This is cringe. Obviously, most people who die will have underlying medical conditions. That's also true of people who die with influenza. Nobody has been "hiding" that fact. This is like saying HIV doesn't kill people. Galaxy brain tier stupidity here. Then there's the misunderstanding of the "up to 90%" claim. Here's what the article Actually says

This number of amplification cycles needed to find the virus, called the cycle threshold, is never included in the results sent to doctors and coronavirus patients, although it could tell them how infectious the patients are.

In three sets of testing data that include cycle thresholds, compiled by officials in Massachusetts, New York and Nevada, up to 90 percent of people testing positive carried barely any virus, a review by The Times found.

So the test is very sensitive, finds a small viral load, and that is a positive. It's not a false positive. It's simply a non-transmissible positive, or having formerly been infected. This was not done without warrant as, initially, it was unclear just how infectious the virus truly was due to inaccurate and low population samples. What they're arguing for now is to reduce the sensitivity of the tests to only reach a positive with a larger viral load, one that could conceivably end up more infectious in most people.

This is all talked about in the actual article this fearmongering cringe is stealing from, if anyone cares. And the real irony here is that, with so many positives that are not transmissible or infectious, that means the real death rate as a consequence of high viral load infection is considerably higher. This sensitivity is also not without warrant:

The F.D.A. noted that people may have a low viral load when they are newly infected. A test with less sensitivity would miss these infections.

The CDC's smug "well just test them again" is hardly helpful because how many people are going to make two trips for the same BS in a row?