The discussion about the difference between deaths “because of” coronavirus and “with coronavirus” is a good case study of Max Weber concept of “adequate causation”, “objective possibility”, and “causal imputation”. 1/

Weber notices that we often say that “x is the cause of y because, had x did not happen, then y would have not happened”. But how can we know? What is the validity of such counterfactual judgments? Especially when there are multiple factors at play? 2/

First, from a certain point of view, all factors determine an event. Moreover, because of causal regress, every single event is tied to every other event in the universe, from the beginning of time. So, from this point of view, we cannot individuate any specific cause, ever. 3/

But this only means that judgments about “causal imputation” work otherwise, because we do state that “x is the cause of y” all the time. So, how does the logical mechanism of such judgments work? How do we decide whether a factor is “adequate” to determine a certain event? 4/

1) Through abstraction, we build an imaginary picture of the event, isolating the aspects that interest us and a complex of interacting causes among the infinite ones that were actually at play. We say “these are the causes that determined (these aspects of) the event”. 5/

2) Among these causes, we further isolate the one we want to test (to check whether it is “adequate” to cause the event), and construct a further imaginary picture where this single cause is imagined as removed or modified. 6/

3) To construct this imaginary picture, we use our “nomological knowledge”, i.e. we refer to “rules of experience” regarding the fact that “when x, then y”, which tells us that, in general, there is an “objective possibility” that a certain event determines another. 7/

4) If the general rules of experience tell us the event could have been expected to be the same in those aspects that interest us, even if the factor were removed/modified, then the factor has no causal importance. Otherwise, it is “causally adequate” to determine the event. 8/

E.g. If I pick a daisy, then cross the road and get hit by a car and die, we don’t say that picking the daisy killed me, even though I wouldn’t have died had I crossed the street a minute earlier. 9/

Because my nomological knowledge tells me that there is no general connection between “picking daisy” and “dying”. Whereas my nomological knowledge tells me, as a rule of experience, that there is indeed a general connection between “getting hit by a car” and “dying”. 10/

Let’s apply all this to the case of coronavirus. 1) imaginary picture of the events with the aspects and factors that interest us: A person died, he had coronavirus plus a number of preexisting conditions. 11/

2) Construction of imaginary modified picture: Would this person still be alive had he not catch the coronavirus? 3) Application of our nomological knowledge: we know that people with preexisting conditions, such as asthma and the like, can live many years without dying. 12/

4) Causal imputation judgment: the coronavirus was causally adequate to determine the death.

Know you know what you're doing (according to Weber) when you say "These people died because of coronavirus, not with coronavirus" /13

Reference: Max Weber "Objective possibility and adequate causation" in "Critical Studies in the Logic of the Cultural Sciences" (1906), in "Collected Methodological Writings", Routledge, 2012, pp. 169 sgg.