piebaps Posted April 15, 2021 Share Posted April 15, 2021 Anaphalxis reaction he said. He had Parliamentary privilege but was essentially disclosing patient data which he has previously said can't be disclosed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Mexico Posted April 15, 2021 Share Posted April 15, 2021 6 minutes ago, Major Rushen said: Very sad. There will be no details until the coroner’s inquest. If that's true it means we'll never find out. It usually takes months for an inquest to happen and when it does the media never report it. And they are very rarely reported on the Judgments site as well - even if there have been recommendations made. And that's all in non-Covid times. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Annoymouse Posted April 15, 2021 Share Posted April 15, 2021 14 minutes ago, Banker said: Bad news https://www.manxradio.com/news/isle-of-man-news/health-minister-confirms-death-following-covid-vaccine/ Sad news indeed, I know they will want to reassure the public about having vaccinations and that the risk of adverse reaction is low, but I really hope they don’t try to gloss over this, equally how horrible for the nurse who injected what turned out to be a lethal injection, I hope they are getting the support required. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Onchan Posted April 15, 2021 Share Posted April 15, 2021 Just now, piebaps said: Anaphalxis reaction he said. He had Parliamentary privilege but was essentially disclosing patient data which he has previously said can't be disclosed. I see that the comment about the Crown Indemnity has now been removed from MR report. Which doesn't surprise me because when I read it I thought how fucking insensitive it was to even mention it! 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Grumpy Posted April 15, 2021 Share Posted April 15, 2021 2 minutes ago, Annoymouse said: Sad news indeed, I know they will want to reassure the public about having vaccinations and that the risk of adverse reaction is low, but I really hope they don’t try to gloss over this, equally how horrible for the nurse who injected what turned out to be a lethal injection, I hope they are getting the support required. I wonder if disregarding manufacturers' instructions will void any liability on their part Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Grumpy Posted April 15, 2021 Share Posted April 15, 2021 2 minutes ago, Andy Onchan said: I see that the comment about the Crown Indemnity has now been removed from MR report. Which doesn't surprise me because when I read it I thought how fucking insensitive it was to even mention it! It was insensitive and likely incorrect Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerryFuchwit Posted April 15, 2021 Share Posted April 15, 2021 9 minutes ago, Annoymouse said: Sad news indeed, I know they will want to reassure the public about having vaccinations and that the risk of adverse reaction is low, but I really hope they don’t try to gloss over this, equally how horrible for the nurse who injected what turned out to be a lethal injection, I hope they are getting the support required. They may not know. It isn't clear if this happened immediately at the hub or at a later point at home? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rhumsaa Posted April 15, 2021 Share Posted April 15, 2021 11 minutes ago, piebaps said: Anaphalxis reaction he said. He had Parliamentary privilege but was essentially disclosing patient data which he has previously said can't be disclosed. A friend of mine in the UK had a similar reaction but she was lucky to survive following some treatment as the onset was slow enough to treat It feels incorrect to also draw attention to the "it could be related to another health condition" caveat that was fought against so much when discussing Covid deaths last year Ultimately it is a potential side effect of medication and none of that makes the loss to the family any easier to bear 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piebaps Posted April 15, 2021 Share Posted April 15, 2021 9 minutes ago, Andy Onchan said: I see that the comment about the Crown Indemnity has now been removed from MR report. Which doesn't surprise me because when I read it I thought how fucking insensitive it was to even mention it! Wait and see if its "Loweyed" out of Hansard 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piebaps Posted April 15, 2021 Share Posted April 15, 2021 Just now, Rhumsaa said: A friend of mine in the UK had a similar reaction but she was lucky to survive following some treatment as the onset was slow enough to treat It feels incorrect to also draw attention to the "it could be related to another health condition" caveat that was fought against so much when discussing Covid deaths last year Ultimately it is a potential side effect of medication and none of that makes the loss to the family any easier to bear Indeed. I recall a friend discovering he had a severe allergic reaction to chillies....................while taking part in a chilli eating race!! Luckily we were at an event where paramedics were present and he got the treatment he needed and is still with us. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowman Posted April 15, 2021 Share Posted April 15, 2021 Was this death due to a first or second dose ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Onchan Posted April 15, 2021 Share Posted April 15, 2021 27 minutes ago, Dr. Grumpy said: It was insensitive and likely incorrect I see that MR have now inserted the audio from the sitting and he was responding to a question from Ms. Edge. That in itself was probably not necessary but could have been dealt with out of court at this stage... unless Ms. Edge required the answer on behalf of a constituent involved in the case? If not, then it would seem a little crass and insensitive to force the issue. No doubt she'll be along at some point to inform us why the question was necessary. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Grumpy Posted April 15, 2021 Share Posted April 15, 2021 6 minutes ago, Andy Onchan said: I see that MR have now inserted the audio from the sitting and he was responding to a question from Ms. Edge. That in itself was probably not necessary but could have been dealt with out of court at this stage... unless Ms. Edge required the answer on behalf of a constituent involved in the case? If not, then it would seem a little crass and insensitive to force the issue. No doubt she'll be along at some point to inform us why the question was necessary. Do we know what the question was? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerryFuchwit Posted April 15, 2021 Share Posted April 15, 2021 6 minutes ago, Andy Onchan said: I see that MR have now inserted the audio from the sitting and he was responding to a question from Ms. Edge. That in itself was probably not necessary but could have been dealt with out of court at this stage... unless Ms. Edge required the answer on behalf of a constituent involved in the case? If not, then it would seem a little crass and insensitive to force the issue. No doubt she'll be along at some point to inform us why the question was necessary. A necessary question? That'll be a first. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Grumpy Posted April 15, 2021 Share Posted April 15, 2021 51 minutes ago, Dr. Grumpy said: It was insensitive and likely incorrect The department 'self insures' apparently: Indemnity policy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.