Ok, but don't sensationalize this. The story equates to "In the early phases of the outbreak, due to lack of testing, not all deaths may have been fully accounted for as covid-19". This highlights an inaccuracy in count -- not things like "attempts to obscure", or "this goes all the way back til...", or that this is a growing or ongoing problem now, or anything necessarily nefarious.
It's pointing out that with lack of testing, death numbers can also be inaccurate due to variations in procedures across the country. And note, it's not calling out that these inaccuracies are even statistically relevant... just points out that precision takes time, and that many are even trying to backtrack and tighten up their data.
Don't sensationalize what is effectively saying "early data may have been under reported due to variations in methods"
And it's completely ingenious to use this article when discussing the rate NOW.