# Worrying ...



## TiredOldGal (May 14, 2020)

Coronavirus: A quarter of COVID-19 patients who died in England had diabetes
					

NHS England said of the 22,332 people who died since 31 March, 5,873 (26%) of them had diabetes as an underlying health condition.




					news.sky.com
				




I’m a teacher and potentially returning to work soon.


----------



## Robin (May 14, 2020)

TiredOldGal said:


> Coronavirus: A quarter of COVID-19 patients who died in England had diabetes
> 
> 
> NHS England said of the 22,332 people who died since 31 March, 5,873 (26%) of them had diabetes as an underlying health condition.
> ...


This is taken from the government guidelines for teachers and schools.
_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*_









						[Withdrawn] Coronavirus (COVID-19): implementing protective measures in education and childcare settings
					






					www.gov.uk


----------



## eggyg (May 14, 2020)

TiredOldGal said:


> Coronavirus: A quarter of COVID-19 patients who died in England had diabetes
> 
> 
> NHS England said of the 22,332 people who died since 31 March, 5,873 (26%) of them had diabetes as an underlying health condition.
> ...


It did say that they don’t know if it was the diabetes or their life style choices. If your BGs are stable, you eat well and exercise, your chances of contracting Covid 19 are no more than a non diabetic.


----------



## Tilly26 (May 14, 2020)

I saw the same article & wonder, given this news , whether more consideration should be given about us as an at risk group that us in fact at considerably higher risk of having a potentially very serious or fatal response to the virus? This also impacts on the number who will be  admitted to ICU.


----------



## mikeyB (May 14, 2020)

Get in touch with your union. A diabetes diagnosis puts you in the vulnerable category, so should maintain strict social distancing. It would seem that the English government thinks that schools and teaching are not likely to spread the virus, and social distancing is easy. Every other country in the UK thinks otherwise. Anybody with a normally functioning brain can see that.



eggyg said:


> It did say that they don’t know if it was the diabetes or their life style choices. If your BGs are stable, you eat well and exercise, your chances of contracting Covid 19 are no more than a non diabetic.


Of course the likelihood of "contracting" Covid 19 is the same. It's the risk of developing a severe response to infection that's different.


----------



## trophywench (May 14, 2020)

Well - they could all have been 90 and resident in care homes because of their other co-morbidities for all any of us know!

I'm certainly not panicking at this juncture but would want to know when you do go back what precautions the school and you will be taking to prevent my grandkids and greatgrandkids, coming in to contact with an infected person or surface whilst in your care?  Absolutely nothing with 'this lot' only goes one way, does it!


----------



## TiredOldGal (May 14, 2020)

Robin said:


> This is taken from the government guidelines for teachers and schools.
> _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*_
> 
> 
> ...


Thank you very mich for this


----------



## NotWorriedAtAll (May 14, 2020)

How to make a face shield very simply in case it is of use to anyone - especially for spectacles wearers:





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




You can get A4 acetate sheets on Amazon.


----------



## TiredOldGal (May 14, 2020)

NotWorriedAtAll said:


> How to make a face shield very simply in case it is of use to anyone - especially for spectacles wearers:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


What a great idea. Thank you!


----------



## Happylad (May 14, 2020)

After the release of the stats and the associated news articles  I think a further breakdown is needed Type 1 or type 2 at least then we are all pre-armed as such.  I have been thinking of doing more in the community,  shopping etc instead of just my wife doing it. But this has made me think again and I think more information is needed.


----------



## Bexlee (May 14, 2020)

I’d like to know what precautions schools through the Government are going to be taking to prevent all or any teachers, diabetic or not coming in to contact with an infected person or surface whilst we’re in their (the schools) care.

As a teacher I appreciate children need to get back into the classroom either for education or for them to be ‘just’ be safe and cared for in some cases but it’s not going to be ‘normal school’ or ‘normal lessons’ is it worth it? For child safety and protection yes every day of the week without doubt but for education at the moment ?  I know there are many differing opinions here based on the experience of your child / grandchild’s school during this time.

Practically a class of 15 children will need 60m to move anywhere like to lunch or break then have to stand or sit 2m apart etc. It’s a mine field to negotiate how it’ll work and preparing for it. Not to mention the cleaning before, during and after the day or moving from place to place.

Children need protecting and there isn’t enough science yet to say how it effects them or even how and if they spread it. Children naturally like to be together, pushing, prodding, sharing sweets, pens, looking at phone screens ......no matter what you say to them they naturally forget what you told them in the last sentence as you turn round! they may surprise us with the social distancing and it may all be ok but there’s always a but.

I’ve ranted a little bit there ! Sorry.
Anyway I imagine most schools will be sensible and say do stuff from home ..... mine have but I may well be lucky.


----------



## TeeGee (May 15, 2020)

eggyg said:


> If your BGs are stable, you eat well and exercise, your chances of contracting Covid 19 are no more than a non diabetic.


Are you able to link where you got this information from?


----------



## Robin (May 15, 2020)

TeeGee said:


> Are you able to link where you got this information from?


Have a look at this thread, from Post #24 onwards, discussing the French Coronado study.








						Latest Covid 19 info
					

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...




					forum.diabetes.org.uk


----------



## SB2015 (May 15, 2020)

TeeGee said:


> Are you able to link where you got this information from?


This is the link to DUKs latest updated report








						Coronavirus and diabetes updates
					

All the coronavirus information below applies to the whole of the UK, unless specified. We've noted where are some differences in guidance and diabetes services across the UK.




					www.diabetes.org.uk


----------



## AJLang (May 15, 2020)

SB2015 said:


> This is the link to DUKs latest updated report
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I could be wrong but I’m almost certain that this hasn’t been updated since yesterday’s deaths information was released. Maybe somebody from DUK could clarify either way please.


----------



## Keith McMillan (May 15, 2020)

We now know there is only a 75% of recovery for diabetics that get covid (BBC QuestionTime last night). Recovery will worsen with increased age of course. This will add to the danger of working with children who are great carriers.

I am also in a 'should return to work now' group feeling the pressure with the law not on my side. I think social distancing measures that have been introduced to schools and businesses are not very effective. Coughs and sneezes will fill a work room regardless of protective screens and the 2 metre rule. Temperature checks before entering work are not accurate enough. You can still be infected and develop a temperature later, or carry without having a temperature. I listened to the health adviser on Question Time clearly stating stay in for now. Boris says he always goes on advise given by health professionals. But obviously they are his health professionals and he is not listening to the one last night on BBC. Don't forget it was his health advisor telling thousands of us to catch the virus for herd immunity like some nasty nazi experiment.

Boris wants us back to work to get the country earning. Why has it taken this long to release the 75% survival rate for diabetics and all other conditions? Rather than put people with health conditions through such anxiety would it not have been more humane to ask people to return to work based on survival rate, and also wait for the apps to come out and do their stuff, and wait for tests for everyone, and the vaccine coming out. None of these methods will be long now.


----------



## Bruce Stephens (May 15, 2020)

Keith McMillan said:


> would it not have been more humane to ask people to return to work based on survival rate



Women and children first


----------



## silentsquirrel (May 15, 2020)

Keith McMillan said:


> We now know there is only a 75% of recovery for diabetics that get covid (BBC QuestionTime last night).


Sorry, I did not watch QT, so perhaps this is something else, but if this comes from the 25% of those who died with (but not necessarily of) coronavirus also having diabetes, then it seems a totally false deduction.  75% of those who died did not have diabetes, the figures given don't relate to the chance of recovery for a diabetic.


----------



## Keith McMillan (May 15, 2020)

silentsquirrel said:


> Sorry, I did not watch QT, so perhaps this is something else, but if this comes from the 25% of those who died with (but not necessarily of) coronavirus also having diabetes, then it seems a totally false deduction.  75% of those who died did not have diabetes, the figures given don't relate to the chance of recovery for a diabetic.



OK let's wait and see if this figure will be checked later, but surely return to work should be based on the mortality rates Vs different conditions. At the moment there is a centre gound of people who are vulnerable and very anxious.


----------



## Docb (May 15, 2020)

Did not watch question time either - I avoid those types of programme because what you generally get are spokesmen peddling whatever story the organisation they belong to wants promulgating combined with a broadcaster anxious for sensational stuff that will up their ratings.  Not a good place to get reasoned and balanced analysis.


----------



## Robin (May 15, 2020)

Keith McMillan said:


> We now know there is only a 75% of recovery for diabetics that get covid (BBC QuestionTime last night). Recovery will worsen with increased age of course. This will add to the danger of working with children who are great carriers.


I didn’t see Question Time, but I don’t know how they could possibly have procured figures that say that, when a lot of people, diabetics included, have had it mildly and recovered without ever being tested and becoming a statistic. 
If they’ve interpreted the '25% of people who died had diabetes' as 'diabetics only have a 75% survival rate' then this is absolute nonsense and scaremongering at its worst.


----------



## Keith McMillan (May 15, 2020)

Docb said:


> Did not watch question time either - I avoid those types of programme because what you generally get are spokesmen peddling whatever story the organisation they belong to wants promulgating combined with a broadcaster anxious for sensational stuff that will up their ratings.  Not a good place to get reasoned and balanced analysis.


Agreed but right now there is a centre ground of people who are vulnerable and very anxious being told to go to work, and we need the media to bring news to our attention for when the government doesn't for whatever reason.


----------



## Keith McMillan (May 15, 2020)

Bruce Stephens said:


> Women and children first


Very Droll Bruce  I think realistically if it came to that particular scenario the men folk wouldn't allow their wife and kids out their own and out to work as well.


----------



## Robin (May 15, 2020)

Keith McMillan said:


> Very Droll Bruce  I think realistically if it came to that particular scenario the men folk wouldn't allow their wife and kids out their own and out to work as well.


Well women and children are least likely to be badly affected, I’m sure my family would send me out first!


----------



## Keith McMillan (May 15, 2020)

Robin said:


> Well women and children are least likely to be badly affected, I’m sure my family would send me out first!


In my case that would serve me right!


----------



## Docb (May 15, 2020)

Keith McMillan said:


> Agreed but right now there is a centre ground of people who are vulnerable and very anxious being told to go to work, and we need the media to bring news to our attention for when the government doesn't for whatever reason.



Can accept that there are a lot of people in the centre ground that are anxious about being told to go to work, its the vulnerability that I am not sure about.  In this case, blanket categorisations designed to make sure that there are no false negatives at the expense of many false positives, are not very helpful.  It can create a lot of unnecessarily anxious people.


----------



## Ivostas66 (May 15, 2020)

My doctor has stated that he thinks I should continue to work from home due to my vulnerability (type 1 and asthmatic). He has said that he would not want me coming into contact with the children of NHS staff and so told me not to go in for the past few weeks as 8 of the 15 kids in at present have both parents as key workers. He thinks that were I to contract the disease, the effects are likely to be more severe, despite being fairly fit and healthy. The school that his children go to had to let him know if his children were likely to come into contact with any staff who were vulnerable before he would consider sending them in.

Who knows how this will pan out. The right wing rags have run yet more scandalous headlines today, trying to tarnish teachers - deflecting attention away from the ineptitude of the government perhaps? Two friends of mine who are headteachers in the primary sector sent out questionnaires to parents at the start of the week asking if they would be sending their children back on 1st June. One said that 65% have said no and the other said it is over 70%.


----------



## Bruce Stephens (May 15, 2020)

Matt J said:


> The right wing rags have run yet more scandalous headlines today, trying to tarnish teachers



Things do seem to be drifting towards 



__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1261009511621558272


----------



## Ivostas66 (May 15, 2020)

Bruce Stephens said:


> Things do seem to be drifting towards
> 
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1261009511621558272











						Teachers' unions are exploiting fear to advance their champagne socialism
					

We have a fortnight to solve this if we are to get our kids back to school by June




					www.telegraph.co.uk
				




Champagne Socialism is driving this apparently, not genuine concern for their members!


----------



## Keith McMillan (May 15, 2020)

Good grief.  Must admit I haven't seen any corks popping in recent months. Good teachers using a killer virus for political gain? This reporter must be hallucinating on meds poor thing.


----------



## Tilly26 (May 31, 2020)

eggyg said:


> It did say that they don’t know if it was the diabetes or their life style choices. If your BGs are stable, you eat well and exercise, your chances of contracting Covid 19 are no more than a non diabetic.


Sadly,I don't think that is accurate. From the various reports & interpretations I have seen I believe that this is true if you are 40 or under but the risk increases with age & chronic illness, especially those with diabetes.


----------



## Docb (May 31, 2020)

Tilly26, you have got to separate out the chances of contracting Covid which are the same for everybody and the chances of getting very ill from it where the risk does increase with the factors you mention.  Even then, that risk only gets significant if you are over 70 or are obese or if you have some medical conditions.  

Diabetes is only significant (risk factor about 2) if it is out of control and your HbA1c is over 80. It's on a par with being obese or over 75.  Not a good idea to get it if you are a fat 80 year old man with rampant diabetes.  For most people with diabetes, the risk of getting really ill is not a lot different to anybody else.

That's what the numbers say.  Don't believe all you read on the internet.


----------



## Keith McMillan (Jun 1, 2020)

Docb said:


> Tilly26, you have got to separate out the chances of contracting Covid which are the same for everybody and the chances of getting very ill from it where the risk does increase with the factors you mention.  Even then, that risk only gets significant if you are over 70 or are obese or if you have some medical conditions.
> 
> Diabetes is only significant (risk factor about 2) if it is out of control and your HbA1c is over 80. It's on a par with being obese or over 75.  Not a good idea to get it if you are a fat 80 year old man with rampant diabetes.  For most people with diabetes, the risk of getting really ill is not a lot different to anybody else.
> 
> That's what the numbers say.  Don't believe all you read on the internet.


 Where are the numbers coming from exactly? The quality of data has to be near perfect to draw any valid scientific opinion surely? This would normally involve tests carried out under strict laboratory conditions for instance. Everything seems to be done on the fly and I imagine this is the worst possible method to obtain data to draw your results from. We only have gut instinct to draw upon I far as I can tell, and mine is telling me not to go in haste. I'm expecting infections to rise after seeing the beginning of social distancing breakdown at the weekend. I won't be coming out just yet.


----------



## Docb (Jun 1, 2020)

As far as I can make out, all of the numbers are coming from the two NHS papers referred to in another thread which is looking at factors leading to increased death rates in hospitals.  It is where I am getting the numbers from.  

You are right in that it should be treated with due caution which in my book says don't use it to write banner headlines.


----------



## Bruce Stephens (Jun 1, 2020)

Keith McMillan said:


> Where are the numbers coming from exactly? The quality of data has to be near perfect to draw any valid scientific opinion surely? This would normally involve tests carried out under strict laboratory conditions for instance. Everything seems to be done on the fly and I imagine this is the worst possible method to obtain data to draw your results from.



The quality of data for anything involving people is rarely anything approaching perfect, but that doesn't mean we can't know anything.

There have been other (that is, apart from the papers on UK deaths) reports of risks of hyperglycaemia.

I do worry a bit about trying to split out various factors for Type 1 deaths from the UK data. That's all based on 345 deaths in hospitals, and it feels to me you don't need to split that too much before you've just got coincidence. However, the authors used software designed for this and I'm in no way a statistician.


----------

