Island Records Two Covid Related Deaths

January 18, 2023 | 33 Comments

The Bermuda Government has released the latest Covid-19 figures, with the island recording two coronavirus-related deaths, bringing the total to 157 since the pandemic began in 2020.

Covid-19 Bermuda January 18 2022

There are now 38 known active cases, with 13 of the 38 people in hospital — one of whom is in the ICU — and a total of 18,751 cases recorded overall since 2020.

covid-19 divider 1

You can find more information on the links below from our dedicated website BermudaCovid.com, which is the most comprehensive resource and historic record available of Bermuda’s handling of the pandemic.

  • All Charts: Vaccine, testing & more here
  • Timelines: Dates of major developments here
  • Test results: Chart of testing stats here
  • Vaccine: Data covering vaccinations here
  • Dedicated website: BermudaCovid.com

Read More About

Category: All, News

Comments (33)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Mr. Wolfy says:

    I think I have legitimate reason to ask when I enquire if our moorticians are finding unusual blood clots during embalming….also…I am conscerned that this is the case and that general public have not been advised at all. I mean it “IS” of public conscern …I for one would appreciate my goverment to keep me a breast of health coscerns pre , presnt and post haste…make me feel represented health wise as a constituant and citizen of this fine community . Please advise.

  2. Public conscern…is in facto…the elephant in the room as such statisicly an issue being notated broadly over seas and here at the same time.

  3. Joe Bloggs says:

    No, no, no! All lies. COVID-19 is no worse than a cold. It has been written in these comments hundreds of times over the past few years.

    Millions of people have NOT died from COVID-19. This is all a hoax used to control people!

    • question says:

      No, that’s not what anyone has said.
      First, we have no idea from this announcement what caused these people to die. If you go into hospital with a life-ending disease, for example cancer, and die of cancer, but catch covid while in there, it is a “coronavirus-related death”. Or if you have an accident which puts you in hospital and you die of the injuries, but you also test positive for covid, that’s a “coronavirus-related death”.
      Second, since Omicron, covid has been no more likely to kill the average person than influenza.
      Third, for most people it is either relatively mild like a cold, or it’s like a flu, or many people are symptom-free. Hence the comparison, which is completely true.
      But if you’re concerned, carry on with the double-masking while on your motorbike.

      • sandgrownan says:

        Correct, but if you dismiss Covid as being flu like then it tells me you’ve never had flu. It’s serious, debilitating and in many cases, deadly.

        So, while the rest of what you say is true, don’t dismiss COVID as being trivial. It’s often the difference between surviving cancer, severe diabetes, or any condition where your system is “weakened”. In these cases COVID most certainly is a major contributing factor in the death of the patient.

        • question says:

          I’ve had flu and covid, and in my case flu was much worse. That’s sort of my point.

          • Toodle-oo says:

            And I know people who have had both and when it came to covid they wished they had the flu instead .

      • Joe Bloggs says:

        I am afraid I am not understanding you, question.

        Are you suggesting that Professor Chris Whitty and Dr. Anthony Faucci are misleading the public or are you suggesting that the PLP Government is misleading the public?

        • question says:

          Chris Whitty is already starting to acknowledge the fact that elevated numbers of people are dying in the UK as a result of lockdowns.
          I’m not suggesting anything else other than what I said.
          You seem to be the master of straw man arguments.

          • Joe Bloggs says:

            “Chris Whitty is already starting to acknowledge the fact that elevated numbers …”

            Please will you post a link to that acknowledgement

            • question says:

              The Times article “Chris Whitty Warns of High Death Rates Due to Covid Delays”. December 1, 2022.

              https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/whitty-warns-of-high-death-rates-due-to-lockdown-treatment-delays-vtx0v6z7j

              • Joe Bloggs says:

                I see where is says that “Sir Chris Whitty and Sir Patrick Vallance, the chief scientific adviser to the government, acknowledged that pleas to protect the NHS, combined with the pressure of treating Covid, were likely to lead to significant numbers dying of conditions such as heart disease and cancer in the coming months and years”, but I do NOT see where it says that “elevated numbers of people are dying in the UK as a result of lockdowns”.

                But then, I am not a doctor or virologist.

                • question says:

                  Up until March 2022, UK excess deaths were below expected levels. Since March, every week has seen 1,000-2,000 non-covid excess deaths, so now it’s tens of thousands. A large number of them are heart-related and cancer, and Whitty was admitting that delays in getting diagnosis and treatment through lockdown will lead to (and is already leading to) large numbers of future premature deaths.

                  • Joe Bloggs says:

                    That is your conclusion based on your reading of the article. There was no such “admission” by Prof. Whitty.

                    • sandgrownan says:

                      Hate to say it….but he/she is correct here….it’s an unintended consequence of trying not to overload the health system.

                      If we have a pandemic, highly contagious, deadly for many, debilitating for those already compromised…it’s a tough decision for health professionals on the bets course of action. SO, while lockdowns / isolation were considered based on what was known at the time, people with other conditions could not get the treatment they needed.

  4. LOL (original) says:

    So behind the “news” you all really are.

  5. sandgrownan says:

    In “your” case, which is my argument. The point being is that COVID may well have been the determining factor that resulted in death for these poor souls.

    To minimize or play down the effect of COIVD is therefore dangerous.

    That said, like you, I have zero confidence in what is being reported since there’s so little context or backgound.

    • question says:

      It may have been or it may not have been. We aren’t told.

      Statistically, if they were fit, healthy and under 65 or so, it’s unlikely.

      • sandgrownan says:

        Agreed. But that doesn’t mean COVID isn’t a serious condition and it shouldn’t be dismissed.

        • Question says:

          For most people, it is not particularly serious at all.

          • Joe Bloggs says:

            “For most people, it is not particularly serious at all.”

            That is not my experience, having suffered COVID-19 after being fully vaccinated.

            • Question says:

              Sorry to hear that. It is becoming evident the vaccines don’t have much positive effect.

              • Sandgrownan says:

                That is fundamentally and demonstrably untrue

                  • sandgrownan says:

                    With respect, you make the same mistake of many in assuming a single paper has much significance. Publication of a paper is about putting evidence out there for review. It isn’t truth and at best it could be considered anecdotal.

                    All statistical conclusions are stated with a confidence level, usually around 95%. Meaning if the same study was conducted 20 times, you expect at least one of the 20 to disagree with the other 19.

                    This is why single papers rarely matter, it’s the broad number or consensus that counts. When multiple studies agree, then the underlying hypothesis can be taken as provisionally true, or at least not false.

                    That’s how science works. The conspiracy minded, not suggesting you are, and the scientifically naïve love to wave the 5% paper about as proof scientists have messed up. They typically point out all the clues the rest of us have missed without realising there’s nothing to see. It’s just science working as usual.

                    Your healthy scepticism is to be admired though.

                    • question says:

                      It’s a recent, current paper, conducted by health professionals, with over 50,000 subjects.

                      Let’s see your evidence that what I said is ‘fundamentally and demonstrably untrue’.

                    • sandgrownan says:

                      Well this summarises things quite nicely, it’s one of a number of sources that talks to vaccine efficacy.

                      https://www.healthdata.org/covid/covid-19-vaccine-efficacy-summary

                      There are a number of summary resources you can look at: Here’s part of the abstract of another plucked at random:

                      Authors’ conclusions: Compared to placebo, most vaccines reduce, or likely reduce, the proportion of participants with confirmed symptomatic COVID-19, and for some, there is high-certainty evidence that they reduce severe or critical disease.

                    • Joe Bloggs says:

                      The paper is not peer reviewed and does not specifically refer to the Pfizer vaccine that most people in Bermuda (myself included) received

                    • sandgrownan says:

                      Actually, the vaccine efficacy summary document does include Pfizer.

                    • Question says:

                      The RIVM presents a list of studies that entirely predate Omicron. It’s irrelevant.

                      The IHME article, if its findings are to be believed, says that against the then-most recent Omicron variant, Pfizer is 44% effective. That’s below the minimum standard of 50% set by the WHO when vaccines were being developed, so hardly a triumph. That’s before any waning.
                      And unlike the study I listed, this is a meta-analysis of other studies, and it uses estimates for various items, like waning.

                    • sandgrownan says:

                      Au contraire.

                      Here’s a good quote “The SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant has demonstrated enhanced transmissibility and escape of vaccine-derived immunity. While first-generation vaccines remain effective against severe disease and death, robust evidence on vaccine effectiveness (VE) against all Omicron infections, irrespective of symptoms, remains sparse.”

                      The second sentence is important.

                      And here’s another (different study)..

                      “The results of this study demonstrate that assessment and interpretation of COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness against hospitalisation has become more complicated since the less severe Omicron variant has become dominant. ”

                      The point being, because Omicron is less severe, it matters less? Get it? It’s not a linear discussion, but an evolving landscape.

                      And another…

                      “Results: A total of 13 studies were included to evaluate the effectiveness of the vaccine against the Omicron variant, and 11 studies were included to compare the effectiveness between the two-dose and three-dose (booster) vaccinations. Full vaccination (two-dose with or without booster) showed a protective effect against the Omicron variant compared to no vaccination (OR = 0.62, 95% CI: 0.56–0.69), while the effectiveness decreased significantly over 6 months after the last dose. The two-dose vaccination plus booster provided better protection against the Omicron variant compared to the two-dose vaccination without booster (OR = 0.60, 95% CI: 0.52–0.68). Additional analysis was performed for the most commonly used vaccines in the United Staes: BNT162b2(Pfizer) (OR = 0.65, 95% CI: 0.52–0.82) and mRNA-1273(Moderna) (OR = 0.67, 95% CI: 0.58–0.88) vaccines in the US, which showed similar effectiveness compared to no vaccination.

                      Conclusions: The full dose of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination effectively reduces infection from the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant; however, the effectiveness wanes over time. The booster vaccine provides additional protection against the Omicron variant.”

                  • sandgrownan says:

                    https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(22)00409-1/fulltext

                    This is a good one from the Lancet. It suggest that ongoing boosters, rather like flu shots, will be required for Omicron.

Leave a Reply