Latest Covid 19 info

[Keith McMillan]

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.

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]

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

Exactly!

 

[AndBreathe]

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

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]

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]

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]

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.

Nice detailed answer - thanks

 

[Josh DUK]

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]

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]

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]

I've filled out the work survey.

 

[Josh DUK]

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]

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

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]

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

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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

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

 

[mikeyB]

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]

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]

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.