# Latest Covid 19 info



## Rob Oldfield (May 14, 2020)

Taken from latest coverage in Guardian:


> A quarter of Covid-19 patients who have died in hospitals in England had diabetes, according to figures released by NHS England.
> 
> Data published for the first time breaks down deaths from coronavirus by pre-existing conditions.
> 
> ...



Follow up statement from Bridget Turner, director of policy at Diabetes UK:


> We [...] need urgent action from government to understand the detail behind this figure, including diabetes type, age, ethnicity, medical history and comorbidities of those who have sadly died, so that we can know how to keep all people with diabetes safe.
> 
> Government must ensure urgently that employers take all the necessary measures to keep employees with diabetes safe, if they are expected to attend work outside the home as restrictions are eased. This includes ensuring the guidance for employers is clear, consistent, and focused on the safety of employees above all else.
> 
> We still urgently need to understand through research why people with diabetes are affected in such numbers. But until we know more, people living with diabetes should be supported to manage their condition, attend appointments as normal either online or in person at Covid-19 protected sites and, most importantly, should continue to have access to their local clinical team if they have concerns.


----------



## Flutterby (May 14, 2020)

Rob Oldfield said:


> Taken from latest coverage in Guardian:
> 
> 
> Follow up statement from Bridget Turner, director of policy at Diabetes UK:


This is massively worrying.


----------



## Robin (May 14, 2020)

Flutterby said:


> This is massively worrying.


The trouble is, we can’t tell much from a raw statistic. As @trophywench has just said on another thread, we don’t know if they were all over 80 with other co-morbidities. I would expect a lot of the 'deaths with diabetes' to overlap with the 'deaths because of obesity', or 'deaths because of heart conditions' etc etc. And we don’t know how well the diabetes was controlled in the people who died.
We need to know a lot more about the breakdown.


----------



## Rob Oldfield (May 14, 2020)

Robin said:


> The trouble is, we can’t tell much from a raw statistic. As @trophywench has just said on another thread, we don’t know if they were all over 80 with other co-morbidities. I would expect a lot of the 'deaths with diabetes' to overlap with the 'deaths because of obesity', or 'deaths because of heart conditions' etc etc. And we don’t know how well the diabetes was controlled in the people who died.
> We need to know a lot more about the breakdown.


Definitely correct.


----------



## NotWorriedAtAll (May 14, 2020)

Robin said:


> The trouble is, we can’t tell much from a raw statistic. As @trophywench has just said on another thread, we don’t know if they were all over 80 with other co-morbidities. I would expect a lot of the 'deaths with diabetes' to overlap with the 'deaths because of obesity', or 'deaths because of heart conditions' etc etc. And we don’t know how well the diabetes was controlled in the people who died.
> We need to know a lot more about the breakdown.


Well as a fat diabetic I'm not taking any chances and I'm staying in my house and keeping away from people and if I have to leave my house for any reason I'm wearing two masks and a face shield.  My acetate sheets arrived three days ago and I'm waiting until I am 100% sure they are safe before making a home made shield.

Here's a video showing the most simple way to make a face shield - particularly suitable for spectacles wearers.





__ https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10223424160338407


----------



## Flutterby (May 14, 2020)

I wish they had evaluated it before announcement. Its going to upset a lot of people.


----------



## silentsquirrel (May 14, 2020)

I'm surprised it isn't higher than 1/4 - the great majority of deaths have been among the elderly, and a large number of elderly people have diabetes.


----------



## Amity Island (May 14, 2020)

Rob Oldfield said:


> Taken from latest coverage in Guardian:
> 
> 
> Follow up statement from Bridget Turner, director of policy at Diabetes UK:


Makes no mention of deaths due to covid19. Just mentions covid19 "patients". The nhs blanket covid19 death approach regardless of what the patient actually was admitted for or died from is not providing statistics that can be acted on or relied on.
The article seems to be inferring that diabetes is effected by covid19 more so than other conditions.

I read it only, that a quarter of people that have died were diabetic (testing positive for covid19) at time of death.


----------



## Amity Island (May 14, 2020)

Follow up statement from Bridget Turner, director of policy at Diabetes UK
"We [...] need urgent action from government to understand the detail behind this figure, including diabetes type, age, ethnicity, medical history and comorbidities of those who have sadly died"

I agree we certainly need urgent action from the government, but not so much about diabetes type, age, medical history, but more about whether those patients who died, died from covid19 or not. Not just had a positive test, whilst they were admitted for some other emergency or planned procedure.


----------



## JohnWhi (May 14, 2020)

Slightly concerning that "NHS England said the accuracy of the data was reliant on the availability and transfer of information by healthcare providers", i.e. they do not have easy access to information from hospitals.


----------



## NotWorriedAtAll (May 14, 2020)

I'm confused as to why anyone is surprised at this information given that the WHO stated in March that going by the information they'd received from China and the other countries at the time with high incidence of Covid, those with high blood pressure and those with diabetes were the most likely to die from Covid if they contracted it and so people with those conditions should be particularly careful to avoid contracting the disease.

It seems these figures are simply agreeing with the original data.
So not really new information - just it is about British people now instead of foreign people.


----------



## hbpeanut (May 14, 2020)

They really should specify. This has worried me as a type 1 diabetic (good control and hba1c) I don't know if this should increase my anxiety or if it only applies to t2 diabetics or those without good control


----------



## bakebeans (May 14, 2020)

The newspapers are causing so much anxiety over everything they write. Yes reading into this it doesn’t look good if your diabetic and catch corona virus but you have to remember that being diabetic CAN cause problems with lots of other illnesses not just this one.
A huge amount of the people who have died have been older and type 2 is known to effect older people, yes it also effects younger people but they don’t tend to know they even have diabetes so I wonder how many of the 1/4 didn’t even know they had it so couldn’t control it?
What I’m trying to say is from what I’ve read and been told by my diabetes nurse is if your controlling your condition your in a much better place than someone who isn’t.
I’m not sure I’ve got what I wanted to say across properly but just remember that newspapers are there to sell stories, they don’t care if what they are writing is true or not  or how much anxiety they are causing.


----------



## bonnytiz (May 14, 2020)

I’m in my 70’s and type 1. No other medical conditions and well controlled. I’m very anxious after hearing this on the news. I know I’m more at risk with being older but I keep myself fit and healthy. I’m worried now in case they say we have to be ‘shielded’ . At the moment I just take exercise with my dogs twice a day in a quiet area. Im a carer for my husband who has dementia and just can’t be stuck in the house all day. I hope they look into it further and realise that they can’t just ‘lump’ all diabetics into one bracket. They shouldn’t just throw it out there without looking into it further. We are anxious enough as it is.


----------



## bakebeans (May 14, 2020)

Just looking at it a different way 1/4 of the 33,000 people that have died had diabetes. There’s been 233,000 cases in the uk out of those who have recovered/ recovering I’m sure there would be diabetics.  Newspapers should be ashamed at the worry they are causing


----------



## Amity Island (May 14, 2020)

Are they intentionally putting "clean" (non-covid19) diabetics onto covid19 wards?


----------



## Bruce Stephens (May 14, 2020)

Amity Island said:


> Are they intentionally putting "clean" (non-covid19) diabetics onto covid19 wards?



I'm going to guess no!

It seems likely there's some extra vulnerability especially for someone not well controlled; it seems quite likely that in a crowded hospital people with diabetes might well not get optimal support for their diabetes (with any infection control will get screwed up and this infection seems particularly bad).

It also seems plausible that some people who weren't previously diabetic (at least, who didn't know they were) might get a blood test indicating they are. (I'm guessing HbA1c might well be a test that's thrown in if you're in hospital for this, and surely blood glucose would be.) Just because this infection seems to (sometimes) hit multiple organs in surprising ways.


----------



## Amity Island (May 14, 2020)

Bruce Stephens said:


> I'm going to guess no!
> 
> It seems likely there's some extra vulnerability especially for someone not well controlled; it seems quite likely that in a crowded hospital people with diabetes might well not get optimal support for their diabetes (with any infection control will get screwed up and this infection seems particularly bad).
> 
> It also seems plausible that some people who weren't previously diabetic (at least, who didn't know they were) might get a blood test indicating they are. (I'm guessing HbA1c might well be a test that's thrown in if you're in hospital for this, and surely blood glucose would be.) Just because this infection seems to (sometimes) hit multiple organs in surprising ways.


Hi Bruce,
I'm asking because a close friend of mine lost an uncle very recently. Her uncle had been self isolating since lockdown at home on his own, he's type 1, having problems with diabetes, went into hospital, was tested negative for covid19 when he went in, was discharged 2 days later and then died at home from covid19 4 days later. He had been put onto a covid19 ward even though he tested negative! Awful! Family are in disbelief and grieving at same time.


----------



## trophywench (May 14, 2020)

Well same as temperature and BP. BG is one of the immediate tests they do at triage when you arrive at A&E!  so I can't imagine it isn't done if you arrive in an ambulance.


----------



## Zedgeezer (May 14, 2020)

Rob Oldfield said:


> Taken from latest coverage in Guardian:
> 
> 
> Follow up statement from Bridget Turner, director of policy at Diabetes UK:


I'm sorry, but what are Diabetes UK doing to deal with / validate this statistic?
I expected a questionnaire in the early phase of this epidemic asking how every Diabetes sufferer was dealing with the lock down,  because without knowing whether people are self isolating in spite of government/ Diabetes UK recommendation, or carrying on, following government  advice, the information would be valuable.
To give my example, my son (Type 1) is a critical worker but was lucky enough to have an understanding employer who said he could have unpaid leave for as long as he wanted, so has self isolated for the last 8 weeks (as has the whole household to protect him). Had he not done that the 25% hospital death rate may have been influenced minutely. How many other people are doing the same?
Diabetes UK may be putting pressure (apparently) on getting things sorted, but I have no faith they are ahead of the curve (which I expected they would be) so I am cancelling my monthly donation from today


----------



## Bruce Stephens (May 14, 2020)

Amity Island said:


> He had been put onto a covid19 ward even though he tested negative!



I don't doubt it happens. I'm sure virtually any combination of stupid things will be happening, but I'm sure it's not policy (it would be bad for the diabetes teams in hospitals, since surely they'd usually be working in the green zones and would want to minimise their use of serious PPE).

If someone tested negative but had some (probably poorly specified) set of symptoms (which might include ketones at what we'd normally regard as not high BG) they might consider a negative coronavirus test as likely to be a false negative. (False negatives are apparently not uncommon, especially early or late.)


----------



## Amity Island (May 14, 2020)

Bruce Stephens said:


> I don't doubt it happens. I'm sure virtually any combination of stupid things will be happening, but I'm sure it's not policy (it would be bad for the diabetes teams in hospitals, since surely they'd usually be working in the green zones and would want to minimise their use of serious PPE).
> 
> If someone tested negative but had some (probably poorly specified) set of symptoms (which might include ketones at what we'd normally regard as not high BG) they might consider a negative coronavirus test as likely to be a false negative. (False negatives are apparently not uncommon, especially early or late.)


Thanks for your reply. It would be interesting to find out how many covid19 negative patients are put onto covid19 positive wards. Actually, not interesting but a must know statistic!

btw The chap didn't go into hospital with high blood sugars.


----------



## Rickardo (May 14, 2020)

I’m very disappointed with Diabetes UK for not being more challenging to the policy makers after hearing the tragic news today that 26% of those who have died in hospital have Diabetes. We are meant to be being led by the science, early in March it had already been established in other countries that people with Diabetes were at high risk yet the DUK advice was that they agreed with the govt approach of not shielding people with diabetes. The WHO were also saying people with Diabetes are high risk (and still are).


----------



## DavidG89 (May 14, 2020)

New to the forum so hello to everyone. Type 1 for 15 years. BG well controlled at 43 or 6.1%. 31 years of age, bit overweight, however fit and generally healthy.  I emailed my consultant about this very matter and in turn her response was that she pointed me towards a French study known as the Coronado Study, prior to one coming out in the UK. This study was published in early May re hospital admissions regarding diabetics in France. The French study (Coronado study) showed that older age, the presence of vascular complications, obesity and obstructive sleep apnoea increased the risk of poor outcomes. There was no difference with various diabetes treatments (insulin or oral agents) so there doesn’t seem to be an increased risk with type 1 but rather those of older age, obesity and more complications. https://diabetologia-journal.org/covid-19-original-research/ I am only posting from my own personal experience today and in no way am I claiming to have the answer to the question or my consultant either. Just thought this may be helpful to someone to look at an example out with the UK. Thanks


----------



## DavidG89 (May 15, 2020)

On the above point I have also emailed one of the authors of the study in France to clarify a few points


----------



## Keith McMillan (May 15, 2020)

This scared the life out of me this evening. Being the wrong side of 60 doesn't help either. This comes after Boris has been trying to get people back into work for certain industries. I have to say that the possibility of starving due to job loss will be a better way to go than chancing it with getting COVID at work. The anxiety caused to sufferers who are called "vulnerable" who are not pigeon holed as "extremely vulnerable" is immense. For goodness sake we are either vulnerable or not vulnerable at all!


----------



## DavidG89 (May 15, 2020)

Keith McMillan said:


> This scared the life out of me this evening. Being the wrong side of 60 doesn't help either. This comes after Boris has been trying to get people back into work for certain industries. I have to say that the possibility of starving due to job loss will be a better way to go than chancing it with getting COVID at work. The anxiety caused to sufferers who are called "vulnerable" who are not pigeon holed as "extremely vulnerable" is immense. For goodness sake we are either vulnerable or not vulnerable at all!


Yes the anxiety is very real. I suppose it will just have to be a one answer fits all approach until significant research is done, (which will take months perhaps years) to determine what factors with diabetics elevate risk? Maybe age, control of blood sugar, weight, smoker, drinker, complications in other areas of the body all come into play. Main thing is too look after yourself as best you can and keep healthy.


----------



## trophywench (May 15, 2020)

That's precisely why Diabetes UK and Partha Kar himself, have requested much more info about the 'ones with diabetes'.

It's like I said on the forum earlier - what if most of those 1-in-4 were all over 80, and been resident in nursing homes for a good many years because of their other co-mobidities?  Cos they could be, as easily as not.

So - don't panic, yet anyway, Captain Mainwaring!


----------



## AndBreathe (May 15, 2020)

Please, don't forget that at any given time, in England, one in four (i.e. 25%) of all hospital beds will be occupied by people living with diabetes.

As well as more granular information on the diabetes statement, I would be curious to know what percentage of the 25% they quote knew they were living with diabetes at the time of admission to hospital.

It appears from my reading that COVID can, in some, lead to significantly increased insulin resistance, which in turn can lead to elevated blood glucose numbers.

At this point in time, personally, I think it is an inconvenient piece of useless information.  Whilst more extreme, it feels like they might as well have published that the vast majority of those succumbing to COVID in our hospitals had 2 legs.

Please don't think I am tricialing COVID, or people's concerns, but data is only useful when it is robust, understood, and where there is a willingness to take action on unpalatable findings. 

Now, if someone could just help me down from my hobby horse, I'd be grateful.


----------



## Docb (May 15, 2020)

AndBreathe said:


> At this point in time, personally, I think it is an inconvenient piece of useless information.  Whilst more extreme, it feels like they might as well have published that the vast majority of those succumbing to COVID in our hospitals had 2 legs.
> 
> Please don't think I am tricialing COVID, or people's concerns, but data is only useful when it is robust, understood, and where there is a willingness to take action on unpalatable findings.
> 
> Now, if someone could just help me down from my hobby horse, I'd be grateful.



I'm not going to help you off your hobby horse, I'm going to get on it with you.

Like you I find the shouting about poorly understood early data as if it is proven fact very unhelpful.  The people doing this either don't understand, or choose to ignore, the worry they cause.


----------



## catsaregreat (May 15, 2020)

Rob Oldfield said:


> Taken from latest coverage in Guardian:
> 
> 
> Follow up statement from Bridget Turner, director of policy at Diabetes UK:



I find it incredible that Diabetes UK, who are meant to be the voice of diabetics in the UK, are not doing more to highlight the risks of contracting Covid 19 for diabetics. 
Many people who are diabetic will shortly be asked to return to work, because they are only ‘vulnerable! Not ‘highly vulnerable’ and so are not shielded.
Evidence from around the world shows that the top 3 comorbidities for Coronavirus are: High blood pressure, Obesity, Diabetes.
If I can find that out without ‘further research’ it’s unbelievable that Diabetes UK can’t confirm the same without ‘months, possibly years’ of further research.
It seems clear Diabetes UK has lost its way, and no longer cares about the people it purports to represent.

Sent from my iPad


----------



## Cazzablanca (May 15, 2020)

Zedgeezer said:


> I'm sorry, but what are Diabetes UK doing to deal with / validate this statistic?
> I expected a questionnaire in the early phase of this epidemic asking how every Diabetes sufferer was dealing with the lock down,  because without knowing whether people are self isolating in spite of government/ Diabetes UK recommendation, or carrying on, following government  advice, the information would be valuable.
> To give my example, my son (Type 1) is a critical worker but was lucky enough to have an understanding employer who said he could have unpaid leave for as long as he wanted, so has self isolated for the last 8 weeks (as has the whole household to protect him). Had he not done that the 25% hospital death rate may have been influenced minutely. How many other people are doing the same?
> Diabetes UK may be putting pressure (apparently) on getting things sorted, but I have no faith they are ahead of the curve (which I expected they would be) so I am cancelling my monthly donation from today


I have isolated since March but unfortunately because we as diabetics are not "extremely vulnerable" and have not received a letter, my husband has had to return to the motor plant where he works.  
We are trying our best to maintain distance at home but I fear it will not be enough.


----------



## Cazzablanca (May 15, 2020)

bonnytiz said:


> I’m in my 70’s and type 1. No other medical conditions and well controlled. I’m very anxious after hearing this on the news. I know I’m more at risk with being older but I keep myself fit and healthy. I’m worried now in case they say we have to be ‘shielded’ . At the moment I just take exercise with my dogs twice a day in a quiet area. Im a carer for my husband who has dementia and just can’t be stuck in the house all day. I hope they look into it further and realise that they can’t just ‘lump’ all diabetics into one bracket. They shouldn’t just throw it out there without looking into it further. We are anxious enough as it is.


But a lot of us need the letter to stop us, or our partners having to go to work when we don't have sympathetic employers.


----------



## Robin (May 15, 2020)

catsaregreat said:


> Evidence from around the world shows that the top 3 comorbidities for Coronavirus are: High blood pressure, Obesity, Diabetes.
> If I can find that out without ‘further research’ it’s unbelievable that Diabetes UK can’t confirm the same without ‘months, possibly years’ of further research.


What you’ve found are the raw figures. What Diabetes UK is saying, I think, is that looking behind those raw figures to see the nuances of which sort of Diabetes, and whether it’s those with Diabetes AND something who are most affected.
I would have been angry if Diabetes UK had campaigned for all people with diabetes to be on the shielded list. GPs have the power to put people on the list if they feel they have specific problems that make them clinically extremely vulnerable, and this includes people with diabetes, say, with complications or other comorbidities. But I don’t want to be locked up for having well controlled diabetes whilst otherwise being fit and healthy.


----------



## silentsquirrel (May 15, 2020)

catsaregreat said:


> Evidence from around the world shows that the top 3 comorbidities for Coronavirus are: High blood pressure, Obesity, Diabetes.


I would expect that high blood pressure and diabetes were among the top comorbidities for death among the elderly before coronavirus, and the vast majority of deaths from the virus are among the elderly.


----------



## Keith McMillan (May 15, 2020)

The fire of anxiety has been doused with petrol for people asked to return to work living with diabetes after the survival rate figure on BBC last night. Working with data myself I agree that it needs to be put into context. But I also know how easy and fast it would be for the government to act on the data they already have. Rather than act inhumanely by sending the vulnerable back out to work now, surely they could have done this based on health conditions using data analysis of survival rates per condition. Even better would be to act on the health professional's advice given on the BBC Question time and wait until the virus has largely been kicked into touch! The app will kick in soon, tests available for all are coming nearer, a vaccine test soon. I understand the economy needs to get going but surely a return to work and schools at this point is much too soon.


----------



## Docb (May 15, 2020)

catsaregreat said:


> I find it incredible that Diabetes UK, who are meant to be the voice of diabetics in the UK, are not doing more to highlight the risks of contracting Covid 19 for diabetics.
> Many people who are diabetic will shortly be asked to return to work, because they are only ‘vulnerable! Not ‘highly vulnerable’ and so are not shielded.
> Evidence from around the world shows that the top 3 comorbidities for Coronavirus are: High blood pressure, Obesity, Diabetes.
> If I can find that out without ‘further research’ it’s unbelievable that Diabetes UK can’t confirm the same without ‘months, possibly years’ of further research.
> ...



I am not surprised that Diabetes UK are "not doing more to highlight the risks of contracting Covid 19 for diabetics."  They have a real problem in sorting out effect of diabetes (if there is one), from the effect of age (pretty sure there is one) and the effect of obesity (looks more and more as if there is one) and all the other things that come along.  Also, they know that diabetes is a broad church, from people whose systems are badly upset by the condition to those who are only mildly affected and from those whose diabetes is well controlled to those for whom it is not.  Coming out with broad statements will only finish up with everybody with diabetes thinking that that the have the same risk as those with the highest risk, and that is not the case.

Take me, I am 74 (bad point), man (not good point), not obese (good point) and have well controlled diabetes.  I would be very annoyed if somebody told me to go into purdah simply because of the diabetes diagnosis.


----------



## Stitch147 (May 15, 2020)

I've been working right through the lockdown, I work in a supermarket. It can be difficult some days to social distance, if thats the case I find other jobs to do that puts me out of the way, it's not always easy. Am I worried about the latest news that has come out, not really. It needs to be broken down more. Apart from diabetes and being overweight I'm fairly fit and healthy. I'll be carrying on the same way that I have been until I'm told otherwise.


----------



## Becka (May 15, 2020)

Unfortunately the data (which is a breakdown of hospital deaths in England) does not combine multiple data sets, so does not include pre-existing conditions by age.  However it reveals the following:

Of those aged 60–79: 9,346 died (38.7% of all deaths) of which 8,723 had pre-existing conditions.
Of those aged 80+: 12,710 (52.6% of all deaths) of which 12,140 had pre-existing conditions.
Of those previously diagnosed with diabetes: 5,873 died (26.3% of all deaths)

Unless diabetes somehow acts to protect older people from the virus, there would have to be a large overlap between those diabetic deaths and older people.

Assuming a linear scale, which would be an extremely conservative estimate as diabetes prevalence increases with age, it would reduce diabetic deaths to 12.5% of those under 80, and to only 2.3% of those under 60.  This being because 91.3% of those who died were 60 or other, and 91.3% of 5,873 deaths is 5,362.

That is obviously no substitute for actual data, but to me it suggests there is no cause for increased worry at this time.  We already knew diabetes was a risk factor but not one which makes people "clinically extremely vulnerable."  Reading the data, rather than poorly written media reports which provide no context, suggests that nothing has changed.

Note: deaths by age are given to May 13th and by pre-existing condition are to May 12th.
Source: https://www.england.nhs.uk/statisti...-19-total-announced-deaths-14-May-2020-2.xlsx


Mind, I am more concerned about the lack of detail around chronic pulmonary disease deaths as it does not state how active those diseases were at time of admission.

I am being shielded because I am immunosuppressed for a rheumatological disorder (3.2% of deaths) but I also have a pulmonary disease (14.6%) which may or may not be in remission, and I am autistic (1.9%) as well as being diabetic.

So now I am wondering whether I need to build a blanket fort inside of a tent pitched in the living room of my flat, then staying in there until this all goes away.


----------



## Keith McMillan (May 15, 2020)

So many people with conditions still working with little or no protection, and no legal protection. Also hospital cleaners not treated as equals with doctors and nurses, yet in direct contact with the virus left in wards.


----------



## Keith McMillan (May 15, 2020)

Becka said:


> Unfortunately the data (which is a breakdown of hospital deaths in England) does not combine multiple data sets, so does not include pre-existing conditions by age.  However it reveals the following:
> 
> Of those aged 60–79: 9,346 died (38.7% of all deaths) of which 8,723 had pre-existing conditions.
> Of those aged 80+: 12,710 (52.6% of all deaths) of which 12,140 had pre-existing conditions.
> ...



Different sources of data being recorded by different groups doesn't help if it's not used together and collected to the same standards. You are having to sift through all the data for self help and I think this should all have been dealt with by now. Sending people back to work without taking their conditions into account is simply reckless. Good luck Becka and well done for taking the initiative to try and work it out yourself.


----------



## silentsquirrel (May 15, 2020)

Becka said:


> Reading the data, rather than poorly written media reports which provide no context, suggests that nothing has changed.



Exactly!


----------



## AndBreathe (May 15, 2020)

catsaregreat said:


> I find it incredible that Diabetes UK, who are meant to be the voice of diabetics in the UK, are not doing more to highlight the risks of contracting Covid 19 for diabetics.
> Many people who are diabetic will shortly be asked to return to work, because they are only ‘vulnerable! Not ‘highly vulnerable’ and so are not shielded.
> Evidence from around the world shows that the top 3 comorbidities for Coronavirus are: High blood pressure, Obesity, Diabetes.
> If I can find that out without ‘further research’ it’s unbelievable that Diabetes UK can’t confirm the same without ‘months, possibly years’ of further research.
> ...



To be honest, I would be utterly horrified to receive a shielding letter.

Yes, I received a Type 2 diagnosis in 2013, but I have only ever had on HbA1c in the diabetic range.  My last 3 have been in the 20s.  I am very slight, at 48kg, and no hypertension (except of the while coat variety!).   I feel I am no more vulnerable than any other person who is well and living "healthily".

My OH might be 73, but he is also extremely healthy - not carrying any weight and decent health markers.  

In more usual times he either plays golf, or goes to the gym 6 days a week.  Today is his first round of golf, since the club closed and he is booked again for Monday, and straining on the leash for gyms opening again.

He's no gym bunny, or health freak, but likes to keep himself in great shape.  Frankly, were he to receive a sheilding letter, I think it'd go in the shredder.

Neither of want to contract COVID, but neither of us feel we need a cotton wool coat, just yet.

I respect others feel differently, but this data and taking single words out of it is unhelpful  How often do we hear one size doesn't fit all?


----------



## eggyg (May 15, 2020)

I’m shielding as I haven’t a spleen. I don’t want to, as other than that and having diabetes I am as fit as a flea. 10lbs overweight maybe, aged 60, but I don’t class myself as vulnerable let alone extremely vulnerable. But my medical records beg to differ unfortunately. The diabetes stats don’t concern me at all but I can understand how some folks are feeling. Luckily I’m retired so don’t need to worry about work.


----------



## JJay (May 15, 2020)

Here we see the dangers of statistics - particularly when manipulated by the media to produce an attention-grabbing headline.

You might just as well say that 26% of deaths were of people with red hair, or left-handed, or liked jazz. 
Correlation is not causation.

The large majority of deaths were of people who didn't have diabetes.  On that basis, non-diabetics should be even more worried!  Which is patently nonsense.


----------



## TeeGee (May 15, 2020)

Becka said:


> Unfortunately the data (which is a breakdown of hospital deaths in England) does not combine multiple data sets, so does not include pre-existing conditions by age.  However it reveals the following:
> 
> Of those aged 60–79: 9,346 died (38.7% of all deaths) of which 8,723 had pre-existing conditions.
> Of those aged 80+: 12,710 (52.6% of all deaths) of which 12,140 had pre-existing conditions.
> ...



Nice detailed answer - thanks


----------



## Josh DUK (May 15, 2020)

Hello Everyone, 

I thought I would share Diabetes UK statement regarding the recent article about coronavirus  and diabetes. You can find it here:









						NHSE statistics on coronavirus deaths in people with diabetes
					

A study from NHS England revealed that one in three people (33.2%) who have died in hospital in England following a diagnosis of coronavirus also had diabetes. We know this statistic raised a lot more questions than it did answers, and it may have left you feeling increasingly worried.




					www.diabetes.org.uk


----------



## Keith McMillan (May 15, 2020)

Thank you Josh! There is a link on the page to send in our experiences of being sent back to work. I don't know what will come of that but everything helps and I will. It seems to say we don't know enough about how people with conditions are affected by COVID. If not enough is known why then are we being sent back in to work by Boris?


----------



## Robin (May 15, 2020)

Keith McMillan said:


> Thank you Josh! There is a link on the page to send in our experiences of being sent back to work. I don't know what will come of that but everything helps and I will. It seems to say we don't know enough about how people with conditions are affected by COVID. If not enough is known why then are we being sent back in to work by Boris?


Nobody should be sent back to work if the recommended conditions aren’t in place, and the recommendations for people with health problems are more stringent than for others. This is taken from the guidance for educational settings.








						[Withdrawn] Coronavirus (COVID-19): implementing protective measures in education and childcare settings
					






					www.gov.uk
				



_Clinically vulnerable individuals who are at higher risk of severe illness (for example, people with some pre-existing conditions as set out in the Staying at home and away from others (social distancing) guidance have been advised to take extra care in observing social distancing and should work from home where possible.* Education and childcare settings should endeavour to support this, for example by asking staff to support remote education, carry out lesson planning or other roles which can be done from home. If clinically vulnerable (but not clinically extremely vulnerable) individuals cannot work from home, they should be offered the safest available on-site roles, staying 2 metres away from others wherever possible, although the individual may choose to take on a role that does not allow for this distance if they prefer to do so. If they have to spend time within 2 metres of other people, settings must carefully assess and discuss with them whether this involves an acceptable level of risk*_*.*


----------



## Lucy Honeychurch (May 15, 2020)

I've filled out the work survey.


----------



## Josh DUK (May 15, 2020)

Cheers everyone, we are doing our best to get a bit more clarity on this. We will keep you up to date with everything.


----------



## Josh DUK (May 15, 2020)

catsaregreat said:


> I find it incredible that Diabetes UK, who are meant to be the voice of diabetics in the UK, are not doing more to highlight the risks of contracting Covid 19 for diabetics.
> Many people who are diabetic will shortly be asked to return to work, because they are only ‘vulnerable! Not ‘highly vulnerable’ and so are not shielded.
> Evidence from around the world shows that the top 3 comorbidities for Coronavirus are: High blood pressure, Obesity, Diabetes.
> If I can find that out without ‘further research’ it’s unbelievable that Diabetes UK can’t confirm the same without ‘months, possibly years’ of further research.
> ...



Hello @catsaregreat,
Thank you for taking the time to join our online community. Rest assured we are doing our best to get clarity on this with the Department of health and will update our members at every step of the way.


----------



## Amity Island (May 15, 2020)

Josh DUK said:


> Hello Everyone,
> 
> I thought I would share Diabetes UK statement regarding the recent article about coronavirus  and diabetes. You can find it here:
> 
> ...


Hi Josh,

Please could you find out, of those that have died, what the actual cause of death was and why they were admitted to hospital rather than, whether they tested positive or not for covid19, which everyone seems to be focusing on.

Thanks


----------



## Josh DUK (May 16, 2020)

Amity Island said:


> Hi Josh,
> 
> Please could you find out, of those that have died, what the actual cause of death was and why they were admitted to hospital rather than, whether they tested positive or not for covid19, which everyone seems to be focusing on.
> 
> Thanks



I will pass this on to the information team.


----------



## Keith McMillan (May 16, 2020)

Robin said:


> Nobody should be sent back to work if the recommended conditions aren’t in place, and the recommendations for people with health problems are more stringent than for others. This is taken from the guidance for educational settings.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thanks Robin. I've read through it and my employer has sent me a questionnaire "are you fit for work" etc... and details of the precautions they are taking for its employees. They have followed advice given to them by the government (well before we got it) where possible, but the building does't lend itself to social distancing in the first instance. Not many do I expect. Shields on desks are ineffective unless they wrap around and have a roof, and most of us have probably seen the BBC animation of how far a cough or sneeze will travel in a supermarket. For those that didn't see it; basically the droplets go over the isle and everywhere. 

Then we have temperature checks, but we can carry COVID with no temperature. There are other measures the governments advisor has given and they don't cut the mustard for me when you have diabetes, or other condition. The governments medical advisor doesn't cut it either after trying to get us to catch the virus on purpose for his 'herd immunity' experiment. What would I accept as acceptable conditions? Right now nothing short of wearing a decontamination suite and have my own office with decontamination shower in between.

Unless I see hospitals return to normal and infection rates well down, blow the R number I ain't going in. Job risk? For sure but a better way to go for me.


----------



## AJLang (May 17, 2020)

Partha Kar posted this update today at 11am Sunday May 17th
Note to all with #Diabetes:

We aim to have data re #COVID19  within 24-48 hours

Note:
Risk will be a combination of multiple factors such as:

Age
Type
Ethnicity
Control
BMI
Comorbidity
Deprivation

Not a singular binary thing 

We will try to assure/explain as best as possible


----------



## SB2015 (May 17, 2020)

AJLang said:


> Partha Kar posted this update today at 11am Sunday May 17th
> Note to all with #Diabetes:
> 
> We aim to have data re #COVID19  within 24-48 hours
> ...


Thanks AJ
All the algorithms they are using are based on so many variables.


----------



## mikeyB (May 18, 2020)

Well, they are, of necessity, making it up as they go along. There’s little evidence of T2 of itself being a risk factor for a worse outcome, but growing evidence  that T2 plus obesity plus hypertension certainly is.

Obesity on its own seems to be a big risk factor, but those who are obese are not recommended to shield for 12 weeks. Go figure.


----------



## Keith McMillan (May 19, 2020)

It's been a complete dogs dinner in this country when you look at the success of others.
These are the only stats I need to return to work and feel safe because I have no faith in our leaders now:
1. All hospitals back to normal (or very nearly)
2. Very few infections.
Reserving the right to come back out as soon as the virus takes hold again.
Nothing extra from the press yet about the 26%. 
Nothing's happening.


----------



## Keith McMillan (May 20, 2020)

Something from the BBC today:








						Coronavirus: Diabetic people offered support
					

A study reveals, for some, having diabetes is linked to an increased risk of dying with coronavirus.



					www.bbc.co.uk
				




Still not being taken up seriously enough for me. Need more support and than simply contact your GP and diabetes team if concerned. I need the government to acknowledge the issue and take the appropriate action needed. Take us out of the centre ground where we feel anxious and compromised over going back to work, and maybe into an area set between extremely vulnerable and vulnerable groups with better protection, and to be more precise.


----------



## AJLang (May 20, 2020)

This is the link to the actual papers. It’s a lot more complicated than the BBC states,




__





						NHS England » Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes and COVID-19 related mortality in England
					






					www.england.nhs.uk


----------



## AJLang (May 20, 2020)

JohnWhi all of that information is in the link that I’ve just posted above.


----------



## JohnWhi (May 20, 2020)

Grateful thanks AJLang. That is exactly what I was looking for.


----------



## Keith McMillan (May 20, 2020)

Quoting from the NHS document near the top:   
"Although diabetes has been associated with COVID-19 mortality, its scale and relationships with modifiable risk factors including hyperglycaemia and obesity in Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes remain unclear"

Obviously it will take some more time to get the full picture of mortality rates Vs conditions. In the meantime we should be protected with good cause not to return to work just yet because the risk is unknown. If the government can at least put us in a holding group on standby for now that would at least be something.


----------



## Keith McMillan (May 20, 2020)

Yes, thanks for sending this latest NHS information AJLang!


----------



## AJLang (May 20, 2020)

Well as an excellently controlled diabetic with none of the complications listed on the paper my risk rate appears to be 10x for factors that I can’t control. Plus added risk factor for 
BMI being over 40. In the grand scheme of things for me losing weight won’t make a great difference to this because my risk factor will still be over 10x
but I will be better off if I have worse control and start smoking....joking I won’t be doing those things. This has all put me in a very strange mood.


----------



## Browser (May 20, 2020)

Josh DUK said:


> Hello Everyone,
> 
> I thought I would share Diabetes UK statement regarding the recent article about coronavirus  and diabetes. You can find it here:
> 
> ...



From the statement:

*Type of diabetes

The new data shows us that of the 23,804 deaths recorded in the study, 7,466 (31.3%) who died from coronavirus had type 2 diabetes, 365 (1.5%) had type 1 diabetesand 69 (0.3%) had other types. The majority of people (66%) didn’t have diabetes. 

It also shows us that on average, people with type 1 diabetes are 3.5 times more likely to die, and people with type 2 diabetes are twice as likely to die, than people who don’t have diabetes when in hospital with coronavirus. 

These figures only look at the number of people who have died in hospital as a result of coronavirus, and don’t consider the many thousands who have recovered at home or who have been successfully discharged from hospital. *

I am no mathematician and apologies if I’m missing something here, but I don’t understand how the information in the second paragraph correlates with the information in the first one. 
Out of 23,804 deaths, 31.3% had Type 2 diabetes and 1.5% had Type 1 diabetes. 
Yet, Type 1 diabetics are 3.5 times more likely to die whereas Type 2 diabetics are twice as likely to die.
I can’t get my head round that.


----------



## Bruce Stephens (May 20, 2020)

Browser said:


> Out of 23,804 deaths, 31.3% had Type 2 diabetes and 1.5% had Type 1 diabetes.
> Yet, Type 1 diabetics are 3.5 times more likely to die whereas Type 2 diabetics are twice as likely to die.



Type 1 diabetic make up around 0.4% of the population whereas Type 2 is more like 15% (the correct value's in the paper, so that's just a guess). (i.e., it's just that we're rarer, whereas Type 2 is much more common.)


----------



## Lucy Honeychurch (May 20, 2020)

There's a lot less type 1's...frightening reading...

Edit: in answer to Browser.


----------



## Robin (May 20, 2020)

Lucy Honeychurch said:


> There's a lot less type 1's...frightening reading...


Except that, if you’ve got well controlled diabetes and age on your side, you'll probably have a mild dose and won’t end up in hospital in the first place.
And if you do end up being one of the small minority admitted to hospital, as a Type 1 diabetic, you’ve still got an 80% chance of coming out alive, and that figure isn’t adjusted for all the things like age, gender, heart disease, obesity etc, which improve the odds.


----------



## Bruce Stephens (May 20, 2020)

Robin said:


> Except that, if you’ve got well controlled diabetes and age on your side, you'll probably have a mild dose and won’t end up in hospital in the first place.



You're right that this only looks at deaths in hospital. And other things are still important, so being young, female, white, wealthy are still good things to aim for. Trying not to get infected is still the best advice.

[On rereading, the second paper covers all deaths and not just those in hospital.]


----------



## Browser (May 20, 2020)

Bruce Stephens said:


> Type 1 diabetic make up around 0.4% of the population whereas Type 2 is more like 15% (the correct value's in the paper, so that's just a guess). (i.e., it's just that we're rarer, whereas Type 2 is much more common.)


OK I can see where you’re coming from. The information doesn’t mention  ( if it does, I missed it. I’ll read it more carefully ) that it’s in relation to a percentage of the total population.


----------



## AJLang (May 20, 2020)

Sorry if I’ve already said this but my controllable factors give me a risk ratio of over 10x and that’s without any of the complications listed in the paper.
I think, but I need to double-check that the paper said that 19*% of diabetics with Covid are admitted to hospital - but that figure needs to be double-checked.
Whilst my partner is working from home then we can fully protect ourselves but when he goes back to work, at a university, we can’t. *


----------



## Lucy Honeychurch (May 20, 2020)

My main concern is I still have to work, social distancing not always possible.


----------



## Ian T (May 20, 2020)

I joined the forum here today to get more info on this (I'm probably not alone...) and I did feel that last week's journalism was irresponsible - getting 4.8m diabetics in the UK worried but without any details or context.  Congrats today to Diabetes UK who have clearly got involved actively behind the scenes with the journalists to ensure clearer messaging, links to the Diabetes UK website from today's news articles etc and much clearer commentary on the DUK materials.  More to come no doubt and difficult to give a common answer when so many people have individual circumstances and mixes of other conditions or lifestyles.  Agreed that a blanket shielding message would be a concern - same as advice to the over 70s - some more at risk than others.


----------



## Keith McMillan (May 20, 2020)

At last it got on the BBC news at lunchtime! Just need the government to listen up now.


----------



## mikeyB (May 20, 2020)

All these figures are worthless. If you disregard other comorbidities, such as obesity, hypertension, smoking, you are focussing down on one element. Only if you present the figures for deaths among folk with diabetes and no other condition will the figures reflect the real risk.


----------



## AJLang (May 20, 2020)

In the paper it gives additional risk factors/minus risk factors for age, BMI, HBA1C etc All of the detailed information is in the the appendices. Smoking actually reduces the risk factor and hypertension was found to be an insignificant variable.


----------



## Keith McMillan (May 21, 2020)

Diabetics with COVID death rate as gone up to 33% according to ITV.








						Almost a third of patients to die with Covid-19 had diabetes – NHS England | ITV News
					

This is higher than previously thought, as health service data released last week suggested 26% of Covid-19 victims in English hospitals had | ITV National News




					www.itv.com
				



Although the story made the BBC lunchtime news yesterday they dropped the story afterwards.
Anyone go Boris's number?


----------



## Keith McMillan (May 21, 2020)

If you are as concerned as me (petrified) by this alarming news you could contact your MP. 
Is there anything else we can do to get this to the attention on government?









						Contact your MP
					

Information on how to contact your local MP




					www.parliament.uk
				




*When should I contact my MP?*
You could contact your MP:


If you feel you have been treated unfairly by a Government office or agency
To let your MP know about a problem affecting people in your local area
To ask your MP to support a particular campaign that you feel strongly about
Your MP is not always the best person to help with an issue. Before you contact your MP please see our advice on who else may be able to help:


Who should I contact with my issue?

*How do I contact my MP?*
Writing is probably the best method, as it provides a written record that can be referred to later. You can:


Write a letter to your MP at: House of Commons, London SW1A 0AA
Email them using the contact details in our Directory of MPs
Remember: always include your own address when you write to your MP so that they will know you live in their constituency.


*By telephone*
If you are unable to write or you just want to ask a quick question or make an appointment, you can telephone your MP’s office:


To telephone their office at the House of Commons, call 020 7219 3000 and ask to be put through to their office giving your MP’s name
To phone your MP at their local constituency office, you will find the contact details at your local town hall or library, or it may be given in the Directory of MPs
*Social media*
Many MPs can be contacted through Twitter and other platforms. They may also run their own websites. We have added these details to the information in the Directory of MPs where possible.

*Attend an MP’s surgery*
Most MPs hold regular sessions called surgeries where they meet constituents to talk about issues of concern. If you go to a constituency surgery, it’s best to contact your MP’s office first, to find out whether you need an appointment. Your MP’s website, or your local library may have more information about when and where surgeries are taking place.

*Contact by Fax*
There is no central fax number for the House of Commons. Please telephone your MP’s office first if you wish to send them a fax directly.


----------



## Docb (May 21, 2020)

Keith, I have been trying to make sense of the papers on which this media stuff is based - see the thread in the "in the news section".  From what I have so far gleaned, I, a 74 years old, well controlled T2, am not panicking and won't be trying to stir up my MP.  Pointless exercise any way since he is a Boris shirt tail holder.


----------



## Keith McMillan (May 21, 2020)

Hi Docb, Are you going out to work and into a social distancing nightmare? This is the place where I will get COVID if I do. Well done for trying to work it out for yourself. Personally I need an official statement from trusted health health professionals to say the risk is the same for me as anyone else having to go back in right now - not from the person that told us to catch COVID for his herd immunity experiment. If this isn't possible I need to be protected by inclusion in the extremely vulnerable pigeon hole, and from instant dismissal. (My MP has been taken out because he is thought to have done something bad but his wife has stood in). Yes they are Boris's people as well. MPs are there to serve and be contacted though so why not do it, if like me you feel like a lamb to the slaughter and think something should be done?


----------



## Keith McMillan (May 21, 2020)

Would it be possible to have something clear from the organisation please letting me and others know how you think we should proceed, or any actions that can be taken to help the cause. Perhaps I face the same risk as people without conditions going back in to work, but need something better than what is available if indeed this is the case. If I am at greater risk then I need greater protection than advice given by the government which is shared on this website.


----------



## Docb (May 21, 2020)

Obviously not going out to work but am taking care not to get into gatherings and paying attention to time of contact when out and about.  Appreciate its a trickier thing to do in a work environment.

The sort of feeling I am coming to is that the case for doing something different simply because you have a diagnosis of diabetes is marginal. Add age, out of control diabetes and obesity to the mix then maybe things would be a little different.  I am personally getting a bit tired of one size fits all recommendations simply because you end up saddling everybody with the restrictions applicable for the most vulnerable.  I prefer proper risk assessments against a given set of circumstances and if the data were presented in that way then maybe it would help.

By the way, all organisations have a vested interest in the matter so you need to shade your acceptance of their views with that in mind.


----------



## Bexlee (May 21, 2020)

@Keith McMillan if you look on the diabetes uk website (I’ve attached a photo of headline) it gives a clear picture I think and suggests employment solutions / protection so to speak. Worth a read. What sort of work do you do?


----------



## Keith McMillan (May 21, 2020)

Docb said:


> Obviously not going out to work but am taking care not to get into gatherings and paying attention to time of contact when out and about.  Appreciate its a trickier thing to do in a work environment.
> 
> The sort of feeling I am coming to is that the case for doing something different simply because you have a diagnosis of diabetes is marginal. Add age, out of control diabetes and obesity to the mix then maybe things would be a little different.  I am personally getting a bit tired of one size fits all recommendations simply because you end up saddling everybody with the restrictions applicable for the most vulnerable.  I prefer proper risk assessments against a given set of circumstances and if the data were presented in that way then maybe it would help.
> 
> By the way, all organisations have a vested interest in the matter so you need to shade your acceptance of their views with that in mind.that


You are doing the right thing and keep yourself safe. It would be wrong of me to suggest my work is more dangerous than anyone else's. But if I said crammed offices with no restrictions on staff attendance, staff with long term sinus and persistent cough/sneezing issues, small offices all sharing the bit of air, narrow corridors, small loos with no restrictions, industrial dust (a carrier), one to one assistance at the desk-side with many members when I can't assist remotely, sharing phones and keyboards. That's a starter. Plus I am getting towards retirement age. Why through that away by putting my life in peril now?

You are bang saying one size fits doesn't fit all and that risk assessments should be completed and used to access people in different situations. This should be used against what is, or will be put in place e.g the app. Right now where is the app? Where is PPE businesses? Where is testing at?

Please can you clarify who has vested interest and in what? I can only comment about myself and others in the same boat. I understand my employers circumstances and the need to get the economy doing. I understand some want to return to work, but at least they have the choice. I don't have a choice when asked to return. So my need is great when I see this:
*Almost a third of patients to die with Covid-19 had diabetes – NHS England*


----------



## Docb (May 21, 2020)

Keith, my comment about vested interest was referring to the various forces disseminating the information...

The government will present it in such a way that they look good.
The opposition will present it to make the government look bad.
The press will use it to write headlines to sell newspapers.
The broadcast media will use it to fill time and create controversy.

Oh and the scientists.  They have conflicting interests. The paper I have been looking at has 13 authors - you would think me cynical to suggest some of them got their name on it because it gives them brownie points, useful when it comes to pay talks. Science papers rarely come to firm conclusions because one of the objectives of research is to use it to get a contract for follow up studies.  And you might have thought that at least one of the 13 authors might have spotted the two glaring typos in the text.  I only hope there were no glaring errors in the analysis.  

That last set of comments comes from an ex-scientist who spent many years researching all sorts of topics.  Been there and got the T-shirt.  The only thing that does not carry any spin is the raw data, and even then its often a good idea to check that!


----------



## Keith McMillan (May 21, 2020)

Bexlee said:


> @Keith McMillan if you look on the diabetes uk website (I’ve attached a photo of headline) it gives a clear picture I think and suggests employment solutions / protection so to speak. Worth a reasures in place to allow stringent social distancing for those key workers who absolutely must be at work. ad. What sort of work do you do?


Thank you for sharing this Bexlee. I did read it yesterday and have now gone through the updated version. Today it verifies that I am at significant risk but there isn't anything new to help face down employers when I need to shield - although I appreciate the efforts made by the organisation to bring this to the attention of the powers to be. Right now, being in the vulnerable group prohibits shielding in the government's eyes and my employer's eyes. I appreciate the organisation presenting the emerging facts but when will there been an outcome? What are the chances of changes being made at the top? What can I/we do to bump it up?

I haven't found anything in My Rights section that specifically relates to COVID so I presume I have no rights if I say "Sorry I can't go in to work as I will be at significant risk because social distancing will not be stringent enough for me". Or "I would go in but the app hasn't out yet". Or "You have no PPE". Or "No one else is wearing PPE". Or "Perspex screens won't stop a sneeze coming my way as shown on the BBC". Or "I have to walk through rows of members with less than 2 m between us".

On a smaller matter concerning the statement below. Who are the key workers? I'm manufacturing, but to my knowledge not a key worker. Then it would imply manufacturing workers don't have to go to work if they are diabetic. This contradicts government advice that states I must be talking to my employer about returning to work now.

If we are at greater risk, surely shielding should be our decision to take until infections are nearly zero for a reasonable length of time? Should infections rise again then we should then have the right to go back to shielding.


----------



## everydayupsanddowns (May 21, 2020)

Bexlee said:


> @Keith McMillan if you look on the diabetes uk website (I’ve attached a photo of headline) it gives a clear picture I think and suggests employment solutions / protection so to speak. Worth a read. What sort of work do you do?



Here’s the link to the page in case anyone is struggling to find it. 








						NHSE statistics on coronavirus deaths in people with diabetes
					

A study from NHS England revealed that one in three people (33.2%) who have died in hospital in England following a diagnosis of coronavirus also had diabetes. We know this statistic raised a lot more questions than it did answers, and it may have left you feeling increasingly worried.




					www.diabetes.org.uk


----------



## everydayupsanddowns (May 21, 2020)

Keith McMillan said:


> If we are at greater risk, surely shielding should be our decision to take until infections are nearly zero for a reasonable length of time? Should infections rise again then we should then have the right to go back to shielding.



Personally, I think it’s important to establish what the ‘Risk’ is in order to act appropriately.

Everything I have read so far suggests people with diabetes (of any type) are *no more likely than anyone else* to catch Covid-19.

Also, as far as I understand it (and I confess it’s a week since I looked at this stuff, which is a long time in Coronavirus terms!) people with diabetes are *no more likely than anyone else to have a severe case*.

Where it seems to get tricky is if you live with diabetes (particularly T1), and are obese or overweight, and also over 70, and with a history of high BG, and you catch Coronavirus, *AND* you get it badly.

Which is why they’ve not put PWD on the complete isolation lockdown list, I think.

Having said that, we are at increased risk, and the best way ultimately of reducing that risk is trying not to get it, and certainly not getting it when the healthcare system is a bit stretched.

So lots of handwashing, and being extra careful about social distancing, working from home if possible, and working with your employer to ensure you are as protected as possible if you cant work from home, are all worthwhile precautions.


----------



## everydayupsanddowns (May 21, 2020)

I thought you might also find some snippets of a statement from DUK helpful @Keith McMillan 

“It’s very important to remember that the risk of dying from coronavirus – for people with and without diabetes – remains very low, and that as cases of coronavirus decline, the risk to everyone of catching the disease will reduce in turn. It’s also important to remember that the numbers of children and young people with type 1, and those under the age of 40 who have died from coronavirus are very small.​​“We know people with diabetes will want to know what they can do to keep themselves safe. The most important thing anyone with diabetes can do is try their best to manage their condition carefully, keeping their blood sugar in range as much as possible. All people with diabetes should also follow stringent social distancing measures to reduce their chances of catching the virus altogether.”​​*Specifically, Diabetes UK is calling on the UK Government to ensure:*​​*People with diabetes must be kept safe at work*​People with diabetes should not be put in a situation that puts them at risk at work. Employers must put measures in place to keep people with diabetes safe, either by supporting people to work at home, or where this is not possible by putting people with diabetes on furlough, or by putting measures in place to allow stringent social distancing for those key workers who absolutely must be at work.​​The government must ensure this guidance for employers is clear, consistent, and enforced so it is focused on the safety of their employees above all else. We need to make sure that the new government workplace guidelines work for people with diabetes.​​*People with diabetes must be able to access support to manage their diabetes and keep themselves safe*​Having access to healthy food is important to people with diabetes and this has not always been easy when there has been such pressure on delivery slots. It’s also important that people with diabetes have access to other forms of support, for example to help with collecting medication from pharmacies where needed and for transport to urgent hospital appointments, which can’t be conducted remotely.​​Health and social care services are dealing with a challenging situation and must be supported to ensure people with diabetes can continue to access the services, information and care they need during this difficult time, including emotional and psychological support.​


----------



## Keith McMillan (May 21, 2020)

everydayupsanddowns said:


> Personally, I think it’s important to establish what the ‘Risk’ is in order to act appropriately.
> 
> Everything I have read so far suggests people with diabetes (of any type) are *no more likely than anyone else* to catch Covid-19.
> 
> ...



Hi Forum, 
Is there anyone like me out there in a similar position? 

Anyway, I appreciate your experience Everyday and for providing this wisdom. Being taken into hospital with diabetes is where it gets bad as far as I can tell and age does seem to be crucial to outcome. You mention hand washing but I will be at the mercy of others to be diligent, and I know one employee that never washes his hands in the loo whatever the circumstances! 

I will be entering an environment poorly equipped for social distancing, doing a job demanding more contact with people than normal like bus drivers - we already know what happens to poor bus drivers, and no one will be wearing face coverings. I can't get NHS masks (they need to be frequently  changed) and a visor. Giving assistance by phone would be nearly impossible wearing them whilst also operating computers. My employer has already asked the question, can you do all your job from home? The answer is I can do much, but not all of my work from home. Now I am hiding behind the soffa. 

We all have our story to tell and I think in my position it would be too risky for me to go in at the moment. As previously said, retirement is in sight and I don't want to pop my clogs having got this far. I believe I have a valid case not to be forced in right now. Unfortunately the dice is loaded and not in my favour. There is bound to be many more in a similar position. Strangely they don't appear to be looking at this thread.


----------



## Keith McMillan (May 21, 2020)

everydayupsanddowns said:


> I thought you might also find some snippets of a statement from DUK helpful @Keith McMillan
> 
> “It’s very important to remember that the risk of dying from coronavirus – for people with and without diabetes – remains very low, and that as cases of coronavirus decline, the risk to everyone of catching the disease will reduce in turn. It’s also important to remember that the numbers of children and young people with type 1, and those under the age of 40 who have died from coronavirus are very small.​​“We know people with diabetes will want to know what they can do to keep themselves safe. The most important thing anyone with diabetes can do is try their best to manage their condition carefully, keeping their blood sugar in range as much as possible. All people with diabetes should also follow stringent social distancing measures to reduce their chances of catching the virus altogether.”​​*Specifically, Diabetes UK is calling on the UK Government to ensure:*​​*People with diabetes must be kept safe at work*​People with diabetes should not be put in a situation that puts them at risk at work. Employers must put measures in place to keep people with diabetes safe, either by supporting people to work at home, or where this is not possible by putting people with diabetes on furlough, or by putting measures in place to allow stringent social distancing for those key workers who absolutely must be at work.​​The government must ensure this guidance for employers is clear, consistent, and enforced so it is focused on the safety of their employees above all else. We need to make sure that the new government workplace guidelines work for people with diabetes.​​*People with diabetes must be able to access support to manage their diabetes and keep themselves safe*​Having access to healthy food is important to people with diabetes and this has not always been easy when there has been such pressure on delivery slots. It’s also important that people with diabetes have access to other forms of support, for example to help with collecting medication from pharmacies where needed and for transport to urgent hospital appointments, which can’t be conducted remotely.​​Health and social care services are dealing with a challenging situation and must be supported to ensure people with diabetes can continue to access the services, information and care they need during this difficult time, including emotional and psychological support.​



I expect my employer to say I know all this. Come in or get fired. 
That's the bit I will need assistance with.


----------



## Bexlee (May 21, 2020)

I don’t really want to enter into a heated debate or rant but @Keith McMillan have you actually had a conversation with your employer ??? As I understand it been classed as clinically vulnerable by having diabetes (not extremely clinically vulnerable and shieldingemployers have the duty to try and make you feel safe at work ......

“Employers must put measures in place to keep people with diabetes safe, either by supporting people to work at home, or *where this is not possible by putting people with diabetes on furlough*, or by putting measures in place to allow stringent social distancing for those key workers who absolutely must be at work”

It is an anxious time for all of us who have to go out to work.......it is an anxious time for all.

so long as YOU wash your hands regularly and don’t touch your face, eyes, nose, mouth after touching surfaces it shouldn’t pose a higher risk. I’m not sure how gloves help the general population as the glove surface kind of just becomes  your hand! I’m pretty sure in government documentation for businesses there’s  mention somewhere of computer keyboards etc.


----------



## Bexlee (May 21, 2020)

everydayupsanddowns said:


> Here’s the link to the page in case anyone is struggling to find it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thanks @everydayupsanddowns i don’t know who to attach it!


----------



## Becka (May 21, 2020)

In addition to Bexlee's comments, here are is the official guidance to employees for people at higher risk, which includes the with diabetes.  If they fail to do this you can report is to the Health & Safety Executive as employers have a legal responsibility for ensuring your workplace is safe.









						Reducing the spread of respiratory infections, including COVID-19, in the workplace
					

Public health principles for reducing the spread of respiratory infections, including COVID-19, in the workplace.




					www.gov.uk
				




But have you spoken to your G.P. about your concerns, Keith?  If they think it appropriate, they can put you on the shielding list.  Although diabetes is not listed as a condition which puts you at a very high risk, the decision is left to your doctor's experience and clinical judgment of your overall health.

The increased risk from being diabetic seems to be causing you a lot of anxiety.  Although a perfectly valid understandable reaction, anxiety is itself a health problem and could be detrimental to your overall health.


----------



## everydayupsanddowns (May 21, 2020)

Bexlee said:


> Thanks @everydayupsanddowns i don’t know who to attach it!



no problem @Bexlee - just copy the page address from the address bar and paste it into a message - the forum should convert it into a clickable link when you save


----------



## Keith McMillan (May 21, 2020)

Bexlee said:


> I don’t really want to enter into a heated debate or rant but @Keith McMillan have you actually had a conversation with your employer ??? As I understand it been classed as clinically vulnerable by having diabetes (not extremely clinically vulnerable and shieldingemployers have the duty to try and make you feel safe at work ......
> 
> “Employers must put measures in place to keep people with diabetes safe, either by supporting people to work at home, or *where this is not possible by putting people with diabetes on furlough*, or by putting measures in place to allow stringent social distancing for those key workers who absolutely must be at work”
> 
> ...



It's getting a bit hot for me because my point isn't getting across. I have read the links thank you. Ranting is perfectly OK although I haven't seen any yet. I am a fan of the phrase anger is an energy but I'm not angry. It makes absolute sense to me that shielding should be an option for anyone with diabetes because of poor outcomes if we enter hospital with COVID. Especially taking age into consideration. I cannot do this according to the government. Being thrown into a social distancing nightmare will further ramp up risk and fear. I can't criticise my employer but let's just say I know them well.

At the moment the emphasis is on touching face. This is only one route for viral transmission. The eyes are another. Forget perspex it won't work. Not touching face is one of the hardest things to do and virtually impossible.

Anxiety will be much reduced with greater freedom of choice for individuals.

I hope this sums up the predicament for me and many. People reading this discussion might find it more difficult to understand if not in the same position, or worse. I've just been outside clapping for our NHS. I'm not adding to their burdon.


----------



## Keith McMillan (May 21, 2020)

Becka said:


> In addition to Bexlee's comments, here are is the official guidance to employees for people at higher risk, which includes the with diabetes.  If they fail to do this you can report is to the Health & Safety Executive as employers have a legal responsibility for ensuring your workplace is safe.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thanks Becka. I didn't know that shielding is still a possibility and I will ask a doctor. At the moment I can't join a surgery following a house move because surgeries are passing the buck and won't let me in. This is with NHS England. I've read about employers having to make the workplace safe, but if it got as far as approaching the H&S Excecutive I would have already been sacked. Handy to know but my argument is that things wouldn't have to get that far if shielding was an option for the vulnerable. Completing the loop then; I didn't know that shielding is still a possibility and I will ask a doctor (when I can find one).

Surely a target should be 'make shielding an option for the vulnerable' for now.


----------



## Keith McMillan (May 22, 2020)

Docb said:


> Keith, my comment about vested interest was referring to the various forces disseminating the information...
> 
> The government will present it in such a way that they look good.
> The opposition will present it to make the government look bad.
> ...



Sorry I get where you're coming from now Docb. These authors need spell checker training by the sounds.

I sit next to a senior scientist every day now. She's WFH and called the Mrs, and she thinks the R number is poppycock. Spelling mistakes are a no-no with scientific papers. Especially equations I expect.

Perhaps I should be looking at the raw data and running it through some SQL queries. I've no idea where to find it and it usually comes at a price. I'm not a scientist though and this will bog me down no doubt.


----------



## trophywench (May 22, 2020)

Err, re lack of registration with a GP, I think you really ought to ring your local CCG - a diabetic on relevant medication (are you?) cannot afford to be without that medication for very long in any event otherwise we WOULD all become a burden on the NHS pdq in a lot of cases!  So ring them for advice asap.  Even unmedicated because we always all require certain checks even if only annually, we have to be on the List in order to get them - if we don't get them - then it's a thick black mark for the CCG so they aren't very keen on that!


----------



## Docb (May 22, 2020)

Keith, the typos were in fact word processor errors where somebody had edited sentences and then had not read what they had left to make sure that it made sense.  It hit me on first reading, hence my comment.


----------



## Keith McMillan (May 22, 2020)

trophywench said:


> Err, re lack of registration with a GP, I think you really ought to ring your local CCG - a diabetic on relevant medication (are you?) cannot afford to be without that medication for very long in any event otherwise we WOULD all become a burden on the NHS pdq in a lot of cases!  So ring them for advice asap.  Even unmedicated because we always all require certain checks even if only annually, we have to be on the List in order to get them - if we don't get them - then it's a thick black mark for the CCG so they aren't very keen on that!


Thank you. I will give them a go. All I did was move two miles further and the surgery threw me out. I've been without for months now and they are the best in the area. 

I will fez up and say I've been a casual diabetic 2 for a decade. I manage it with diet (at the moment) and apart from two occasions the nurse has always told me my blood sugar is good, my weight is good, feet are man lovely. I eat good food, some bad food, and very little raw sugar. I eat crisps every other day and I expect my salt control isn't perfect. I've never monitored my weight, or blood sugar because my diet doesn't change much.

Recently it occurred to me my blood sugar should be tested at other times of day. I've only just got a testing kit but I can tell my blood sugar can be a little high before breakfast. While furloughed I have managed to get my fitness up to try and counteract this. Before I got the great gut infection of 1999 I was a super fit gym regular. Recovery took some time and even now I cannot digest some foods, but much worse is that I couldn't get back into fitness. I found out I was diabetic some 10 years afterwards and there lies the cause. So my fitness has been extremely poor for decades. 

But I know how to deal with my blood sugar now and with the extra time at home I've got much fitter! I'm waffling (probably been pent up with this for too long). Back to doctor hunting.


----------



## DavidG89 (May 22, 2020)

I think the key thing is that no matter how much your employer does, the government advises or pre cautions you take, there will never be a chance you can completely remove the risk of this virus.

I am 31, type 1, 15 years. Good control, HBA1C 44 or 6.2. I work front line emergency service and have been throughout the lockdown. In my role there is zero opportunity to social distance at all times. I am fit, l exercise for up to an hour daily, however I could do with losing a few pounds. There is various things that I wouldn't do in terms of close proximity to members of the public if I can avoid it, but I share a building with over 50 people. In my role I have taken the decision that my role is important and I need to "muck in" to the overall effort. I hope and trust that my immune system is strong enough, my good control, my age, fit and healthy. I appreciate this is different to a lot of people and I respect that, but I mean if we can't get a cure or treatment for virus, we may just have to live with it and it will be up to people's own individual choices how much they want to venture out or what type of work they do. Only a thought, I don't mean to criticise or downplay people's anxieties or predicaments in terms of work, but as we see the amount of money the government is spending per day, they can't furlough everyone indefinitely.


----------



## Keith McMillan (May 22, 2020)

Absolutely right. COVID will be with us for some time yet and furlough must finish soon. The point of having lockdown measures is to significantly reduce the numbers getting it and reduce the burdon on the NHS. For me the government is moving too fast by opening some businesses and schools with so many still catching COVID and no extra measures put in place yet such as the app, full testing, antibodies, clinical trials. The numbers of people allowed to fill tourist areas is ridiculous.

My brother in law has COVID and I speak with him throughout the week. His condition rises and falls terribly and he repeatedly warns me "Don't return to work until it is safe as you don't want this! Going back right now isn't worth the risk Keith".

My work doesn't put me on the NHS's front line, but it will be a nightmare when it comes to social distancing and PPE has been NHS reserved - with good reason. My work is in manufacturing but it makes non essential goods. I have no faith in the government because I feel they have turned their back on vulnerable people and tried to make people catch the virus on purpose etc... plus many other issues.

So I'll have to draw up my own set of criteria of when I think it will be safe for me to go back. I will get as much assistance as possible keeping out of work because I don't think it is safe for a 60+ diabetic to return to a distancing nightmare just yet. My criteria is based on survival instincts and common sense sadly lacking in government:

Few infections nationally
Few infections locally and monitored 
Hospitals returned nearly to normal.
App in place and working
Full testing for all
The first clinical trials to at least be given a chance to compete
Reserve the right to WFH on local outbreak
I worked in NHS hospitals during swine flu and recall feeling a little scared then, but I was an un-diagnosed diabetic and wasn't so concerned. I always tried to give the best service to all hospital staff whatever the circumstances. That's why I joined the NHS (but they made my job redundant). Thank you for all you are doing DavidG. I live in the open but we still applaud the NHS every week and hear the applause of others miles away.


----------



## DavidG89 (May 22, 2020)

You raise very valid points Keith and that is good criteria for your rational behind returning to work. I certainly wasn't putting up about my occupation to try and get applause or recognition, in case you think I wanted a pat on the back! Ha! I'm in Policing, which at times has been a bit all over the place, however that is another topic for another day. I do think England is moving a bit too quickly personally, it could be seen to be economically based rather than health based, I may be wrong. Some 2000+ cases daily still? Every job to the government is critical now in terms of generating national insurance, tax and people spending money into the economy and that could be the reason why they seem to be accelerating the lockdown easing? I am in Northern Ireland and our new cases are relatively low per day, just 23 new cases today, we now have contract tracing for all cases, our Belfast City Hospital nightingale hospital being stood down. We have a population of 1.8 million, that is spread out, doesn't rely on public transport and no big international airports. I think currently we have about 6 flights a week departing and leaving here to the rest of the UK. England seems to be the worst hit region by far, but is also the biggest of the 4 nations, has more transport hubs in terms of the London underground, more reliance on public transport, is more densely populated and has more international airports than us here. I would say about PPE from experience, that the FFP3 masks that the NHS, Police, care agencies etc are ordering them direct from suppliers and those suppliers have contract's they need to fulfil first and foremost to those agencies rather than private customers. I wouldn't at all feel a sense of I shouldn't have this mask or other PPE if you source it through the usual online shopping websites, however you might be charged an arm and a leg for them. Take care.


----------



## Keith McMillan (May 22, 2020)

David, you still get my applause being in policing. I remember security stopping people fighting and spitting in A&E. I hope they bring out extra protection against the virus for you soon. Looks like you have the situation in control better than England. Daily number of lab-confirmed cases in England the past few days is less than 1000 if I am reading the graph correctly. The total number of deaths for England is huge compared with N Ireland so England has been hit for sure. We cram people in the underground system like Japan these days. 

I'm considering moving to your county now!   

Take care!


----------



## Stitch147 (May 22, 2020)

Staff on furlough where I work have had theirs extended until end of July at the moment. I on the other hand am still in work, have been since before the lockdown started. Unfortunately until the government change their stance on what happens with people who have diabetes I'll still be in work. I'll be dodging customers, waiting until they stop faffing about which tomatoes to buy, moving out of the way every time one stretches across me, taking twice as long to do the jobs I need to get done, the same way I have since lockdown started. No wonder I'm knackered!


----------



## Keith McMillan (May 22, 2020)

Stitch147 said:


> Staff on furlough where I work have had theirs extended until end of July at the moment. I on the other hand am still in work, have been since before the lockdown started. Unfortunately until the government change their stance on what happens with people who have diabetes I'll still be in work. I'll be dodging customers, waiting until they stop faffing about which tomatoes to buy, moving out of the way every time one stretches across me, taking twice as long to do the jobs I need to get done, the same way I have since lockdown started. No wonder I'm knackered!


Something Bexlee sent over:
“Employers must put measures in place to keep people with diabetes safe, either by supporting people to work at home, or *where this is not possible by putting people with diabetes on furlough*, or by putting measures in place to allow stringent social distancing for those key workers who absolutely must be at work”


----------



## Hepato-pancreato (May 25, 2020)

Sure i've read this somewhere that all this conflicting information being dished out is causing a condition that is labelled CORONOPHOBIA. Sorry to say that it seems to be creeping up on me. Had to go for my 6 monthly surveilance ultrasound. Hospital phoned me 3 times to reasure me that it was safe for me to attend and not to worry. Glad to say all went well in and out in no time. Hospital was empty. Now this week i'm at the Royal Liverpool for an mri with contrast. more anxious about this one! which big C worries me the most? I'd have to say COVID19.


----------



## everydayupsanddowns (May 25, 2020)

Hepato-pancreato said:


> causing a condition that is labelled CORONOPHOBIA.



I’ve been seeing several suggestions that ‘it’s all been a bit much‘ and ‘blown out of all proportion‘ in recent weeks, and I’m not sure I buy that myself.

When I look at the death toll in the tens of thousands, looking likely to be TWICE the initial 20,000 estimate before long vs the much lower levels of fatality in countries which took firmer action more quickly, I really don’t see that we overreacted.


----------



## Carlos (May 25, 2020)

everydayupsanddowns said:


> I’ve been seeing several suggestions that ‘it’s all been a bit much‘ and ‘blown out of all proportion‘ in recent weeks, and I’m not sure I buy that myself.
> 
> When I look at the death toll in the tens of thousands, looking likely to be TWICE the initial 20,000 estimate before long vs the much lower levels of fatality in countries which took firmer action more quickly, I really don’t see that we overreacted.


Looking at the figures I would say we underreacted, if that is a word.


----------



## Eddy Edson (May 25, 2020)

everydayupsanddowns said:


> I’ve been seeing several suggestions that ‘it’s all been a bit much‘ and ‘blown out of all proportion‘ in recent weeks, and I’m not sure I buy that myself.
> 
> When I look at the death toll in the tens of thousands, looking likely to be TWICE the initial 20,000 estimate before long vs the much lower levels of fatality in countries which took firmer action more quickly, I really don’t see that we overreacted.



It's a bit puzzling to compare the rage about Cummings versus the apparent stoicsm about the really bad overall handling of COVID-19. But I guess because responsibility for the latter is diffuse, unclear, harder to pin on individual scapegoats etc.


----------



## Keith McMillan (May 25, 2020)

Eddy Edson said:


> It's a bit puzzling to compare the rage about Cummings versus the apparent stoicsm about the really bad overall handling of COVID-19. But I guess because responsibility for the latter is diffuse, unclear, harder to pin on individual scapegoats etc.


There will be an inquiry and hopefully it will be effective to prevent another catastrophe. Labour and conservative parties neglected our elderly, and I expect the same could be said for lack of preparation for a pandemic. I expect Cummings panicked when he took the selfish path. Hopefully he'll go soon but we'll never know if anyone died as a result of his travels.

I can't understand why we haven't been able to do anything as well as Germany does. Except maybe football at the moment but that is close.


----------



## Keith McMillan (May 25, 2020)

everydayupsanddowns said:


> I’ve been seeing several suggestions that ‘it’s all been a bit much‘ and ‘blown out of all proportion‘ in recent weeks, and I’m not sure I buy that myself.
> 
> When I look at the death toll in the tens of thousands, looking likely to be TWICE the initial 20,000 estimate before long vs the much lower levels of fatality in countries which took firmer action more quickly, I really don’t see that we overreacted.


A pandemic alone is reason enough for people's anxieties to rise, but when the BBC produced the 25% of diabetics going to hospital don't come out, and later ITV saying that actually it's more like 33%, well that's a good cause to panic. 

Now we need an official statement from a trusted source, if the figures are wrong or badly presented, in order to alleviate peoples concerns. I've not seen anything out there yet.


----------



## silentsquirrel (May 25, 2020)

Keith McMillan said:


> A pandemic alone is reason enough for people's anxieties to rise, but when the BBC produced the 25% of diabetics going to hospital don't come out, and later ITV saying that actually it's more like 33%, well that's a good cause to panic.
> 
> Now we need an official statement from a trusted source, if the figures are wrong or badly presented, in order to alleviate peoples concerns. I've not seen anything out there yet.


Keith, they really did NOT say 25% of diabetics admitted to hospital die.
They said 25% of those who died in hospital had diabetes.
It isn't the same at all.


----------



## Docb (May 25, 2020)

silentsquirrel said:


> Keith, they really did NOT say 25% of diabetics admitted to hospital die.
> They said 25% of those who died in hospital had diabetes.
> It isn't the same at all.



Quite correct.  I thought we had bottomed that in another thread.


----------



## Keith McMillan (May 25, 2020)

silentsquirrel said:


> Keith, they really did NOT say 25% of diabetics admitted to hospital die.
> They said 25% of those who died in hospital had diabetes.
> It isn't the same at all.


Put plain and simply that way I find it easy to understand but others aren't so good with facts and figures out there. Also there are many people that found out on TV who won't be looking at this thread.


----------



## everydayupsanddowns (May 25, 2020)

Keith McMillan said:


> Put plain and simply that way I find it easy to understand but others aren't so good with facts and figures out there. Also there are many people that found out on TV who won't be looking at this thread.



How about this: People with diabetes in their 70s and 80s who had a severe case of Coronavirus, *and* who also had a history of high BG *and* who were also overweight or obese were sadly more likely to die than young people with diabetes or people without diabetes.

At least that’s what I understand from delving below the headline to see if it applied to me.


----------



## Bruce Stephens (May 25, 2020)

Eddy Edson said:


> It's a bit puzzling to compare the rage about Cummings versus the apparent stoicsm about the really bad overall handling of COVID-19. But I guess because responsibility for the latter is diffuse, unclear, harder to pin on individual scapegoats etc.



Polling on the general handling of the virus seems to be going down, but you're right that it's a more complex story. (I think The Sunday Times has had a few good stories on it in the last couple of weeks.)

The Cummings story is just much simpler. He (with his family) did something they shouldn't have done, his wife talked and wrote publicly about her experience of the virus and didn't mention going to Durham, so obviously they knew it wouldn't be a good idea to mention it. And he's such a central character in the government that they government must have know where he was, so there's a coverup there too. And Cummings is generally disliked, which doesn't hurt.


----------



## AJLang (May 25, 2020)

everydayupsanddowns said:


> How about this: People with diabetes in their 70s and 80s who had a severe case of Coronavirus, *and* who also had a history of high BG *and* who were also overweight or obese were sadly more likely to die than young people with diabetes or people without diabetes.
> 
> At least that’s what I understand from delving below the headline to see if it applied to me.


Mike not wanting to be nit picky but  being  under/lower weight also increased the risks as did a HBA1C 45-48 which I believe is within the NHS target range. But I’m happy to be corrected if I’m wrong because I am citing all this from memory.  This is based on reading the full paper and the info in the appendices.


----------



## Eddy Edson (May 25, 2020)

To me, the most pressing question would be: what's my risk of dying if I catch it. The UK data has probs with that question because (a) the infection rate for COVID-19 is pretty unclear but probably at least 10X the detected & reported cases and (b) it seems the fatality data isn't complete either. 

FWIW, the Oz data doesn't have the same problems, and the infection has pretty much run its initial course by now with a handful of new cases per day and only a few still in hospital. In Oz, you can be pretty certain of these things:

- Infection rate pretty much the same for diabetics as non-diabetics. (About 5.2% of COVID-19 cases are diabetics, the same as diabetes prevalance). No surprise there.

- 6.9% of diabetic COVID-19 cases have died, versus 1.4% for the general COVID-19 population.  So as a whole, diabetics 4.9X more likely to die of COVID-19 than the general pop.

In the UK, working from the first paper, the figure is 6.4X but that only includes deaths in hospital and there are other reasons as well to think the data is probably incomplete.  So the real figure may well be closer to the Oz 4.9X.

Unfortunately I haven't seen any Oz analysis looking at separating out diabetes from type, age, HbA1c, BMI, CV issues etc etc. Hopefully somebody gets on to that soon - it's not rocket science if you have access to the complete records - but maybe the numbers are too small for good confidence intervals; only ~100 deaths ...

Just another thing about the NHS England papers - it surprised me that they didn't look at PAD/CAD as comorbidities, as far as I could see.


----------



## everydayupsanddowns (May 25, 2020)

AJLang said:


> Mike not wanting to be nit picky but  being  under/lower weight also increased the risks as did a HBA1C 45-48 which I believe is within the NHS target range. But I’m happy to be corrected if I’m wrong because I am citing all this from memory.  This is based on reading the full paper and the info in the appendices.



Yes I haven‘t really dug down into the HbA1c thing to know whether there was a current/historic association in the T1 population with Severe Hypoglycaemia, which can be particularly tricky in 70-80 age group (cardiac arrythmia etc) 

I think the single biggest factor is still age?


----------



## AJLang (May 25, 2020)

everydayupsanddowns said:


> Yes I haven‘t really dug down into the HbA1c thing to know whether there was a current/historic association in the T1 population with Severe Hypoglycaemia, which can be particularly tricky in 70-80 age group (cardiac arrythmia etc)
> 
> I think the single biggest factor is still age?


I agree age is important but I’m not sure what the cut off point is with regard to being “older”. They’ve said about being under 40 is lower risk and then as you get older the risk increases for age. But age is just one of several additional hazard risk factors included in the findings.


----------



## Jane50 (May 25, 2020)

Rob Oldfield said:


> Taken from latest coverage in Guardian:
> 
> 
> Follow up statement from Bridget Turner, director of policy at Diabetes UK:


Do you think the government will take the advice of the scientists and ask diabetic patients to shield, it doesnt matter particularly to me, as I do not work, and practically doing this anyway, as do not go very often to the shops, and only go out for exercise a couple of times a day....if we were told to shield, I would probably still take the walks I do in quiet areas with no social contact with anybody else.  But how would younger people be able to shield if they work etc, or would some just agree to work from home, and I suppose those that are self employed and work on garden maintenance, could still do that without contact with people.


----------



## Jane50 (May 25, 2020)

If they do this, I dont know what risk I would be in, I am 70 this year, and could shield easily, although may still want to go out for exercise in quiet areas, I also dont always have excellent HBa1C levels, although the last one wasnt bad, but the nurse thought it was a bit low at 6.5, but I gather I would be more at risk than a younger person, so would be prepared to shield if asked to do so


----------



## Stitch147 (May 27, 2020)

Well, I found out the reason why I haven't been furloughed, it's due to my skills!!! So I have to still continue to play dodge the customer while my company put skills over health!!!


----------



## Eddy Edson (May 27, 2020)

Stitch147 said:


> Well, I found out the reason why I haven't been furloughed, it's due to my skills!!! So I have to still continue to play dodge the customer while my company put skills over health!!!



Sucks, Stitch


----------

