FabSwingers.com > Forums > Virus > Covid-19 death certification.
Covid-19 death certification.
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Especially the end comment-
"Although the different agencies put together the numbers differently and use slightly different definitions, there is no plot to distort them.
Not that any of this will stop keyboard warriors and conspiracy theorists who arguing about it. But then an article like this wouldn’t change their minds anyway."
| |||
| |||
"So if your tested and have cancer, then a week later you fall off the roof you died of cancer. I get it now the cancer killed you. " Did you read the article? | |||
"So if your tested and have cancer, then a week later you fall off the roof you died of cancer. I get it now the cancer killed you. " nope...... its the same principal when people die from HIV.... its the "related illness" that happened because you had HIV, such as a cold, or the flu... in the case of most Coid cases... its the Pneumonia that got because covid fucked with your immune system | |||
"The "death within 28 days of a positive Covid test" has formed the basis of many inaccurate and baseless conspiracy theories throughout the pandemic. This article, written by an NHS consultant managing two Covid wards, explains clearly and thoroughly how deaths (any/all) are certified and what this means in the context of Covid. Please do read the article before spouting off more baseless nonsense: https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/covid-consultant-confronts-claims-conspiracy-19393667 " Would you also acknowledge that it’s not all as clear as that. I was also privy to information by a Respected consultant in a local trust who in a weekly round up of deaths identified that of 16 deaths in that week 11 were on end of life care plans, four others had serious ‘other’ ( they were listed but the lists were quite long) health issues.... Now, I have no reason to believe the article from the MEN, similarly I have no reason to believe the circulation I have read previously. On balance, while acknowledging the unfortunate deaths whatever their cause and respecting that the doctors are not being fraudulent, realistically of the 16 that week 11 were on there way, 4 others were likely not to be too far behind and that leaves the one and in any other year they may have died from pneumonia, influenza, etc.... all but one just needed the push and for sure the push was coming one way or another. The deaths reported were all with COVID, the doctor went on to offer that the greater injury was that patients were dying without contact with their loved ones for seven months before their demise. I have no reason to call out the article or the doctor, many times I’ve heard the killed by a bus, hang gliding,etc and we all know that these occurrences wouldn’t for a second affect figures significantly whether included or not. A good way of evaluating would be analysis of the numbers on end of life care plans, or those who have been given a short life expectancy. A death is a death and each impacts on medical staff, family, friends, colleagues. I made the point in another thread that 78k die each year from smoking related diseases and received the typical abuse and that this was irrelevant... well yes sort of... but then those who die each year have friends, family, colleagues and are treated by medical staff the impact is similar, yet tobacco sales are being made. Why? Why does our government sanction the sale of tobacco products? These products have an enormous impact on health and the health services, they lead to the death of many thousands year in year out and though there would be a lag, the harm from smoking would, within a decade or three, would be massively decreased and it’s relatively simple to do. | |||
| |||
"So if your tested and have cancer, then a week later you fall off the roof you died of cancer. I get it now the cancer killed you. " The thread relates to the simple, informative article that the OP kindly posted and referred to. I suggest that you read it, until you understand it. You can also refer to the Office for National Statistics, who explain reporting of death statistics quite clearly. | |||
"So if your tested and have cancer, then a week later you fall off the roof you died of cancer. I get it now the cancer killed you. " I was told something like that by my oncology consultant, I was told to be careful on the motorbike. If I killed myself while riding the bike, it went on his figures. | |||
"The "death within 28 days of a positive Covid test" has formed the basis of many inaccurate and baseless conspiracy theories throughout the pandemic. This article, written by an NHS consultant managing two Covid wards, explains clearly and thoroughly how deaths (any/all) are certified and what this means in the context of Covid. Please do read the article before spouting off more baseless nonsense: https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/covid-consultant-confronts-claims-conspiracy-19393667 Would you also acknowledge that it’s not all as clear as that. I was also privy to information by a Respected consultant in a local trust who in a weekly round up of deaths identified that of 16 deaths in that week 11 were on end of life care plans, four others had serious ‘other’ ( they were listed but the lists were quite long) health issues.... Now, I have no reason to believe the article from the MEN, similarly I have no reason to believe the circulation I have read previously. On balance, while acknowledging the unfortunate deaths whatever their cause and respecting that the doctors are not being fraudulent, realistically of the 16 that week 11 were on there way, 4 others were likely not to be too far behind and that leaves the one and in any other year they may have died from pneumonia, influenza, etc.... all but one just needed the push and for sure the push was coming one way or another. The deaths reported were all with COVID, the doctor went on to offer that the greater injury was that patients were dying without contact with their loved ones for seven months before their demise. I have no reason to call out the article or the doctor, many times I’ve heard the killed by a bus, hang gliding,etc and we all know that these occurrences wouldn’t for a second affect figures significantly whether included or not. A good way of evaluating would be analysis of the numbers on end of life care plans, or those who have been given a short life expectancy. A death is a death and each impacts on medical staff, family, friends, colleagues. I made the point in another thread that 78k die each year from smoking related diseases and received the typical abuse and that this was irrelevant... well yes sort of... but then those who die each year have friends, family, colleagues and are treated by medical staff the impact is similar, yet tobacco sales are being made. Why? Why does our government sanction the sale of tobacco products? These products have an enormous impact on health and the health services, they lead to the death of many thousands year in year out and though there would be a lag, the harm from smoking would, within a decade or three, would be massively decreased and it’s relatively simple to do. " If anyone died with Covid (ie a positive test), then, as clearly explained in the MEN article, the death certificate must reflect that. If Covid isn't a direct cause of death, then it would go on the bit of the certificate marked (2). Even if someone is terminally ill, has an end of life care package or whatever else, that doesn't stop Covid either contributing to, or directly causing their death. It all depends what the actual CAUSE of death is, e.g. a pulmonary embolism, a myocardial infarction etc. Doctors record all medical conditions existing at death and have always done so. I'll use my Grandmother as an example (she died 10yrs ago). Her cause of death (1a) was a pulmonary embolism. A blood clot in the lungs (in plain English). Contributory causes (1b) was adenocarcinoma of the digestive tract (or cancer of the inner lining of the digestive system). This had not been diagnosed prior to her death, but was suspected. Also under 1b was "dementia/frailty". This was listed because her inability to move around/mobilise will have increased her risk of blood clots. Under section 2 (causes not directly leading to death, but contributing) were urinary tract infection and tuberculosis of the adrenal glands. She had TB in the 1970s and recovered, but it's one of those infections that can become dormant and reoccur if the immune system is weak. So, her UTI and TB did not cause her directly to die (that was a blood clot, cancer and dementia), but having two active severe infections did contribute, because her overall health was negatively impacted by the infections. Covid is an infection which is contributing to, but not necessarily directly causing, deaths in the UK (and the world). The same as any other infection that might be listed under part 2 of a death certificate. But that's what the article says. | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Tend to agree. So a new one. I know of 12 people who have had covid with symptoms. 7 were smokers and 5 have never smoked. 3 died, all smokers, 2 were very ill, both smokers, all the non smokers had mild symptoms. Hmmm, its a respitory disease." Actually it's more of a cardiovascular disease, as we've come to understand. It's a multi factorial disease that impacts all body systems. But in your example, the smokers seemed to have the worse outcomes, which you'd expect for a disease which does affect the respiratory system, plus the cardiovascular system. SARS-CoV-2 uses the ACE2 receptor to enter cells. The usual function of ACE2 is its involvement in the regulation of blood pressure through the angiotensin-renin system. ACE stands for angiotensin converting enzyme. Basically, any health condition that impacts the normal regulation of blood pressure (including the health of the vessels themselves), puts you at increased risk of severe Covid. | |||
"The "death within 28 days of a positive Covid test" has formed the basis of many inaccurate and baseless conspiracy theories throughout the pandemic. This article, written by an NHS consultant managing two Covid wards, explains clearly and thoroughly how deaths (any/all) are certified and what this means in the context of Covid. Please do read the article before spouting off more baseless nonsense: https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/covid-consultant-confronts-claims-conspiracy-19393667 Would you also acknowledge that it’s not all as clear as that. I was also privy to information by a Respected consultant in a local trust who in a weekly round up of deaths identified that of 16 deaths in that week 11 were on end of life care plans, four others had serious ‘other’ ( they were listed but the lists were quite long) health issues.... Now, I have no reason to believe the article from the MEN, similarly I have no reason to believe the circulation I have read previously. On balance, while acknowledging the unfortunate deaths whatever their cause and respecting that the doctors are not being fraudulent, realistically of the 16 that week 11 were on there way, 4 others were likely not to be too far behind and that leaves the one and in any other year they may have died from pneumonia, influenza, etc.... all but one just needed the push and for sure the push was coming one way or another. The deaths reported were all with COVID, the doctor went on to offer that the greater injury was that patients were dying without contact with their loved ones for seven months before their demise. I have no reason to call out the article or the doctor, many times I’ve heard the killed by a bus, hang gliding,etc and we all know that these occurrences wouldn’t for a second affect figures significantly whether included or not. A good way of evaluating would be analysis of the numbers on end of life care plans, or those who have been given a short life expectancy. A death is a death and each impacts on medical staff, family, friends, colleagues. I made the point in another thread that 78k die each year from smoking related diseases and received the typical abuse and that this was irrelevant... well yes sort of... but then those who die each year have friends, family, colleagues and are treated by medical staff the impact is similar, yet tobacco sales are being made. Why? Why does our government sanction the sale of tobacco products? These products have an enormous impact on health and the health services, they lead to the death of many thousands year in year out and though there would be a lag, the harm from smoking would, within a decade or three, would be massively decreased and it’s relatively simple to do. If anyone died with Covid (ie a positive test), then, as clearly explained in the MEN article, the death certificate must reflect that. If Covid isn't a direct cause of death, then it would go on the bit of the certificate marked (2). Even if someone is terminally ill, has an end of life care package or whatever else, that doesn't stop Covid either contributing to, or directly causing their death. It all depends what the actual CAUSE of death is, e.g. a pulmonary embolism, a myocardial infarction etc. Doctors record all medical conditions existing at death and have always done so. I'll use my Grandmother as an example (she died 10yrs ago). Her cause of death (1a) was a pulmonary embolism. A blood clot in the lungs (in plain English). Contributory causes (1b) was adenocarcinoma of the digestive tract (or cancer of the inner lining of the digestive system). This had not been diagnosed prior to her death, but was suspected. Also under 1b was "dementia/frailty". This was listed because her inability to move around/mobilise will have increased her risk of blood clots. Under section 2 (causes not directly leading to death, but contributing) were urinary tract infection and tuberculosis of the adrenal glands. She had TB in the 1970s and recovered, but it's one of those infections that can become dormant and reoccur if the immune system is weak. So, her UTI and TB did not cause her directly to die (that was a blood clot, cancer and dementia), but having two active severe infections did contribute, because her overall health was negatively impacted by the infections. Covid is an infection which is contributing to, but not necessarily directly causing, deaths in the UK (and the world). The same as any other infection that might be listed under part 2 of a death certificate. But that's what the article says. " Ok.... I’m sorry you quoted my post but can’t decide whether you’re supporting my comments or disputing them or attempting to clarify something I don’t need clarifying? | |||
"I am just going out on a limb here and say that the people who died probably don't care what is written on a single piece of paper. Stats are for people who don't have time or the mental capacity for nuance. " | |||
"So if your tested and have cancer, then a week later you fall off the roof you died of cancer. I get it now the cancer killed you. Did you read the article?" I'm guessing not. 
E | |||
"The "death within 28 days of a positive Covid test" has formed the basis of many inaccurate and baseless conspiracy theories throughout the pandemic. This article, written by an NHS consultant managing two Covid wards, explains clearly and thoroughly how deaths (any/all) are certified and what this means in the context of Covid. Please do read the article before spouting off more baseless nonsense: https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/covid-consultant-confronts-claims-conspiracy-19393667 " I know it’s picky but hey ho.... do you know he’s managing two wards by some other means than this article? | |||
"The "death within 28 days of a positive Covid test" has formed the basis of many inaccurate and baseless conspiracy theories throughout the pandemic. This article, written by an NHS consultant managing two Covid wards, explains clearly and thoroughly how deaths (any/all) are certified and what this means in the context of Covid. Please do read the article before spouting off more baseless nonsense: https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/covid-consultant-confronts-claims-conspiracy-19393667 I know it’s picky but hey ho.... do you know he’s managing two wards by some other means than this article? " I don't know him personally. He writes in the BMJ regularly and has written many articles for health care related media throughout the pandemic. If you search engine his name, you'll find extensive information about his background, qualifications, experience etc. Sadly Fab would not allow me to post links to the BMJ, the King's Fund, the Royal Berkshire NHS trust or any other sites where he is mentioned/is a contributor. | |||
"The "death within 28 days of a positive Covid test" has formed the basis of many inaccurate and baseless conspiracy theories throughout the pandemic. This article, written by an NHS consultant managing two Covid wards, explains clearly and thoroughly how deaths (any/all) are certified and what this means in the context of Covid. Please do read the article before spouting off more baseless nonsense: https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/covid-consultant-confronts-claims-conspiracy-19393667 I know it’s picky but hey ho.... do you know he’s managing two wards by some other means than this article? I don't know him personally. He writes in the BMJ regularly and has written many articles for health care related media throughout the pandemic. If you search engine his name, you'll find extensive information about his background, qualifications, experience etc. Sadly Fab would not allow me to post links to the BMJ, the King's Fund, the Royal Berkshire NHS trust or any other sites where he is mentioned/is a contributor." Yes in the first lines you mentioned the two wards he was managing.... the article mentions a ward? | |||
"The "death within 28 days of a positive Covid test" has formed the basis of many inaccurate and baseless conspiracy theories throughout the pandemic. This article, written by an NHS consultant managing two Covid wards, explains clearly and thoroughly how deaths (any/all) are certified and what this means in the context of Covid. Please do read the article before spouting off more baseless nonsense: https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/covid-consultant-confronts-claims-conspiracy-19393667 I know it’s picky but hey ho.... do you know he’s managing two wards by some other means than this article? I don't know him personally. He writes in the BMJ regularly and has written many articles for health care related media throughout the pandemic. If you search engine his name, you'll find extensive information about his background, qualifications, experience etc. Sadly Fab would not allow me to post links to the BMJ, the King's Fund, the Royal Berkshire NHS trust or any other sites where he is mentioned/is a contributor. Yes in the first lines you mentioned the two wards he was managing.... the article mentions a ward?" That's my transcription error, apologies. | |||
"The "death within 28 days of a positive Covid test" has formed the basis of many inaccurate and baseless conspiracy theories throughout the pandemic. This article, written by an NHS consultant managing two Covid wards, explains clearly and thoroughly how deaths (any/all) are certified and what this means in the context of Covid. Please do read the article before spouting off more baseless nonsense: https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/covid-consultant-confronts-claims-conspiracy-19393667 I know it’s picky but hey ho.... do you know he’s managing two wards by some other means than this article? I don't know him personally. He writes in the BMJ regularly and has written many articles for health care related media throughout the pandemic. If you search engine his name, you'll find extensive information about his background, qualifications, experience etc. Sadly Fab would not allow me to post links to the BMJ, the King's Fund, the Royal Berkshire NHS trust or any other sites where he is mentioned/is a contributor. Yes in the first lines you mentioned the two wards he was managing.... the article mentions a ward?" Thanks for the PM. I transcribed (copied) a line from the article incorrectly. You have brought that to my attention. Thank you. If I could edit the original post, I would, but Fab does not allow it. | |||
"The "death within 28 days of a positive Covid test" has formed the basis of many inaccurate and baseless conspiracy theories throughout the pandemic. This article, written by an NHS consultant managing two Covid wards, explains clearly and thoroughly how deaths (any/all) are certified and what this means in the context of Covid. Please do read the article before spouting off more baseless nonsense: https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/covid-consultant-confronts-claims-conspiracy-19393667 I know it’s picky but hey ho.... do you know he’s managing two wards by some other means than this article? I don't know him personally. He writes in the BMJ regularly and has written many articles for health care related media throughout the pandemic. If you search engine his name, you'll find extensive information about his background, qualifications, experience etc. Sadly Fab would not allow me to post links to the BMJ, the King's Fund, the Royal Berkshire NHS trust or any other sites where he is mentioned/is a contributor. Yes in the first lines you mentioned the two wards he was managing.... the article mentions a ward? Thanks for the PM. I transcribed (copied) a line from the article incorrectly. You have brought that to my attention. Thank you. If I could edit the original post, I would, but Fab does not allow it." Ok I said it quietly .... but .... you didn’t transcribe that line (copied??) that was in your opening piece .... your words prior to the article link. There is nowhere in the article anything similar is written. There is this line... ‘ He is currently managing a Covid ward at a hospital in the south of England’ which is distinctly different from your own but by a considerable margin. | |||
"The "death within 28 days of a positive Covid test" has formed the basis of many inaccurate and baseless conspiracy theories throughout the pandemic. This article, written by an NHS consultant managing two Covid wards, explains clearly and thoroughly how deaths (any/all) are certified and what this means in the context of Covid. Please do read the article before spouting off more baseless nonsense: https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/covid-consultant-confronts-claims-conspiracy-19393667 I know it’s picky but hey ho.... do you know he’s managing two wards by some other means than this article? I don't know him personally. He writes in the BMJ regularly and has written many articles for health care related media throughout the pandemic. If you search engine his name, you'll find extensive information about his background, qualifications, experience etc. Sadly Fab would not allow me to post links to the BMJ, the King's Fund, the Royal Berkshire NHS trust or any other sites where he is mentioned/is a contributor. Yes in the first lines you mentioned the two wards he was managing.... the article mentions a ward? Thanks for the PM. I transcribed (copied) a line from the article incorrectly. You have brought that to my attention. Thank you. If I could edit the original post, I would, but Fab does not allow it. Ok I said it quietly .... but .... you didn’t transcribe that line (copied??) that was in your opening piece .... your words prior to the article link. There is nowhere in the article anything similar is written. There is this line... ‘ He is currently managing a Covid ward at a hospital in the south of England’ which is distinctly different from your own but by a considerable margin. " I used my own words (paraphrased) to explain the article, then I pasted the link. Whether he works on 1, 2 or 22 wards doesn't change the meaning and sentiment of the article. The article that I suggested should be read before commenting. Thank you for nit picking though, your concern for my eyesight is appreciated. | |||
"The "death within 28 days of a positive Covid test" has formed the basis of many inaccurate and baseless conspiracy theories throughout the pandemic. This article, written by an NHS consultant managing two Covid wards, explains clearly and thoroughly how deaths (any/all) are certified and what this means in the context of Covid. Please do read the article before spouting off more baseless nonsense: https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/covid-consultant-confronts-claims-conspiracy-19393667 I know it’s picky but hey ho.... do you know he’s managing two wards by some other means than this article? I don't know him personally. He writes in the BMJ regularly and has written many articles for health care related media throughout the pandemic. If you search engine his name, you'll find extensive information about his background, qualifications, experience etc. Sadly Fab would not allow me to post links to the BMJ, the King's Fund, the Royal Berkshire NHS trust or any other sites where he is mentioned/is a contributor. Yes in the first lines you mentioned the two wards he was managing.... the article mentions a ward? Thanks for the PM. I transcribed (copied) a line from the article incorrectly. You have brought that to my attention. Thank you. If I could edit the original post, I would, but Fab does not allow it. Ok I said it quietly .... but .... you didn’t transcribe that line (copied??) that was in your opening piece .... your words prior to the article link. There is nowhere in the article anything similar is written. There is this line... ‘ He is currently managing a Covid ward at a hospital in the south of England’ which is distinctly different from your own but by a considerable margin. I used my own words (paraphrased) to explain the article, then I pasted the link. Whether he works on 1, 2 or 22 wards doesn't change the meaning and sentiment of the article. The article that I suggested should be read before commenting. Thank you for nit picking though, your concern for my eyesight is appreciated." You’re welcome... though I did say it was nit picky and the second ‘transcription’ I made privately. And was meant in jest though you chose to make public. Anyway the sentiment of the article I posted a lengthy reply and you posted a lengthy reply back which I asked about earlier... you didn’t address this in your replies? | |||
"The "death within 28 days of a positive Covid test" has formed the basis of many inaccurate and baseless conspiracy theories throughout the pandemic. This article, written by an NHS consultant managing two Covid wards, explains clearly and thoroughly how deaths (any/all) are certified and what this means in the context of Covid. Please do read the article before spouting off more baseless nonsense: https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/covid-consultant-confronts-claims-conspiracy-19393667 I know it’s picky but hey ho.... do you know he’s managing two wards by some other means than this article? I don't know him personally. He writes in the BMJ regularly and has written many articles for health care related media throughout the pandemic. If you search engine his name, you'll find extensive information about his background, qualifications, experience etc. Sadly Fab would not allow me to post links to the BMJ, the King's Fund, the Royal Berkshire NHS trust or any other sites where he is mentioned/is a contributor. Yes in the first lines you mentioned the two wards he was managing.... the article mentions a ward? Thanks for the PM. I transcribed (copied) a line from the article incorrectly. You have brought that to my attention. Thank you. If I could edit the original post, I would, but Fab does not allow it. Ok I said it quietly .... but .... you didn’t transcribe that line (copied??) that was in your opening piece .... your words prior to the article link. There is nowhere in the article anything similar is written. There is this line... ‘ He is currently managing a Covid ward at a hospital in the south of England’ which is distinctly different from your own but by a considerable margin. I used my own words (paraphrased) to explain the article, then I pasted the link. Whether he works on 1, 2 or 22 wards doesn't change the meaning and sentiment of the article. The article that I suggested should be read before commenting. Thank you for nit picking though, your concern for my eyesight is appreciated. You’re welcome... though I did say it was nit picky and the second ‘transcription’ I made privately. And was meant in jest though you chose to make public. Anyway the sentiment of the article I posted a lengthy reply and you posted a lengthy reply back which I asked about earlier... you didn’t address this in your replies? " In all honesty, I didn't reply to your earlier message because I couldn't be bothered. This post is about the death certification process (the same process that happens for every single death, not just Covid). Your reply went to all sorts of unrelated places that I didn't want to start derailing the thread with and couldn't be faffed because I was watching a Louis Theroux documentary on iPlayer. I have regularly posted accurate scientific information on this forum throughout the pandemic and most of the time, it goes unacknowledged and presumably unnoticed. The vagaries of internet fora. I don't expect my every comment to receive a reply. | |||
"The "death within 28 days of a positive Covid test" has formed the basis of many inaccurate and baseless conspiracy theories throughout the pandemic. This article, written by an NHS consultant managing two Covid wards, explains clearly and thoroughly how deaths (any/all) are certified and what this means in the context of Covid. Please do read the article before spouting off more baseless nonsense: https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/covid-consultant-confronts-claims-conspiracy-19393667 I know it’s picky but hey ho.... do you know he’s managing two wards by some other means than this article? I don't know him personally. He writes in the BMJ regularly and has written many articles for health care related media throughout the pandemic. If you search engine his name, you'll find extensive information about his background, qualifications, experience etc. Sadly Fab would not allow me to post links to the BMJ, the King's Fund, the Royal Berkshire NHS trust or any other sites where he is mentioned/is a contributor. Yes in the first lines you mentioned the two wards he was managing.... the article mentions a ward? Thanks for the PM. I transcribed (copied) a line from the article incorrectly. You have brought that to my attention. Thank you. If I could edit the original post, I would, but Fab does not allow it. Ok I said it quietly .... but .... you didn’t transcribe that line (copied??) that was in your opening piece .... your words prior to the article link. There is nowhere in the article anything similar is written. There is this line... ‘ He is currently managing a Covid ward at a hospital in the south of England’ which is distinctly different from your own but by a considerable margin. I used my own words (paraphrased) to explain the article, then I pasted the link. Whether he works on 1, 2 or 22 wards doesn't change the meaning and sentiment of the article. The article that I suggested should be read before commenting. Thank you for nit picking though, your concern for my eyesight is appreciated. You’re welcome... though I did say it was nit picky and the second ‘transcription’ I made privately. And was meant in jest though you chose to make public. Anyway the sentiment of the article I posted a lengthy reply and you posted a lengthy reply back which I asked about earlier... you didn’t address this in your replies? In all honesty, I didn't reply to your earlier message because I couldn't be bothered. This post is about the death certification process (the same process that happens for every single death, not just Covid). Your reply went to all sorts of unrelated places that I didn't want to start derailing the thread with and couldn't be faffed because I was watching a Louis Theroux documentary on iPlayer. I have regularly posted accurate scientific information on this forum throughout the pandemic and most of the time, it goes unacknowledged and presumably unnoticed. The vagaries of internet fora. I don't expect my every comment to receive a reply."  | |||
"So if your tested and have cancer, then a week later you fall off the roof you died of cancer. I get it now the cancer killed you. nope...... its the same principal when people die from HIV.... its the "related illness" that happened because you had HIV, such as a cold, or the flu... in the case of most Coid cases... its the Pneumonia that got because covid fucked with your immune system" Thrush was a common one for oo | |||
"The "death within 28 days of a positive Covid test" has formed the basis of many inaccurate and baseless conspiracy theories throughout the pandemic. This article, written by an NHS consultant managing two Covid wards, explains clearly and thoroughly how deaths (any/all) are certified and what this means in the context of Covid. Please do read the article before spouting off more baseless nonsense: https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/covid-consultant-confronts-claims-conspiracy-19393667 I know it’s picky but hey ho.... do you know he’s managing two wards by some other means than this article? I don't know him personally. He writes in the BMJ regularly and has written many articles for health care related media throughout the pandemic. If you search engine his name, you'll find extensive information about his background, qualifications, experience etc. Sadly Fab would not allow me to post links to the BMJ, the King's Fund, the Royal Berkshire NHS trust or any other sites where he is mentioned/is a contributor. Yes in the first lines you mentioned the two wards he was managing.... the article mentions a ward? Thanks for the PM. I transcribed (copied) a line from the article incorrectly. You have brought that to my attention. Thank you. If I could edit the original post, I would, but Fab does not allow it. Ok I said it quietly .... but .... you didn’t transcribe that line (copied??) that was in your opening piece .... your words prior to the article link. There is nowhere in the article anything similar is written. There is this line... ‘ He is currently managing a Covid ward at a hospital in the south of England’ which is distinctly different from your own but by a considerable margin. " Actually the OP is correct. I read the article last night and it did mention 2 wards. I've just looked at the link now and the article has changed. The time the article was updated was after I read it. My first post on this thread shows the time. 12 hours ago- it's now 7.11am so approx. 7pm last night I read it. So OP - your OP was correct at the time you posted. | |||
| |||
"The "death within 28 days of a positive Covid test" has formed the basis of many inaccurate and baseless conspiracy theories throughout the pandemic. This article, written by an NHS consultant managing two Covid wards, explains clearly and thoroughly how deaths (any/all) are certified and what this means in the context of Covid. Please do read the article before spouting off more baseless nonsense: https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/covid-consultant-confronts-claims-conspiracy-19393667 I know it’s picky but hey ho.... do you know he’s managing two wards by some other means than this article? I don't know him personally. He writes in the BMJ regularly and has written many articles for health care related media throughout the pandemic. If you search engine his name, you'll find extensive information about his background, qualifications, experience etc. Sadly Fab would not allow me to post links to the BMJ, the King's Fund, the Royal Berkshire NHS trust or any other sites where he is mentioned/is a contributor. Yes in the first lines you mentioned the two wards he was managing.... the article mentions a ward? Thanks for the PM. I transcribed (copied) a line from the article incorrectly. You have brought that to my attention. Thank you. If I could edit the original post, I would, but Fab does not allow it. Ok I said it quietly .... but .... you didn’t transcribe that line (copied??) that was in your opening piece .... your words prior to the article link. There is nowhere in the article anything similar is written. There is this line... ‘ He is currently managing a Covid ward at a hospital in the south of England’ which is distinctly different from your own but by a considerable margin. Actually the OP is correct. I read the article last night and it did mention 2 wards. I've just looked at the link now and the article has changed. The time the article was updated was after I read it. My first post on this thread shows the time. 12 hours ago- it's now 7.11am so approx. 7pm last night I read it. So OP - your OP was correct at the time you posted. " Thank you, Outsider. Clearly I should now cancel my trip to Barnard Castle to have my eyesight checked  | |||
"The "death within 28 days of a positive Covid test" has formed the basis of many inaccurate and baseless conspiracy theories throughout the pandemic. This article, written by an NHS consultant managing two Covid wards, explains clearly and thoroughly how deaths (any/all) are certified and what this means in the context of Covid. Please do read the article before spouting off more baseless nonsense: https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/covid-consultant-confronts-claims-conspiracy-19393667 I know it’s picky but hey ho.... do you know he’s managing two wards by some other means than this article? I don't know him personally. He writes in the BMJ regularly and has written many articles for health care related media throughout the pandemic. If you search engine his name, you'll find extensive information about his background, qualifications, experience etc. Sadly Fab would not allow me to post links to the BMJ, the King's Fund, the Royal Berkshire NHS trust or any other sites where he is mentioned/is a contributor. Yes in the first lines you mentioned the two wards he was managing.... the article mentions a ward? Thanks for the PM. I transcribed (copied) a line from the article incorrectly. You have brought that to my attention. Thank you. If I could edit the original post, I would, but Fab does not allow it. Ok I said it quietly .... but .... you didn’t transcribe that line (copied??) that was in your opening piece .... your words prior to the article link. There is nowhere in the article anything similar is written. There is this line... ‘ He is currently managing a Covid ward at a hospital in the south of England’ which is distinctly different from your own but by a considerable margin. Actually the OP is correct. I read the article last night and it did mention 2 wards. I've just looked at the link now and the article has changed. The time the article was updated was after I read it. My first post on this thread shows the time. 12 hours ago- it's now 7.11am so approx. 7pm last night I read it. So OP - your OP was correct at the time you posted. Thank you, Outsider. Clearly I should now cancel my trip to Barnard Castle to have my eyesight checked "It was one of the few things I remembered about the article so I had to go investigate.   | |||
