Coronavirus being left off english death certificates

[Javert]

Yes, he does, because that's what is recorded.  It is accepted as "cause of death" on the certificate.  But that doesn't mean it was a contributing factor, because by definition of the regulations, "if before death the patient had symptoms typical of COVID-19 infection, but the test result has not been received, it would be satisfactory to give 'COVID-19' as the cause of death."



If you spend a second to even attempt to understand what this is saying, you may understand that a person with Covid-19 symptoms, (which might include a cough, a runny nose, a sneeze, a headache), may not even have Covid-19, but may be recorded with Covid-19 on the certificate.  How man times do you have read the same stuff before you actually understand it?

Death certificates have to be signed off and approved by more than one person normally, and can be challenged or changed.  That's one of the reasons why the data on death certificates comes with a much longer time lag.



It's unlikely someone would be having Covid-19 on their death certificate if the only evidence was a sneeze and runny nose - that's not the point.  There are a whole list of Covid-19 symptoms - the more of them you have, the more sure the doctor can be.  Doctors can also take into account known exposure to others who tested positive (e.g. living in the same house as them), and the timing of onset of symptoms.



Doctors are not stupid - they can figure out what is likely and no likely.

[Thomas]

Not the slightest bit precise.  Agreeing on what precisely?  About this?



"Mr Siddique said the cause of death was COVID-19 positive pneumonia, the hip fracture and frailty of old age, and he concluded Miss Smith 'died by way of accidental death.'"



Is that what you are interpreting as a significant contributing factor from Covid-19?

You added the word significant in your third reply on page 4 to me regarding barrys post.



I said it was one of three contributing factors mr siddique put down , and you can add the word significant all you like either way.

[Javert]

No, Javert, it doesn't.  Many people have it and have ABSOLUTELY NO SYMPTOMS WHATSOEVER.  So how can you make such a blatantly general statement?

I think you know very well what I meant - in the cases where people get very seriously ill, this is what happens.  Many of the people who get it don't progress to that stage because their body fights it off and their immune system does not go into ARDS and other side effects which then spread to other organs.  For the unlucky ones, this is what happens.



Also, before saying that it only affects old people, we should keep in mind that based  on current known data (which I'm sure will be pointed out is not 100% accurate quite obviously at this stage), if everyone in the UK was to get Covid-19, it would result in the deaths of several hundred perfectly fit and healthy children.  That might not be a high risk for each individual child, but when you scale up a very small risk over millions of people, you get a lot of deaths.

[Scott777]

To be precise , im agreeing with mr siddique in this story regarding mrs smiths death.

Not the slightest bit precise.  Agreeing on what precisely?  About this?



"Mr Siddique said the cause of death was COVID-19 positive pneumonia, the hip fracture and frailty of old age, and he concluded Miss Smith 'died by way of accidental death.'"



Is that what you are interpreting as a significant contributing factor from Covid-19?

[Thomas]

So, to be precise, are you saying that announcing 'cause of death' is the same as saying it actually did contribute to death?

To be precise , im agreeing with mr siddique in this story regarding mrs smiths death.



You are the one challenging it , so to be precise , prove where mr siddique is wrong , or we can safely dismiss yet another of your empty throw away remarks as normal

[Scott777]

This isnt false. You need to prove its false. It doesnt become false because you say so.

So, to be precise, are you saying that announcing 'cause of death' is the same as saying it actually did contribute to death?

[Thomas]

So are you agreeing then, that Covid-19 in a death might not be a contributing factor?

We are talkiing specifically about mrs smiths case. I am definetly not agreeing with you in this case.

You agreed with the coroner that is was a significant contributing factor

Yawn ,yes i did and still do.

BACKTRACHING. And that has caused a confusing discussion, but moving on...

This is a lie, there is absolutely no backtracking on my part, i have been consistently in support of mr siddique announcing covid 19 as one of three causes of death from the start. You were the one challenging it.

but that is false, and I have twice stated why - because the presence of Covid-19 (going by symptoms) is sufficient reason to put it on the certificate.

This isnt false. You need to prove its false. It doesnt become false because you say so.



This is the whole fallacy of your argument scott.



You are the one challenging this story , you need to disprove it.



Im agreeing with the story , and all i need to sit and do is carry on agreeing with it and waiting for you to back up your original point , and we both know you cant , and you wont.



Its hilarious listening to you , and all your squirms and wriggling on that hook i have you on.

He is right "according to the rules", but I am saying it is absurd to do so if it wasn't a significant contributing factor.

So again you contradict yourself in your squirming. You agree with me mr siddique is right  , because we both know you cant prove him wrong , but to save face you throw in yet another empty remark about it being absurd. Pure innuendo yet again.



Thats all you have scott....empty throw away remarks to try and back up your wacky in denial theories. :roll:  ::



You might want to get your arguments prepared a little bit better in future before attempting to smear someone in a story because you are in total denial about covid 19.

[Scott777]

So are you agreeing then, that Covid-19 in a death might not be a contributing factor?

I couldnt tell you about a random case.

You agreed with the coroner that is was a significant contributing factor

aye and i still do.

BACKTRACHING.  And that has caused a confusing discussion, but moving on...

He might not have used those specific words , he announced it as one of three causes of death though. One of which you dispute as why it is being mentioned.

This is the problem.  You have assumed that announcing 'cause of death' is the same as saying it actually did contribute to death, but that is false, and I have twice stated why - because the presence of Covid-19 (going by symptoms) is sufficient reason to put it on the certificate.

So to back up your argument i am asking you to prove why mr siddique is wrong in announciong covid 19 as one of the causes of death .over to you?

He is right "according to the rules", but I am saying it is absurd to do so if it wasn't a significant contributing factor.

[Thomas]

I wasn't, but you have led me to taking crack cocaine just to deal with your absurd argument.

Barry posted a story about two seperate deaths in page 4 , second post , you went on to challenge why covid 19 was being mentioned , and i challenged your post as to why it shouldnt.



We are now on the 8th page and counting and you are still playing silly games , diversions , lying and making things up as you have no answers and cant back up what you are saying.

[Thomas]

:hattip

I think I recall that, but it doesn't matter too much for the purposes of my point.  

You dont have a point.



You are questioning a coroners statement in a story but cant prove where he is wrong in naming covid 19 as one of three causes of death.

[Scott777]

I have to ask scott , genuinely , are you on drugs?

I wasn't, but you have led me to taking crack cocaine just to deal with your absurd argument.

[Scott777]

None of you got from the report that Miss Smith died of accidental death, and Mr Bowater died of natural causes, then?

There's no mention of what was on the death certificates.

 :hattip

I think I recall that, but it doesn't matter too much for the purposes of my point.  I believe we are both assuming that the coroner's statement about 'cause of death' is referring to the death certificate, or matches with it.

[Thomas]

That wasn't your argument.  

aye it was.

You agreed with the coroner that is was a significant contributing factor

aye and i still do.

(even though he didn't say that)

He might not have used those specific words , he announced it as one of three causes of death though. One of which you dispute as why it is being mentioned.

As to 'why it should not be on the cert' - actually I did say very clearly that it should only be on there if it was a significant contributing factor, but the rules allow for it even when there was no significant contributing factor.

So to back up your argument i am asking you to prove why mr siddique is wrong in announciong covid 19 as one of the causes of death .over to you?

[Scott777]

Your whole argument is questioning why covid 19 was on the death ceritficate . My argument to you is why shouldnt it be on there ,we have no reason to doubt mr siddique and you go off on a load of diversions and innuendo and your usual bullshit. :roll:

That wasn't your argument.  You agreed with the coroner that is was a significant contributing factor (even though he didn't say that).  As to 'why it should not be on the cert' - actually I did say very clearly that it should only be on there if it was a significant contributing factor, but the rules allow for it even when there was no significant contributing factor.

[Thomas]

None of you got from the report that Miss Smith died of accidental death, and Mr Bowater died of natural causes, then?

Well im discussing with scott miss smith barry. We havent got to mr bowater yet.



Im going with what the coroner said in paragraph 7 , what he announces are the three causes of death. Scott is disputing why covid 19 is being mentioned.