COVID-19 in Trinidad & Tobago (Local Updates & Discussions Only)

[adnj]

The vaccine failed those 3 citizens. We were told that the vaccine offered 100% protection against death. If you can still die with the vaccine, what's the point?

No one ever said that the vaccine was 100% effective. No medication is. Yes, you can still die vaccinated but your chances of that happening are *significantly* reduced. I don't see what's so hard to understand about that.

What was said:

Chief Medical Officer Dr Roshan Parasram on Saturday said the three had severe comorbidities which possibly contributed to their deaths even though they were fully vaccinated.

“We had three fully vaccinated persons out of the 668 giving us a per cent of .45 of all deaths that would have been vaccinated. Meaning, of the cases that would have died from June 8 to present, 668, 99.45 per cent were unvaccinated, which is what the data tells us from across the world,” Parasaram said on Saturday.

https://newsday.co.tt/2021/08/28/chief- ... f-covid19/

99.5% of the deaths during the same period were unvaccinated.

Take note, how they disseminate information, the 3 that died had co morbidities that not breaking doctor patient confidentiality but you can't even give the ages of the alleged children in hospital care.Make it make sense

Confidentiality typically ends upon patient death. No details have been divulged.

You're rationalizing your position:

- you've accepted a heightened level of personal risk.
- you've increased the risk for anyone around you.
- you amplify only the issues that you believe will support your position.
- you make sweeping accusations with little to no evidence to support your position.
- you continue to be the only one drawing attention to your personal stance.

You are effectively playing the role of the victim. That is typically done to elicit sympathy. I don't have any.

[hover11]

The vaccine failed those 3 citizens. We were told that the vaccine offered 100% protection against death. If you can still die with the vaccine, what's the point?

No one ever said that the vaccine was 100% effective. No medication is. Yes, you can still die vaccinated but your chances of that happening are *significantly* reduced. I don't see what's so hard to understand about that.

What was said:

Chief Medical Officer Dr Roshan Parasram on Saturday said the three had severe comorbidities which possibly contributed to their deaths even though they were fully vaccinated.

“We had three fully vaccinated persons out of the 668 giving us a per cent of .45 of all deaths that would have been vaccinated. Meaning, of the cases that would have died from June 8 to present, 668, 99.45 per cent were unvaccinated, which is what the data tells us from across the world,” Parasaram said on Saturday.

https://newsday.co.tt/2021/08/28/chief- ... f-covid19/

99.5% of the deaths during the same period were unvaccinated.

Take note, how they disseminate information, the 3 that died had co morbidities that not breaking doctor patient confidentiality but you can't even give the ages of the alleged children in hospital care.Make it make sense

Confidentiality typically ends upon patient death. No details have been divulged.

You're rationalizing your position:

- you've accepted a heightened level of personal risk.
- you've increased the risk for anyone around you.
- you amplify only the issues that you believe will support your position.
- you make sweeping accusations with little to no evidence to support your position.
- you continue to be the only one drawing attention to your personal stance.

You are effectively playing the role of the victim. That is typically done to elicit sympathy. I don't have any.

Doctor patient confidentiality does not end with death, don't know where you ascertained that information but in the medical community Confidentiality can precede birth and outlasts death...as you were

[drchaos]

The vaccine failed those 3 citizens. We were told that the vaccine offered 100% protection against death. If you can still die with the vaccine, what's the point?

No one ever said that the vaccine was 100% effective. No medication is. Yes, you can still die vaccinated but your chances of that happening are *significantly* reduced. I don't see what's so hard to understand about that.

What was said:

Chief Medical Officer Dr Roshan Parasram on Saturday said the three had severe comorbidities which possibly contributed to their deaths even though they were fully vaccinated.

“We had three fully vaccinated persons out of the 668 giving us a per cent of .45 of all deaths that would have been vaccinated. Meaning, of the cases that would have died from June 8 to present, 668, 99.45 per cent were unvaccinated, which is what the data tells us from across the world,” Parasaram said on Saturday.

https://newsday.co.tt/2021/08/28/chief- ... f-covid19/

99.5% of the deaths during the same period were unvaccinated.

Take note, how they disseminate information, the 3 that died had co morbidities that not breaking doctor patient confidentiality but you can't even give the ages of the alleged children in hospital care.Make it make sense

Confidentiality typically ends upon patient death. No details have been divulged.

You're rationalizing your position:

- you've accepted a heightened level of personal risk.
- you've increased the risk for anyone around you.
- you amplify only the issues that you believe will support your position.
- you make sweeping accusations with little to no evidence to support your position.
- you continue to be the only one drawing attention to your personal stance.

You are effectively playing the role of the victim. That is typically done to elicit sympathy. I don't have any.

This guys continues to spout absolute sheit ...

Patient Confidentiality extends after death and continues indefinitely.
I hope to god you are not in the medical field ... If you are not then it shows, if you are then you are a quack with no medical ethics.

[drchaos]

The vaccine failed those 3 citizens. We were told that the vaccine offered 100% protection against death. If you can still die with the vaccine, what's the point?

No one ever said that the vaccine was 100% effective. No medication is. Yes, you can still die vaccinated but your chances of that happening are *significantly* reduced. I don't see what's so hard to understand about that.

What was said:

Chief Medical Officer Dr Roshan Parasram on Saturday said the three had severe comorbidities which possibly contributed to their deaths even though they were fully vaccinated.

“We had three fully vaccinated persons out of the 668 giving us a per cent of .45 of all deaths that would have been vaccinated. Meaning, of the cases that would have died from June 8 to present, 668, 99.45 per cent were unvaccinated, which is what the data tells us from across the world,” Parasaram said on Saturday.

https://newsday.co.tt/2021/08/28/chief- ... f-covid19/

99.5% of the deaths during the same period were unvaccinated.

If they got a better vaccine this probably would not have happened.
Vs the sheit you guys peddle like "the best vaccine is the one available"
Feel like clouting people when I hear that nonsense

the truth is the best vaccine is the one with the highest efficacy and lowest risk of short and long term effects. Demand the best from your govahment and you will get the best. Tell them where to shove that sinopharm and AstraZeneca sheit. Otherwise go eat dung and tell yourself is the highest quality Belgian chocolate cause its the only thing available.

[hover11]

Then we wonder why it still have cases...all covid protocols observed ...NOT!!!

[sam1978]

Tell them Hover11. When the Illuminati start send out the 5G signals and turn all of them into zombies, only then they will see how much sense you talking now. They will can’t say you didn’t warn dem!

[adnj]

The vaccine failed those 3 citizens. We were told that the vaccine offered 100% protection against death. If you can still die with the vaccine, what's the point?

No one ever said that the vaccine was 100% effective. No medication is. Yes, you can still die vaccinated but your chances of that happening are *significantly* reduced. I don't see what's so hard to understand about that.

What was said:

Chief Medical Officer Dr Roshan Parasram on Saturday said the three had severe comorbidities which possibly contributed to their deaths even though they were fully vaccinated.

“We had three fully vaccinated persons out of the 668 giving us a per cent of .45 of all deaths that would have been vaccinated. Meaning, of the cases that would have died from June 8 to present, 668, 99.45 per cent were unvaccinated, which is what the data tells us from across the world,” Parasaram said on Saturday.

https://newsday.co.tt/2021/08/28/chief- ... f-covid19/

99.5% of the deaths during the same period were unvaccinated.

Take note, how they disseminate information, the 3 that died had co morbidities that not breaking doctor patient confidentiality but you can't even give the ages of the alleged children in hospital care.Make it make sense

Confidentiality typically ends upon patient death. No details have been divulged.

You're rationalizing your position:

- you've accepted a heightened level of personal risk.
- you've increased the risk for anyone around you.
- you amplify only the issues that you believe will support your position.
- you make sweeping accusations with little to no evidence to support your position.
- you continue to be the only one drawing attention to your personal stance.

You are effectively playing the role of the victim. That is typically done to elicit sympathy. I don't have any.

This guys continues to spout absolute sheit ...

Patient Confidentiality extends after death and continues indefinitely.
I hope to god you are not in the medical field ... If you are not then it shows, if you are then you are a quack with no medical ethics.

Doctor patient confidentiality does not end with death, don't know where you ascertained that information but in the medical community Confidentiality can precede birth and outlasts death...as you were

Strict confidentiality typically ends at death. You really have to read the fine print.

Let's just agree to add this to the list of what you pretend to know.

------

Because maintaining strict confidentiality is often untenable, or even illegal, determining the extent of protections in the postmortem context ultimately entails a weighing of the various interests at stake.

Opinion 5.051 of the AMA’s Code of Medical Ethics states that, in deciding whether disclosure of medical information postmortem is appropriate, the following factors must be considered: (1) the imminence of harm to identifiable individuals or the public health; (2) the potential benefit to at-risk individuals or the public health; (3) any statement or directive made by the patient regarding postmortem disclosure; (4) the impact disclosure may have on the reputation of the deceased patient; and (5) personal gain for the physician that may unduly influence him or her.

Further, the AMA suggests that protection of the confidentiality of medical information postmortem be equal to the protections in effect during a patient’s life. Medical information during life is granted a significant amount of protection, subject only to legal requirements to disclose and overriding considerations that ethically justify disclosure (and then, only minimal information may be disclosed). Because maintaining strict confidentiality is often untenable, or even illegal, determining the extent of protections in the postmortem context ultimately entails a weighing of the various interests at stake.

https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/ar ... rt/2012-09

[Gladiator]

Tell them Hover11. When the Illuminati start send out the 5G signals and turn all of them into zombies, only then they will see how much sense you talking now. They will can’t say you didn’t warn dem!

LOL... The PNM vote bank was probably the prototype they was testing.

I always hear Eric was a mason lodge illuminati man.

[redmanjp]

3 out of the 668 deaths from June to now were fully vaccinated. Stated in the press conference today

More reason to take the chook. Roll up your sleeves...

You can still die with the jab regardless

You can also die from car accidents. I suppose u avoiding going anywhere in a car right.

All those disinfectants that have a 99.9% effectiveness should be discarded as well it's not 100%.

[MaxPower]

Then we wonder why it still have cases...all covid protocols observed ...NOT!!!

FB_IMG_1630205249480.jpg

Wow if jackassville was a place

[redmanjp]

Looks like Hover went to take the vaccine.

Not a sheep , so no that ain't me. I will never take that vaccine , guess I'm part of the majority of the population unvaccinated

Many unvaccinated ppl who lying in hospital now with covid now wishing they were sheep.

[death365]

Malls will end up just like supermarkets...


Covid Central

[timelapse]

Are blood clots a new symptom of covid? or that can cause it after you are suffering from it?

Thats Jamaican Covid

[drchaos]

The vaccine failed those 3 citizens. We were told that the vaccine offered 100% protection against death. If you can still die with the vaccine, what's the point?

No one ever said that the vaccine was 100% effective. No medication is. Yes, you can still die vaccinated but your chances of that happening are *significantly* reduced. I don't see what's so hard to understand about that.

What was said:

Chief Medical Officer Dr Roshan Parasram on Saturday said the three had severe comorbidities which possibly contributed to their deaths even though they were fully vaccinated.

“We had three fully vaccinated persons out of the 668 giving us a per cent of .45 of all deaths that would have been vaccinated. Meaning, of the cases that would have died from June 8 to present, 668, 99.45 per cent were unvaccinated, which is what the data tells us from across the world,” Parasaram said on Saturday.

https://newsday.co.tt/2021/08/28/chief- ... f-covid19/

99.5% of the deaths during the same period were unvaccinated.

Take note, how they disseminate information, the 3 that died had co morbidities that not breaking doctor patient confidentiality but you can't even give the ages of the alleged children in hospital care.Make it make sense

Confidentiality typically ends upon patient death. No details have been divulged.

You're rationalizing your position:

- you've accepted a heightened level of personal risk.
- you've increased the risk for anyone around you.
- you amplify only the issues that you believe will support your position.
- you make sweeping accusations with little to no evidence to support your position.
- you continue to be the only one drawing attention to your personal stance.

You are effectively playing the role of the victim. That is typically done to elicit sympathy. I don't have any.

This guys continues to spout absolute sheit ...

Patient Confidentiality extends after death and continues indefinitely.
I hope to god you are not in the medical field ... If you are not then it shows, if you are then you are a quack with no medical ethics.

Doctor patient confidentiality does not end with death, don't know where you ascertained that information but in the medical community Confidentiality can precede birth and outlasts death...as you were

Strict confidentiality typically ends at death. You really have to read the fine print.

Let's just agree to add this to the list of what you pretend to know.

------

Because maintaining strict confidentiality is often untenable, or even illegal, determining the extent of protections in the postmortem context ultimately entails a weighing of the various interests at stake.

Opinion 5.051 of the AMA’s Code of Medical Ethics states that, in deciding whether disclosure of medical information postmortem is appropriate, the following factors must be considered: (1) the imminence of harm to identifiable individuals or the public health; (2) the potential benefit to at-risk individuals or the public health; (3) any statement or directive made by the patient regarding postmortem disclosure; (4) the impact disclosure may have on the reputation of the deceased patient; and (5) personal gain for the physician that may unduly influence him or her.

Further, the AMA suggests that protection of the confidentiality of medical information postmortem be equal to the protections in effect during a patient’s life. Medical information during life is granted a significant amount of protection, subject only to legal requirements to disclose and overriding considerations that ethically justify disclosure (and then, only minimal information may be disclosed). Because maintaining strict confidentiality is often untenable, or even illegal, determining the extent of protections in the postmortem context ultimately entails a weighing of the various interests at stake.

https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/ar ... rt/2012-09

Man change his statement fast when he realized he dead wrong
First he said it typically ends at death … now he’s is saying “strict” confidentiality ends after death.

All the while quoting from the AMA which has nothing to do with Trinidadian medical ethics which comes from our laws and the Trinidad medical board.

The dotish trying to play smart.

[timelapse]

Looks like Hover went to take the vaccine.

Not a sheep , so no that ain't me. I will never take that vaccine , guess I'm part of the majority of the population unvaccinated

You are a sheep, just different flock.Think about it

[hover11]

Looks like Hover went to take the vaccine.

Not a sheep , so no that ain't me. I will never take that vaccine , guess I'm part of the majority of the population unvaccinated

You are a sheep, just different flock.Think about it

This really doesn't need any debate. We are all adults and we are capable of making decisions we deem right for ourselves. So, it's as simple as this, take the vaccine and live your life peacefully or don't take the vaccine and live peacefully.
I don't see the relevance of those who don't want to take it trying to persuade others not to and vice versa. Let us live how we feel comfortable until the Lord sees it fit to call us home

[Kenjo]

Looks like Hover went to take the vaccine.

Not a sheep , so no that ain't me. I will never take that vaccine , guess I'm part of the majority of the population unvaccinated

You are a sheep, just different flock.Think about it

This really doesn't need any debate. We are all adults and we are capable of making decisions we deem right for ourselves. So, it's as simple as this, take the vaccine and love your life peacefully or don't take the vaccine and live peacefully.
I don't see the relevance of those who don't want to take it trying to persuade others not to and vice versa. Let us live how we feel comfortable until the Lord sees it fit to call us home

I don’t understand either the ones who don’t want to take it going on and on about not taking it . They seem to be in so much self doubt that daily they need to remind themselves why and find any info for their conclusion

[Mmoney607]

The vaccine failed those 3 citizens. We were told that the vaccine offered 100% protection against death. If you can still die with the vaccine, what's the point?

No one ever said that the vaccine was 100% effective. No medication is. Yes, you can still die vaccinated but your chances of that happening are *significantly* reduced. I don't see what's so hard to understand about that.

What was said:

Chief Medical Officer Dr Roshan Parasram on Saturday said the three had severe comorbidities which possibly contributed to their deaths even though they were fully vaccinated.

“We had three fully vaccinated persons out of the 668 giving us a per cent of .45 of all deaths that would have been vaccinated. Meaning, of the cases that would have died from June 8 to present, 668, 99.45 per cent were unvaccinated, which is what the data tells us from across the world,” Parasaram said on Saturday.

https://newsday.co.tt/2021/08/28/chief- ... f-covid19/

99.5% of the deaths during the same period were unvaccinated.

This man wicked boy. Oh goshhh.

You go compare Trinidad (who now get vaccine because men was waiting to sign a deal with China) to other proactive countries that had vaccines easily available to everyone months now??

And secondly, because someone have a comorbidity that mean it acceptable for them to die? This coming from the CMO no wonder over 1200 people dead.

[Mmoney607]

The vaccine failed those 3 citizens. We were told that the vaccine offered 100% protection against death. If you can still die with the vaccine, what's the point?

No one ever said that the vaccine was 100% effective. No medication is. Yes, you can still die vaccinated but your chances of that happening are *significantly* reduced. I don't see what's so hard to understand about that.

What was said:

Chief Medical Officer Dr Roshan Parasram on Saturday said the three had severe comorbidities which possibly contributed to their deaths even though they were fully vaccinated.

“We had three fully vaccinated persons out of the 668 giving us a per cent of .45 of all deaths that would have been vaccinated. Meaning, of the cases that would have died from June 8 to present, 668, 99.45 per cent were unvaccinated, which is what the data tells us from across the world,” Parasaram said on Saturday.

https://newsday.co.tt/2021/08/28/chief- ... f-covid19/

99.5% of the deaths during the same period were unvaccinated.

Take note, how they disseminate information, the 3 that died had co morbidities that not breaking doctor patient confidentiality but you can't even give the ages of the alleged children in hospital care.Make it make sense

Confidentiality typically ends upon patient death. No details have been divulged.

You're rationalizing your position:

- you've accepted a heightened level of personal risk.
- you've increased the risk for anyone around you.
- you amplify only the issues that you believe will support your position.
- you make sweeping accusations with little to no evidence to support your position.
- you continue to be the only one drawing attention to your personal stance.

You are effectively playing the role of the victim. That is typically done to elicit sympathy. I don't have any.

This guys continues to spout absolute sheit ...

Patient Confidentiality extends after death and continues indefinitely.
I hope to god you are not in the medical field ... If you are not then it shows, if you are then you are a quack with no medical ethics.

Doctor patient confidentiality does not end with death, don't know where you ascertained that information but in the medical community Confidentiality can precede birth and outlasts death...as you were

Strict confidentiality typically ends at death. You really have to read the fine print.

Let's just agree to add this to the list of what you pretend to know.

------

Because maintaining strict confidentiality is often untenable, or even illegal, determining the extent of protections in the postmortem context ultimately entails a weighing of the various interests at stake.

Opinion 5.051 of the AMA’s Code of Medical Ethics states that, in deciding whether disclosure of medical information postmortem is appropriate, the following factors must be considered: (1) the imminence of harm to identifiable individuals or the public health; (2) the potential benefit to at-risk individuals or the public health; (3) any statement or directive made by the patient regarding postmortem disclosure; (4) the impact disclosure may have on the reputation of the deceased patient; and (5) personal gain for the physician that may unduly influence him or her.

Further, the AMA suggests that protection of the confidentiality of medical information postmortem be equal to the protections in effect during a patient’s life. Medical information during life is granted a significant amount of protection, subject only to legal requirements to disclose and overriding considerations that ethically justify disclosure (and then, only minimal information may be disclosed). Because maintaining strict confidentiality is often untenable, or even illegal, determining the extent of protections in the postmortem context ultimately entails a weighing of the various interests at stake.

https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/ar ... rt/2012-09

Man change his statement fast when he realized he dead wrong
First he said it typically ends at death … now he’s is saying “strict” confidentiality ends after death.

All the while quoting from the AMA which has nothing to do with Trinidadian medical ethics which comes from our laws and the Trinidad medical board.

The dotish trying to play smart.

He go change the topic now

[adnj]

The vaccine failed those 3 citizens. We were told that the vaccine offered 100% protection against death. If you can still die with the vaccine, what's the point?

No one ever said that the vaccine was 100% effective. No medication is. Yes, you can still die vaccinated but your chances of that happening are *significantly* reduced. I don't see what's so hard to understand about that.

What was said:

Chief Medical Officer Dr Roshan Parasram on Saturday said the three had severe comorbidities which possibly contributed to their deaths even though they were fully vaccinated.

“We had three fully vaccinated persons out of the 668 giving us a per cent of .45 of all deaths that would have been vaccinated. Meaning, of the cases that would have died from June 8 to present, 668, 99.45 per cent were unvaccinated, which is what the data tells us from across the world,” Parasaram said on Saturday.

https://newsday.co.tt/2021/08/28/chief- ... f-covid19/

99.5% of the deaths during the same period were unvaccinated.

Take note, how they disseminate information, the 3 that died had co morbidities that not breaking doctor patient confidentiality but you can't even give the ages of the alleged children in hospital care.Make it make sense

Confidentiality typically ends upon patient death. No details have been divulged.

You're rationalizing your position:

- you've accepted a heightened level of personal risk.
- you've increased the risk for anyone around you.
- you amplify only the issues that you believe will support your position.
- you make sweeping accusations with little to no evidence to support your position.
- you continue to be the only one drawing attention to your personal stance.

You are effectively playing the role of the victim. That is typically done to elicit sympathy. I don't have any.

This guys continues to spout absolute sheit ...

Patient Confidentiality extends after death and continues indefinitely.
I hope to god you are not in the medical field ... If you are not then it shows, if you are then you are a quack with no medical ethics.

Doctor patient confidentiality does not end with death, don't know where you ascertained that information but in the medical community Confidentiality can precede birth and outlasts death...as you were

Strict confidentiality typically ends at death. You really have to read the fine print.

Let's just agree to add this to the list of what you pretend to know.

------

Because maintaining strict confidentiality is often untenable, or even illegal, determining the extent of protections in the postmortem context ultimately entails a weighing of the various interests at stake.

Opinion 5.051 of the AMA’s Code of Medical Ethics states that, in deciding whether disclosure of medical information postmortem is appropriate, the following factors must be considered: (1) the imminence of harm to identifiable individuals or the public health; (2) the potential benefit to at-risk individuals or the public health; (3) any statement or directive made by the patient regarding postmortem disclosure; (4) the impact disclosure may have on the reputation of the deceased patient; and (5) personal gain for the physician that may unduly influence him or her.

Further, the AMA suggests that protection of the confidentiality of medical information postmortem be equal to the protections in effect during a patient’s life. Medical information during life is granted a significant amount of protection, subject only to legal requirements to disclose and overriding considerations that ethically justify disclosure (and then, only minimal information may be disclosed). Because maintaining strict confidentiality is often untenable, or even illegal, determining the extent of protections in the postmortem context ultimately entails a weighing of the various interests at stake.

https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/ar ... rt/2012-09

Man change his statement fast when he realized he dead wrong
First he said it typically ends at death … now he’s is saying “strict” confidentiality ends after death.

All the while quoting from the AMA which has nothing to do with Trinidadian medical ethics which comes from our laws and the Trinidad medical board.

The dotish trying to play smart.

The statements made are equivalent.

[adnj]

He go change the topic now

Man change his statement fast when he realized he dead wrong
First he said it typically ends at death … now he’s is saying “strict” confidentiality ends after death.

All the while quoting from the AMA which has nothing to do with Trinidadian medical ethics which comes from our laws and the Trinidad medical board.

The dotish trying to play smart.

What I said hasn't changed. Trinidad's published stance is the same as the US. Sorry, I know you two really want to find something relevant to post about.

Confidentiality typically ends at death. Otherwise, it would have taken a court order to disclose ANY patient information without the patient's written consent.

Because maintaining strict confidentiality is often untenable, or even illegal, determining the extent of protections in the postmortem context ultimately entails a weighing of the various interests at stake.

Opinion 5.051 of the AMA’s Code of Medical Ethics states that, in deciding whether disclosure of medical information postmortem is appropriate, the following factors must be considered: (1) the imminence of harm to identifiable individuals or the public health; (2) the potential benefit to at-risk individuals or the public health; (3) any statement or directive made by the patient regarding postmortem disclosure; (4) the impact disclosure may have on the reputation of the deceased patient; and (5) personal gain for the physician that may unduly influence him or her.

Further, the AMA suggests that protection of the confidentiality of medical information postmortem be equal to the protections in effect during a patient’s life. Medical information during life is granted a significant amount of protection, subject only to legal requirements to disclose and overriding considerations that ethically justify disclosure (and then, only minimal information may be disclosed). Because maintaining strict confidentiality is often untenable, or even illegal, determining the extent of protections in the postmortem context ultimately entails a weighing of the various interests at stake.

https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/ar ... rt/2012-09

Confidentiality

A physician has a duty to keep his patient’s information confidential. This duty continues until after death, however in certain circumstances, the duty is overridden by considerations of the public interest .
These include:

If a patient because of their medical condition is considered to be a danger to themselves or another (e.g. highly infectious or communicable disease), then the physician has a duty to warn the at-risk person(s).

If a patient’s medical information has to be shared with health care providers in order to facilitate that patient’s care.

If there is a statutory requirement to notify (e.g. Occupational Safety and Health Act, gunshot wounds).

In maintaining physician-patient confidentiality, special attention should be given to securing patients records against any third party.

The patient’s consent should be sought prior to sharing medical information.

http://www.mbtt.org/CodeOfEthics_The_sc ... ciples.htm

[K74T]

185 new cases, 4 deaths.

[De Dragon]

Looks like Hover went to take the vaccine.

Not a sheep , so no that ain't me. I will never take that vaccine , guess I'm part of the majority of the population unvaccinated

You are a sheep, just different flock.Think about it

This really doesn't need any debate. We are all adults and we are capable of making decisions we deem right for ourselves. So, it's as simple as this, take the vaccine and love your life peacefully or don't take the vaccine and live peacefully.
I don't see the relevance of those who don't want to take it trying to persuade others not to and vice versa. Let us live how we feel comfortable until the Lord sees it fit to call us home

I don’t understand either the ones who don’t want to take it going on and on about not taking it . They seem to be in so much self doubt that daily they need to remind themselves why and find any info for their conclusion

Except, the unvaxxed dummies are the reason we have 3 additional months of SOE, an additional wait of at least 1 month for return to school, lockdowns etc.
Then again, these same dummies feel it's the other way around.

[daring dragoon]

Looks like Hover went to take the vaccine.

Not a sheep , so no that ain't me. I will never take that vaccine , guess I'm part of the majority of the population unvaccinated

You are a sheep, just different flock.Think about it

This really doesn't need any debate. We are all adults and we are capable of making decisions we deem right for ourselves. So, it's as simple as this, take the vaccine and love your life peacefully or don't take the vaccine and live peacefully.
I don't see the relevance of those who don't want to take it trying to persuade others not to and vice versa. Let us live how we feel comfortable until the Lord sees it fit to call us home

I don’t understand either the ones who don’t want to take it going on and on about not taking it . They seem to be in so much self doubt that daily they need to remind themselves why and find any info for their conclusion

Except, the unvaxxed dummies are the reason we have 3 additional months of SOE, an additional wait of at least 1 month for return to school, lockdowns etc.
Then again, these same dummies feel it's the other way around.

its not the unvaxxed you need to be angry towards and call them dummies. you should actually be angry towards the arseholes that today 185 persons joined the rank. the arseholes who dont wear a mask properly, who cannot social distance, who to stink to wash hands and sanitize, who continue to feel they invincible so they going by family, carrying children to grocery, entire families going to buy fast food or take a drive and meet up with other family not of the same household, cannot wear mask properly. gone grocery today people dont know 6 feet apart, see people eating by the doubles man, see men liming drinking beers ,wearing chin mask. these are the skunts you need to clout up.

[De Dragon]

Looks like Hover went to take the vaccine.

Not a sheep , so no that ain't me. I will never take that vaccine , guess I'm part of the majority of the population unvaccinated

You are a sheep, just different flock.Think about it

This really doesn't need any debate. We are all adults and we are capable of making decisions we deem right for ourselves. So, it's as simple as this, take the vaccine and love your life peacefully or don't take the vaccine and live peacefully.
I don't see the relevance of those who don't want to take it trying to persuade others not to and vice versa. Let us live how we feel comfortable until the Lord sees it fit to call us home

I don’t understand either the ones who don’t want to take it going on and on about not taking it . They seem to be in so much self doubt that daily they need to remind themselves why and find any info for their conclusion

Except, the unvaxxed dummies are the reason we have 3 additional months of SOE, an additional wait of at least 1 month for return to school, lockdowns etc.
Then again, these same dummies feel it's the other way around.

its not the unvaxxed you need to be angry towards and call them dummies. you should actually be angry towards the arseholes that today 185 persons joined the rank. the arseholes who dont wear a mask properly, who cannot social distance, who to stink to wash hands and sanitize, who continue to feel they invincible so they going by family, carrying children to grocery, entire families going to buy fast food or take a drive and meet up with other family not of the same household, cannot wear mask properly. gone grocery today people dont know 6 feet apart, see people eating by the doubles man, see men liming drinking beers ,wearing chin mask. these are the skunts you need to clout up.

Those are the unvaxxed, who believe in natural immunity, and that a 97% recovery rate means they're one of the special ones.

[MaxPower]

the arseholes who dont wear a mask properly, who cannot social distance, who to stink to wash hands and sanitize, who continue to feel they invincible so they going by family, carrying children to grocery, entire families going to buy fast food or take a drive and meet up with other family not of the same household, cannot wear mask properly. gone grocery today people dont know 6 feet apart, see people eating by the doubles man, see men liming drinking beers ,wearing chin mask. these are the skunts you need to clout up.

And these are the skunts responsible for why we are ketching our ass to get this under control.

These are the skunts that are destroying and keeping back the economy.

[st7]

Looks like Hover went to take the vaccine.

Not a sheep , so no that ain't me. I will never take that vaccine , guess I'm part of the majority of the population unvaccinated

You are a sheep, just different flock.Think about it

This really doesn't need any debate. We are all adults and we are capable of making decisions we deem right for ourselves. So, it's as simple as this, take the vaccine and love your life peacefully or don't take the vaccine and live peacefully.
I don't see the relevance of those who don't want to take it trying to persuade others not to and vice versa. Let us live how we feel comfortable until the Lord sees it fit to call us home

I don’t understand either the ones who don’t want to take it going on and on about not taking it . They seem to be in so much self doubt that daily they need to remind themselves why and find any info for their conclusion

Except, the unvaxxed dummies are the reason we have 3 additional months of SOE, an additional wait of at least 1 month for return to school, lockdowns etc.
Then again, these same dummies feel it's the other way around.

its not the unvaxxed you need to be angry towards and call them dummies. you should actually be angry towards the arseholes that today 185 persons joined the rank. the arseholes who dont wear a mask properly, who cannot social distance, who to stink to wash hands and sanitize, who continue to feel they invincible so they going by family, carrying children to grocery, entire families going to buy fast food or take a drive and meet up with other family not of the same household, cannot wear mask properly. gone grocery today people dont know 6 feet apart, see people eating by the doubles man, see men liming drinking beers ,wearing chin mask. these are the skunts you need to clout up.

Those are the unvaxxed, who believe in natural immunity, and that a 97% recovery rate means they're one of the special ones.

anti-vaxxers are the vegans of the roaring 20's... they won't shut up about it

[drchaos]

He go change the topic now

Man change his statement fast when he realized he dead wrong
First he said it typically ends at death … now he’s is saying “strict” confidentiality ends after death.

All the while quoting from the AMA which has nothing to do with Trinidadian medical ethics which comes from our laws and the Trinidad medical board.

The dotish trying to play smart.

What I said hasn't changed. Trinidad's published stance is the same as the US. Sorry, I know you two really want to find something relevant to post about.

Confidentiality typically ends at death. Otherwise, it would have taken a court order to disclose ANY patient information without the patient's written consent.

Because maintaining strict confidentiality is often untenable, or even illegal, determining the extent of protections in the postmortem context ultimately entails a weighing of the various interests at stake.

Opinion 5.051 of the AMA’s Code of Medical Ethics states that, in deciding whether disclosure of medical information postmortem is appropriate, the following factors must be considered: (1) the imminence of harm to identifiable individuals or the public health; (2) the potential benefit to at-risk individuals or the public health; (3) any statement or directive made by the patient regarding postmortem disclosure; (4) the impact disclosure may have on the reputation of the deceased patient; and (5) personal gain for the physician that may unduly influence him or her.

Further, the AMA suggests that protection of the confidentiality of medical information postmortem be equal to the protections in effect during a patient’s life. Medical information during life is granted a significant amount of protection, subject only to legal requirements to disclose and overriding considerations that ethically justify disclosure (and then, only minimal information may be disclosed). Because maintaining strict confidentiality is often untenable, or even illegal, determining the extent of protections in the postmortem context ultimately entails a weighing of the various interests at stake.

https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/ar ... rt/2012-09

Confidentiality

A physician has a duty to keep his patient’s information confidential. This duty continues until after death, however in certain circumstances, the duty is overridden by considerations of the public interest .
These include:

If a patient because of their medical condition is considered to be a danger to themselves or another (e.g. highly infectious or communicable disease), then the physician has a duty to warn the at-risk person(s).

If a patient’s medical information has to be shared with health care providers in order to facilitate that patient’s care.

If there is a statutory requirement to notify (e.g. Occupational Safety and Health Act, gunshot wounds).

In maintaining physician-patient confidentiality, special attention should be given to securing patients records against any third party.

The patient’s consent should be sought prior to sharing medical information.

http://www.mbtt.org/CodeOfEthics_The_sc ... ciples.htm

Man just jackass de scene with a whole set ah copying and pasting so he doesn’t have to feel hurt from being wrong.

[adnj]

He go change the topic now

Man change his statement fast when he realized he dead wrong
First he said it typically ends at death … now he’s is saying “strict” confidentiality ends after death.

All the while quoting from the AMA which has nothing to do with Trinidadian medical ethics which comes from our laws and the Trinidad medical board.

The dotish trying to play smart.

What I said hasn't changed. Trinidad's published stance is the same as the US. Sorry, I know you two really want to find something relevant to post about.

Confidentiality typically ends at death. Otherwise, it would have taken a court order to disclose ANY patient information without the patient's written consent.

Because maintaining strict confidentiality is often untenable, or even illegal, determining the extent of protections in the postmortem context ultimately entails a weighing of the various interests at stake.

Opinion 5.051 of the AMA’s Code of Medical Ethics states that, in deciding whether disclosure of medical information postmortem is appropriate, the following factors must be considered: (1) the imminence of harm to identifiable individuals or the public health; (2) the potential benefit to at-risk individuals or the public health; (3) any statement or directive made by the patient regarding postmortem disclosure; (4) the impact disclosure may have on the reputation of the deceased patient; and (5) personal gain for the physician that may unduly influence him or her.

Further, the AMA suggests that protection of the confidentiality of medical information postmortem be equal to the protections in effect during a patient’s life. Medical information during life is granted a significant amount of protection, subject only to legal requirements to disclose and overriding considerations that ethically justify disclosure (and then, only minimal information may be disclosed). Because maintaining strict confidentiality is often untenable, or even illegal, determining the extent of protections in the postmortem context ultimately entails a weighing of the various interests at stake.

https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/ar ... rt/2012-09

Confidentiality

A physician has a duty to keep his patient’s information confidential. This duty continues until after death, however in certain circumstances, the duty is overridden by considerations of the public interest .
These include:

If a patient because of their medical condition is considered to be a danger to themselves or another (e.g. highly infectious or communicable disease), then the physician has a duty to warn the at-risk person(s).

If a patient’s medical information has to be shared with health care providers in order to facilitate that patient’s care.

If there is a statutory requirement to notify (e.g. Occupational Safety and Health Act, gunshot wounds).

In maintaining physician-patient confidentiality, special attention should be given to securing patients records against any third party.

The patient’s consent should be sought prior to sharing medical information.

http://www.mbtt.org/CodeOfEthics_The_sc ... ciples.htm

Man just jackass de scene with a whole set ah copying and pasting so he doesn’t have to feel hurt from being wrong.

Kicking back with a cold drink waiting for the explanation of how specifics of a dead person's hospital visit were divulged without their written consent.

If I post something, read it. Even you can walk away smarter.

[timelapse]

Pssstttt.
Ah hear from meh third cousin twice removed's neighbour's sister's boyfriend that the vaccine not good for people to take, but Lanate and bitters with a dash of salt is guaranteed to cure Covid.The government trying to cover it up because they trying to control people.Thats why they does put a warning on the Lanate pack telling you not to consume it.