3 ms·

"A further 43 per cent were made within two days of admission, with 13 per cent made in the days and weeks that followed, including those likely to have caught

"A further 43 per cent were made within two days of admission, with 13 per cent made in the days and weeks that followed, including those likely to have caught the virus in hospital." While I'm glad that they're looking at this, it seems less shocking than at first glance. This looks like 13 percent of those who are currently listed as Covid hospitalisations, were actually there for other reasons. Of the rest, nearly half had not bothered to get a covid-19 PCR test before going to the hospital. Given that this group is (we know from other sources) quite disproportionately from those who did not get vaccinated, is this surprising at all? They're people who for whatever reason shun interactions with medical procedures until they are in desperate straits. Now, the 13% who were did not test positive until more than a couple days after admission, that is something that should be investigated. But it wouldn't change the current picture hugely.

doesnotexist 5y ago
They don't really explain much about that 13%. So it's a bit misleading. How many of the 13% tested positive on day 3 for example. Testing positive on day 3 would still lead one to believe they had contracted covid prior to admission and covid illness could be contributing factor to their admission or even the primary reason. It seems more that the article wants to give the impression that the 13% entirely is comprised of post-admission covid positive being retroactively recategorized as covid admission. That may be true for some portion of the 13% but we have no way to know from this reporting. It's ironic that an article criticizing categorization/attribution being overly broad to do exactly that with the minority percentage that it hangs the entire thrust of its point upon.