Barbados: COVID Communications Unit of Barbados reported the latest update of COVID-19 in the nation. The Ministry of Health & wellness extends their condolences to the family of the 91-year-old lady.
She fought like a warrior, but her faith was not with her. People of Barbados will remember her for their entire life. According to Barbados’s Health & wellness, a 91-year-old lady’s passing brings to 10 the number of people in Barbados who have died from Covid-19 since the first case was diagnosed here in March 2020.
The senior citizen, who had a history of hypertension and diabetes, was offered to the Accident and Emergency Department of the QEH with severe respiratory signs on January 23, one day ago.
Given these symptoms, the patient was tested for coronavirus, including the lab confirmed the test result as positive. The elderly lady was transferred to the specialized infectious diseases unit at Enmore, which deals with COVID-19 cases, but she passed away this morning.
Update of COVID-19 in Barbados
Forty-six persons (29 males and 17 females) have gone under isolation, having tested positive for coronavirus, making the total of active cases to 744.
The new active cases were reported among the 1,219 tests performed by the Best-dos Santos Public Health Laboratory on January 23. Of those 46 cases, four were persons earlier sent to the Harrison Point Isolation Facility for assessment.
A male staff member of Her Majesty’s Prison Dodds (HMP) was also among the latest persons diagnosed with the viral illness. As a result, HMP Dodds‘ cases have moved to 360, comprising 102 staff members (64 males and 38 females) and 258 patients.
Meantime, 12 persons have been discharged from isolation today, pushing the recoveries to 634. To date, Barbados has recorded 1,387 cases, 546 females and 841 males, and nine deaths. The public health lab has so far organized 99,537 tests.
Barbados resident commented, “for the 4 persons who were our “previously assessed” at Harrison’s Point, what does that mean exactly? Were they tested and then released because of a 1st negative test, that was then positive on a 2nd test? Or were they the “pending positives” that one of the ministers kept talking about? That particular statement seems so essential, but it necessary ln in such a VAGUE way. Was this deliberate?”