telegraph.co.uk/global-health/…
This Telegraph article has left many people confused over its contents. I've attached the quote in question.
What it means is that people with existing conditions died because of CV.
It doesn't mean only 12% of reported CV deaths in Italy are accurate.
This Telegraph article has left many people confused over its contents. I've attached the quote in question.
What it means is that people with existing conditions died because of CV.
It doesn't mean only 12% of reported CV deaths in Italy are accurate.
The article doesn't help itself. It starts by trying to play safe, then gets sceptical, and then violently oscillates to alarmism at its conclusion.
This is also a misleading statement.
Is Prof Ricciardi saying that anyone that dies in a hospital, even if they don't have CV, is being recorded as a CV death if CV patients are present in the hospital?
It certainly reads like that. The Telegraph need to clarify it.
Is Prof Ricciardi saying that anyone that dies in a hospital, even if they don't have CV, is being recorded as a CV death if CV patients are present in the hospital?
It certainly reads like that. The Telegraph need to clarify it.
