IOM Covid removing restrictions

[pongo]

4 minutes ago, thesultanofsheight said:

It needs concise direct and honest PR to address these points

There is no such thing. PR is a euphemism for propaganda (and vice versa).

Edited November 10, 2020 by pongo

[tetchtyke]

Just now, thesultanofsheight said:

That’s not harsh at all compared to here. 

The maximum fine here is £10,000, and a judge has to issue that. Nobody has had the maximum fine.

Unless you're trying to argue that a week in Jurby is worse than having an 18yo find ten grand?

[thesultanofsheight]

Just now, tetchtyke said:

The maximum fine here is £10,000, and a judge has to issue that. Nobody has had the maximum fine.

No they’ve all had prison instead 🙃

[The Dog's Dangly Bits]

6 minutes ago, tetchtyke said:

The 47 year old rail worker who died of Covid was admitted to hospital on a Thursday and had died by the Sunday. As you say, Covid can kill quickly.

A little bit more detail would help- why were they in hospital already, etc- but that wouldn't change much. Say they're elderly and/or frail and you'd just get the usual suspects saying they'd have died anyway so it doesn't matter.

There are also data protection issues.  In reality it is confidential.  We don't go splashing details of every death around the public domain.  The family may not wish to consent to it.

[wrighty]

Dying from covid and dying with covid may be two completely different things, but for official stats you count as a ‘death from covid’ if you die within 28 days of a positive test. 
 

It’s helpful to have a standard definition which is informative on a population basis. Less so here with a small population. And given it’s a small population, I can understand why the government aren’t saying something like “our latest covid death had recently been diagnosed with x and that was what killed him/her not the virus” - that’s basically releasing personal medical information in a press conference. 
 

Just to confirm - I have no inside information on this latest case, and am illustrating rather than speculating or confirming suspicions. 

[Roger Mexico]

1 minute ago, wrighty said:

It’s helpful to have a standard definition which is informative on a population basis. Less so here with a small population. And given it’s a small population, I can understand why the government aren’t saying something like “our latest covid death had recently been diagnosed with x and that was what killed him/her not the virus” - that’s basically releasing personal medical information in a press conference. 

But you don't need to specify x in that case.  You just say "died from another condition which we are satisfied was not exacerbated by his viral infection" or something similar.  And you offer reassurance about shielding and so on.  No one is alleging a cover-up here, just that poor communication will make some people think that there might have been.

[Apple]

Exactly.

If it was a member of my family, what ever age, I would not want any details put out about their medical circumstances. people can sometime be careless about personal clinical information (just ask the Information Commissioner) and the several reports from DHSC this year where is is supposed to have happened - clinical letters sent to wrong address for example.

Also, see John Wrights comments on what he overheard from the locum's telephone call when he was on his own clinical appointment.

Edited November 10, 2020 by Apple
locum spelling

[Cambon]

50 minutes ago, thesultanofsheight said:

My exact point. It needs concise direct and honest PR to address these points before people go mad(der) and make stuff up and panic spreads. 

It is up to the family to decide when information is released, not the government. Relatives have to be informed, etc. 

Calm down, Karen!

[thesultanofsheight]

19 minutes ago, Cambon said:

It is up to the family to decide when information is released, not the government. Relatives have to be informed, etc. 

Calm down, Karen!

As Roger Mexico clearly said you don’t need anyone’s permission for non personal details to be released Karen. 

[The Dog's Dangly Bits]

1 minute ago, thesultanofsheight said:

As Roger Mexico clearly said you don’t need anyone’s permission for non personal details to be released Karen. 

They've already released the non personal details.

[Scotty]

1 hour ago, The Dog's Dangly Bits said:

There are also data protection issues.  In reality it is confidential.  We don't go splashing details of every death around the public domain.  The family may not wish to consent to it.

Not sure the family have a say to be honest. Keeping it out of hatched matched and dispatched may be in their power but if the death is from Covid-19, they may not have control of that info. Only my guess, but had read about similar across the pond.

[The Dog's Dangly Bits]

50 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

But you don't need to specify x in that case.  You just say "died from another condition which we are satisfied was not exacerbated by his viral infection" or something similar.  And you offer reassurance about shielding and so on.  No one is alleging a cover-up here, just that poor communication will make some people think that there might have been.

Or alternatively they could have simply died of covid and communicated that.

[thesultanofsheight]

5 minutes ago, The Dog's Dangly Bits said:

They've already released the non personal details.

They haven’t really. They’ve said someone has died of COVID-19 when it may well be that someone has died after testing positive for COVID-19. There is a very big difference there which I’m sure would be beneficial for them to clarify given some of the things being said and presented as “fact” on social media.

https://www.manxradio.com/news/isle-of-man-news/person-on-island-dies-from-covid-19/

Edited November 10, 2020 by thesultanofsheight

[The Dog's Dangly Bits]

3 minutes ago, Scotty said:

Not sure the family have a say to be honest. Keeping it out of hatched matched and dispatched may be in their power but if the death is from Covid-19, they may not have control of that info. Only my guess, but had read about similar across the pond.

There isn't a legal requirement to inform the public of a birth marriage or death aside of the recording of it ultimately.  Announcing stuff in the paper is a personal decision.

[Scotty]

3 minutes ago, The Dog's Dangly Bits said:

There isn't a legal requirement to inform the public of a birth marriage or death aside of the recording of it ultimately.  Announcing stuff in the paper is a personal decision.

I agree about that, but cause of death in the midst of a pandemic is different I think. I know they hid aids deaths, but this is more serious isn’t it ?