I think it's hard to report data that hasn't been collected. It also goes both ways, for example, a person gets admitted to hospital and tests positive for covid, they become really ill from covid, spend a time in ICU and unfortunately die on day 30, they wouldn't technically be a covid death as they are outwith the 28 day limit.
another person falls from a building gets to hospital and tests positive, later unfortunately dies from a ruptured spleen = covid death.
The latter group will outnumber the former by a mile.
There will be some cases where someone has a respiratory condition and has covid and dies and it's harder to tell whether they would have died anyway, but for most it would have been easyish to collect the data of whether they died with or from covid. In the USA for example a fair number of people are on the covid death stats but also had gunshot wounds. their numbers are huge enough that this wouldn't be a huge impact, but just an example.
There are lots of enquiries going on in the US about death figures as it seems that the private system encouraged Drs to say that the person needed ventilation because of the positive covid which results in bigger payments from medical insurers.
The figures to be watching are the death rates (even if they are flawed) and amounts in ICU above the norm (or those in ICU because of covid if we knew) as these are true cases in the definition of the word.
If super spready just means that more people catch it and not that more people end up needing an ICU bed and we quickly get the vulnerable vaccinated then we should be able to open things up as aside from rare cases, most people will get it and then quickly get better with manageable symptoms. We can't protect the small number of those that might take it badly that we don't know about as this would destroy society though it's obviously a hard thing. We might as well say that we are banning cars because there are sometimes fatal accidents. Life isn't without risk unfortunately.