Hospital covid

Comment: In an outrageous development that has not produced the appropriate condemnation and questioning, changes to the way UK hospitals collect data will correct the way covid cases and deaths have been reported. Unlike the last 14 months where anyone who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, or died with a positive test for SARS-CoV-2, were deemed to be "positive cases" or have died "from covid", regardless of whether or not that was the actual cause of death, the new method will clinically define covid cases and deaths. This will create the necessary appearance that the vaccines are working and make the impact of the virus on the NHS "look better".

Hospitals have been told to change the way they collect data on patients infected with coronavirus to differentiate between those actually sick with symptoms and those who test positive while seeking treatment for something else.

The move would reduce the overall number of patients in hospital for coronavirus as until now data from hospitals has included all patients who tested positive for Covid-19, regardless of whether they had symptoms or not.

NHS England has instructed hospitals to make the change to the daily flow of data sent by NHS trusts and told The Independent that the move was being done to help analyse the effect of the vaccine programme and whether it was successfully reducing Covid-19 sickness.

It has not yet committed to publishing the data but the change could prove crucial to the government's decision to end lockdown on 21 June.

Comment: This is nothing short of a cynical manipulation of data and shows, most importantly, that the covid "case" and "death" data that was used for the past 14 months to terrify the population and justify draconian lockdowns was inaccurate.

The Lib Dem MP Layla Moran, chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Coronavirus, warned the government must not use the data to "massage" the figures as the 21 June decision nears.

Comment: The British govt. has been "massaging" the data since the very beginning of this faux pandemic.

One NHS source said the new data would be "more realistic" as not all patients were sick with the virus, adding: "But it will make figures look better as there have always been some, for example stroke [patients], who also had Covid as an incidental finding".

Comment: Only now, after a punitive and disastrous lockdown regime lasting more than 1 year, and which directly and indirectly caused a large number of unncessary deaths due to the denial of primary health care to many people, does the NHS decide to be "more realistic" about this virus. Where is the public outrage?

In a letter to hospital bosses on 7 June, shared with The Independent, NHS England's Covid incident director, Professor Keith Willett, said that from now on NHS England wanted a "a breakdown of the current stock of Covid patients into those who are in hospital with acute Covid-19 symptoms (and for whom Covid-19 is the primary reason for being in hospital); and those who are primarily in hospital for a reason other than Covid-19 (but for whom the hospital is having to manage and treat the Covid-19 symptoms alongside their primary condition)."

He added: "In lay terms this could be considered as a binary split between those in hospital 'for Covid-19' and those in hospital 'with Covid-19'. We are asking for this binary split for those patients newly admitted to hospital and those newly diagnosed with Covid while in hospital."

Comment: And finally, after more than 1 year of many, many people, including all of us here at, pointing out the screamingly obvious FACT that there always was a massive difference between deaths "from" and "with" Covid, the NHS and British govt. admits the truth. Sadly, it comes too late for millions of people who suffered massively, and the many who became ill and died from the mothballing of the much of the health care system.

During the coronavirus crisis many patients in hospital were sick from the virus, with intensive care units forced to double or triple their capacity and the vast majority of patients needing oxygen.

It has always been the case that as the virus spreads in the community some patients would be likely to test positive.

One clinician said: "As the community prevalence goes up, the in-hospital rate will go up in line with that. But if a proportion of that younger cohort are in hospital for other reasons, then the story is completely different. This change will give a much better view of this."

Comment: Yes, being accurate about reporting on covid cases and deaths makes the story "completely different". Why was this not done from the beginning of the "pandemic"?

Professor Ian Douglas from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine said: "I think there are good arguments for presenting these data separately - people in hospital 'with' vs 'for' Covid, as it does partly address the burden to health services due to the virus. Not completely though, because people in hospital with Covid will presumably also need to be treated differently to avoid further spread, which places some extra burden on the hospitals.

"I've got no idea what the split is like at the moment, and importantly we won't know retrospectively what the trend is. Following on from that, there are only a few days before any announcement about 21 June, which may not give us long enough to be sure about what direction the 'of Covid' numbers are going. What we shouldn't do is draw any inference about numbers being lower once the 'with Covid' numbers are stripped out."

Comment: Yes, it would be very unhelpful to governments who desire control through fear over the population to ever admit that the real numbers of people in danger from this virus are exceedingly small. So best to stay silent about that, even when the data is very clear.

Layla Moran told The Independent: "If this provides a more accurate picture of the impact of Covid on our hospitals then that should be welcomed. However, we need to be cautious about the government using this as a way to massage the figures as we approach 21 June.