This article literally is data.

It's incomplete data, that is being combined in ways to give certain impressions, that aren't necessarily backed by actual medical science.

Gah, the data in this article is literally medical science. It's reporting on a paper from the Chinese Journal of Epidemiology, which it even links you to directly.

Now, maybe this science is wrong. If you want to make that argument, though, you need to make it with evidence. You don't get to dismiss it like that without doing your own science.

The way the data is sliced and diced is not necessarily meaningful. Looks at the mortality rates based on those simple categories can paint a misleading picture.