparency when it comes to coronavirus data.

But if you dare to question the governor on the veracity of his COVID-19 statistics, expect to get accused of "grandstanding" or be dismissed as fool who doesn't believe in science or is pushing politicized conspiracies.

Pritzker defends himself by saying he's taking the advice of scientists, such as the brilliant folks at University of Chicago the governor touts at news conferences to assure fearful Illinoisans that his actions are not the whim of a rich Chicago Democrat trying to make a national name for himself to bolster a 2024 presidential run.

Landis' reporting led her to one of those people, University of Chicago associate professor Sarah Cobey, a data scientist who led a team advising Pritzker's administration on how to track the spread of the coronavirus.

I first learned of Cobey — "an epidemiologist, mathematical ecologist, evolutionary biologist" with a Princeton pedigree — in a Tribune story touting her as the leader of an effort aimed at predicting when and under what conditions Illinoisans might return to work, to restaurants and to schools as the pandemic rages on.

Landis told me she called Cobey for the sake of readers who were asking questions about the positivity rate, including, "What does it mean?"

"I was hoping for a simple explanation," Landis said.

Instead, Cobey — the scientist — dropped a truth bomb.

“I have been very critical of their use of this [positivity rate] metric and basically all the metrics they’ve put forth so far because they are not scientifically founded," Cobey said.

Cobey told Landis that Pritzker's administration has access to "really excellent metrics" but "has not picked them up."

The scientist said the Pritzker administration balked at using her team's more-accurate models because: "It's too complicated. People won't like it."

"I have a real problem in some ways defending what the state is doing because I think it is very precarious," Cobey told the News Democrat.

"We said, 'You’re going to be losing scientific accuracy and probably credibility in the long run if you start using these other things.' … They’re pretty adamant that actual science is too much.”

When I reached out to Cobey hoping to get more insight on the data that Pritzker's people consider too complicated for Illinoisans, she didn't want to talk about it.

"Unfortunately my schedule is full right now with research and service obligations, and I am unable to take on more communication with reporters at this time," Cobey politely replied in an email. "Good luck."

When you've got a governor who tells scientists supposedly guiding him that Illinoisans are too stupid to understand "complicated" science, we're going to need all the luck we can get.

Mark Konkol, recipient of the 2011 Pulitzer Prize for local reporting, wrote and produced the Peabody Award-winning series, "Time: The Kalief Browder Story." He was a producer, writer and narrator for the "Chicagoland" docu-series on CNN, and a consulting producer on the Showtime documentary, "16 Shots."

More from Mark Konkol:

This article originally appeared on the Chicago Patch