• Please Remember: Members are only permitted to share their own experiences. Members are not qualified to give medical advice. Additionally, everyone manages their health differently. Please be respectful of other people's opinions about their own diabetes management.
  • We seem to be having technical difficulties with new user accounts. If you are trying to register please check your Spam or Junk folder for your confirmation email. If you still haven't received a confirmation email, please reach out to our support inbox: support.forum@diabetes.org.uk

BBC News at 10 - Latest Stats up the risk for diabetics?

Status
This thread is now closed. Please contact Anna DUK, Ieva DUK or everydayupsanddowns if you would like it re-opened.

Keith McMillan

Active Member
Relationship to Diabetes
Type 2
Latest statistics were used last night to show that diabetics are at higher risk than previously thought. Did anyone else see it? Diabetes type 2 for those over 60 year of age was used as an example. If correct their outcomes will be much poorer placing them at higher risk. They will have a poorer outcome than the video available on this site seems to suggest at the time it was made and once again I am very concerned.

The government isn't taking in the seriousness of treating people the same regardless of their conditions, age, ethnicity, and sexual orientation, but the statistics are there to use for this purpose. I have emailed my MP: https://www.diabetes.org.uk/get_involved/campaigning/coronavirus

I would like to see the responses from the Government following the Diabetes Organisation's 'pushing hard calling on government' please. Are they saved somewhere?
 
PS I've received a reply from my MP about an unrelated concern over food imports that I sent this weekend. Hopefully I will receive a reply about health conditions and covid and will keep you posted.
 
Latest statistics were used last night to show that diabetics are at higher risk than previously thought. Did anyone else see it? Diabetes type 2 for those over 60 year of age was used as an example. If correct their outcomes will be much poorer placing them at higher risk. They will have a poorer outcome than the video available on this site seems to suggest at the time it was made and once again I am very concerned.

The government isn't taking in the seriousness of treating people the same regardless of their conditions, age, ethnicity, and sexual orientation, but the statistics are there to use for this purpose. I have emailed my MP: https://www.diabetes.org.uk/get_involved/campaigning/coronavirus

I would like to see the responses from the Government following the Diabetes Organisation's 'pushing hard calling on government' please. Are they saved somewhere?
Hi @Keith McMillan
I'll ask the Campaigns team for an update.
I didn’t get the impression that they were using anything new. I looked at a Covid Age Risk produced for Local Authorities, I’m sure, from a link on here (will have a ferret in a mo) some time ago, which added or deducted years based on the starting point of a 50yr old white male, which was what last night's report did. I remember I could deduct 8 years for being female, but then had to add on 8 years for Diabetes, which is what they were saying for diabetes last night.
Edit. Found the original online,here.
Diabetes is broken down into several categories, based on type and HbA1c. It reckons to add 8yrs for Type 1s with HbA1cs under 58, 4 years for Type 2s with HbA1cs under 58, and 8 years for Type 2s with less well controlled HbA1cs.
 
Last edited:
I didn’t get the impression that they were using anything new. I looked at a Covid Age Risk produced for Local Authorities, I’m sure, from a link on here (will have a ferret in a mo) some time ago, which added or deducted years based on the starting point of a 50yr old white male, which was what last night's report did. I remember I could deduct 8 years for being female, but then had to add on 8 years for Diabetes, which is what they were saying for diabetes last night.
Edit. Found the original online,here.
Diabetes is broken down into several categories, based on type and HbA1c. It reckons to add 8yrs for Type 1s with HbA1cs under 58, 4 years for Type 2s with HbA1cs under 58, and 8 years for Type 2s with less well controlled HbA1cs.
I'd like to understand why T1s would be worse than T2 bearing in mind the T2 is more likely to be overweight and that in itself is higher risk. I'm highly suspicious of these stats and would like to see where they come from.
 
Thanks for posting this information @Keith McMillan. As a 61 year old T2 who hasn't yet reached their target Hba1c or their target weight, I find it quite worrying. I've been lucky in that I've largely been able to work from home since just before lockdown, but have just completed an on-line assessment from work which states I'm at high risk. As @DaveB says, being overweight is probably why the risk is so high. I'll just have to make sure I get to target before I go back into the office any more than a quick dash in to collect printing.
 
I'd like to understand why T1s would be worse than T2 bearing in mind the T2 is more likely to be overweight and that in itself is higher risk. I'm highly suspicious of these stats and would like to see where they come from.
It's supposed to have filtered out things like obesity, which has its own age score column. In other words, an overweight person with Type 2 has a greater risk than an overweight person without. (I don’t know how they’ve crunched the numbers to achieve this weighting, I’m not a statistician)
I assume with Type 1(this is what worries me, anyway) you’re dependent on someone knowing what they’re doing sufficiently well to keep your BGs under control so you don’t succumb to the DKA instead of the Covid!
 
Maybe having a dodgy auto-immune system; or many HCPs still not being 100% aware of needing to test ketones; maybe not realising that with COVID we can have dangerously high ketones at a far lesser BG than normal.
 
Thanks for posting this information @Keith McMillan. As a 61 year old T2 who hasn't yet reached their target Hba1c or their target weight, I find it quite worrying. I've been lucky in that I've largely been able to work from home since just before lockdown, but have just completed an on-line assessment from work which states I'm at high risk. As @DaveB says, being overweight is probably why the risk is so high. I'll just have to make sure I get to target before I go back into the office any more than a quick dash in to collect printing.
Yes it is worrying when our leaders do not respect people with conditions and assume the risk is the same for all, but the very vulnerable. I have been furloughed after a brief WFH spell. My weight is good but I cannot risk going back to work when the risk is too high. Right now we have a flat line scenario when it comes to outcomes with the R number rising and not falling to the desired level. The 'world beating app' has disappeared off the scene and track and trace is performing so poorly.
 
I didn’t get the impression that they were using anything new. I looked at a Covid Age Risk produced for Local Authorities, I’m sure, from a link on here (will have a ferret in a mo) some time ago, which added or deducted years based on the starting point of a 50yr old white male, which was what last night's report did. I remember I could deduct 8 years for being female, but then had to add on 8 years for Diabetes, which is what they were saying for diabetes last night.
Edit. Found the original online,here.
Diabetes is broken down into several categories, based on type and HbA1c. It reckons to add 8yrs for Type 1s with HbA1cs under 58, 4 years for Type 2s with HbA1cs under 58, and 8 years for Type 2s with less well controlled HbA1cs.

Thanks for finding the link Robin. I cant find any re-runs of News at Ten and the piece caught me out last night. But my wife agrees with me we are and sure the news correspondent showed a poorer outcome for a 62 year old male with Diabetes type 2. I don't think type 1 diabetes was mentioned. This risk factor is at odds with the video on this site which suggests the risks are comparatively low for a diabetic in their 60s.

The BBC does it again. Suddenly they scare the life out of a group of vulnerable people with an alarming analysis, and then hides all evidence afterwards like it never happened.
 
Saw something of the report earlier in the say and finished up shouting at the TV. I assume that they are using the data from the NHS study and making some quite big leaps from the data to get numbers to shout about. The big factor with respect to diabetes is the HbA1c level in those who died. It is never mentioned by the pundits and if they don't understand that, then anything they say should be questioned.
 
Saw something of the report earlier in the say and finished up shouting at the TV. I assume that they are using the data from the NHS study and making some quite big leaps from the data to get numbers to shout about. The big factor with respect to diabetes is the HbA1c level in those who died. It is never mentioned by the pundits and if they don't understand that, then anything they say should be questioned.

Does having a good HbA1c tell me I have excactly the same chance of fighting off covid than if I didn't have diabetes? As a layman in terms of medical science I am aware that HbA1c is important when it comes to a sign of long term health. However, when my blood sugar is low I don't feel as good as when I didn't have diabetes and it is easier for me to get low sugar levels. So I have to assume that my body is telling me I'll have a worse job fighting off a nasty illness, and after all my nurse always gets me to have a flu jab regardless of my HbA1c being in the right level.

The government is sending people back to work when there own measurement - the R number has not dropped to where they wanted for us to come out of lockout. I appreciate the organisation pressing the government for better protection, but the message has been the same on this website for a long time and I haven't seen any results.

People with diabetes are being sent back to work and surely it must be much too early. Unless of course they know about their poor HbA1c, AND know that they can ask their GP for a shielding letter, AND their GP agrees to write one. Can we not do something more because the government aren't responding to the organisation when it pushes hard (or they choose to ignore the organisation). How about a partition? Or joining up with other organisations that oversee other health conditions? Talking to the BBC and Which magazine maybe. Anything. I've written to my MP and no reply yet. Anything else I can do? We can do?

If you don't mind going back to work then forget all this and risk it, but if you feel as I do this is then this must be the time to take further action and protect ourselves.
 
I'd like to understand why T1s would be worse than T2 bearing in mind the T2 is more likely to be overweight and that in itself is higher risk. I'm highly suspicious of these stats and would like to see where they come from.

Covid19 does not just effect the lungs it can get into the rest of the body and cause a cytokine storm, its been reported that people have died of multiple organ failure and because T1 already has a compromised immune system, which is one of the reason we're added to the higher risk group 🙂 . Also Covid can effect the bloods so you may end up in hospital with a hypoglycemic event, which is one the causes of death among diabetics.

All rather grim really, pass the gin.
 
Hi @Keith McMillan"
I'll ask the Campaigns team for an update.

I've received a reply from my MP and I have copied the body of text below. I will let you know if there is an update.

'Thank you for getting in contact about this matter.

The shielding programme is now coming to an end, so the advice does not require those who are clinically vulnerable to stay at home – at the moment it appears that advice will not be changing unless there are further serious outbreaks.

However, I understand your concerns and have written to the Government about them.

I will write to you again once I receive a response.'
 
Kieth McMillan, I am assuming that they are using the data from the NHS papers published in May. There is a thread in the "in the news" section somewhere.

This was a study trying to tease out the various risk factors leading to the death of those who end up in ITUs. Nothing to do with the risk of catching it and not really anything to do with the risk of catching it and getting a bad reaction.

You have to remember in all of this that risk is a comparative thing, not an absolute thing. What you can do is look at the tables in those papers and get comparative risks for various scenarios. The risks are expressed as hazard ratios. What is of interest to this community is that they have separated out people who were type 2 and type 1 and presented hazard ratios for each type against all of the other factors examined.

Follow me?

If you are T1 then the hazard ratio lower 95% confidence interval only goes above 1 for an HbA1c of 86+ when compared with the reference case of 49-53. For T2, the lower 95% confidence interval for the hazard ratio is above 1 for an HbA1c above 59 when compared with the reference case of 49-53.

Still following me?

Similarly, you can look at hazard ratios for other factors, like age, sex, location, ethnic group and a few other things.

If you are still following me, Combining those things to get some meaning is in the realms of skilled statisticians, not news reporters whose prime motivation is to get the air time needed to further their careers. Making a lot of noise about "COVID age" does not tell you anything at all.

The important thing to realise is that this is a nasty disease with the potential to do serious harm to anybody. It is something you don't want to catch. I wish the reporters would make that point more clearly rather than try and be clever by commenting on stuff I doubt they understand.
 
Nobody in the world can tell you or anyone else that there's no risk in anything, ever. Assess the situation that you are personally in. If you are not comfortable with something then don't do it.
 
Kieth McMillan, I am assuming that they are using the data from the NHS papers published in May. There is a thread in the "in the news" section somewhere.

This was a study trying to tease out the various risk factors leading to the death of those who end up in ITUs. Nothing to do with the risk of catching it and not really anything to do with the risk of catching it and getting a bad reaction.

You have to remember in all of this that risk is a comparative thing, not an absolute thing. What you can do is look at the tables in those papers and get comparative risks for various scenarios. The risks are expressed as hazard ratios. What is of interest to this community is that they have separated out people who were type 2 and type 1 and presented hazard ratios for each type against all of the other factors examined.

Follow me?

If you are T1 then the hazard ratio lower 95% confidence interval only goes above 1 for an HbA1c of 86+ when compared with the reference case of 49-53. For T2, the lower 95% confidence interval for the hazard ratio is above 1 for an HbA1c above 59 when compared with the reference case of 49-53.

Still following me?

Similarly, you can look at hazard ratios for other factors, like age, sex, location, ethnic group and a few other things.

If you are still following me, Combining those things to get some meaning is in the realms of skilled statisticians, not news reporters whose prime motivation is to get the air time needed to further their careers. Making a lot of noise about "COVID age" does not tell you anything at all.

The important thing to realise is that this is a nasty disease with the potential to do serious harm to anybody. It is something you don't want to catch. I wish the reporters would make that point more clearly rather than try and be clever by commenting on stuff I doubt they understand.
My GP didn't know anything about confidence intervals when I asked for a letter and I'm not going to better that. I was given something to say I had diabetes and that I could have a severe illness if I am infected because of it. Thanks to my efforts my blood sugar has been good, but now I'm beginning to think I should be feasting to become overweight so that I can shield. Yes I know. o_O

I appreciate everyone with or without conditions can become very ill with covid, but I've been reading that the outcome is more likely to be worse for someone with diabetes be it type 1, or 2 regardless of HbA1c than someone else without. The government put us in a different group to people without specific health conditions for a reason. It makes no sense for the government now to paint us all with the same brush and collectively send us all back. Doc - surely they should be using your measures to phase us back to work depending on conditions and other factors?

Anyway, the organisation has been pushing the government about all this. Can someone please tell me, has the organisation received anything from the government at all, or is the email from my MP the only communication?
 
My GP didn't know anything about confidence intervals when I asked for a letter and I'm not going to better that. I was given something to say I had diabetes and that I could have a severe illness if I am infected because of it. Thanks to my efforts my blood sugar has been good, but now I'm beginning to think I should be feasting to become overweight so that I can shield. Yes I know. o_O
I don't suppose most GPs would have much of a background in Statistics!

Not sure why you are still looking to shield, as even for the most seriously vulnerable it ends in 10 days in England?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Exactly my point really. Best left to government experts, but its not.

Shocked about the shielding. Presumably they will be getting the extremely vulnerable people to return in the next couple of weeks then. If so I find that sickening.
 
Status
This thread is now closed. Please contact Anna DUK, Ieva DUK or everydayupsanddowns if you would like it re-opened.
Back
Top