I too have done a lot of extensive research and diabetes was on the initial list and then taken off...
Dr Dipesh Patel set out to try and explain the confusion behind the listing and de-listing of diabetes as an ‘at-risk’ category of COVID-19
www.diabetes.co.uk
That article is a person paraphrasing a podcast which featured someone who was not involved in any of the medical decisions, but quotes them as saying there was no evidence to support putting diabetes on the list of vulnerable conditions, let alone extremely vulnerable ones.
The extract I posted was from a letter sent from Dr. Nikita Kanani, Medical Director for Primary Care, and from Ed Waller, Director Primary Care Strategy and N.H.S.Contracts to all primary care clinicians in England. I have also found a copy of this online so you can read it in full, should you wish.
So I am sorry, but I do not see how, what seems in essence, a random blog post from April counters a letter sent by N.H.S. directors in March. But I apologize if Mike Watts is connected with the N.H.S. or Public Health England and so is speaking with knowledge of their internal decisions.
And as everydayupsanddowns says, diabetes has always been on the "at increased risk" list which was released on March 16th, later to be called "clinically vulnerable," and has never been removed from it. I do not think any condition has.
That original list of conditions that put people at risk applied to everyone who is offered a free flu vaccine, and the guidance was for those people to be extra vigilant at following measures like social distancing.
That diabetes is still included on the list is precisely why diabetics are included in phase one of the vaccination programme, which gives priority to those at risk, rather than having to wait until the second phase which will address those who are under 50 and without medical conditions which make them vulnerable.
Shielding was only introduced alongside the lockdown, and only affected a limited number of those already identified at increased risk. Initially referred to as conditions which put people "at highest risk" it was later renamed as "clinically extremely vulnerable." I believe this list of conditions was first published on March 21st.
It has never included diabetes as a listed condition, people who only have diabetes have never been asked to shield by virtue of it, although a clinician can put someone on the shielding list based on clinical judgement in individual cases, which could be related to diabetes. There was no highest risk list before the introduction of shielding.
The article you linked to not only makes no claim about diabetes being aded to or removed from that list, it does not make any reference at all to higher risk, being extremely vulnerable, or shielding. It only makes an erroneous reference to the "at increased risk" list, likely due to the confusion explained by everydayupsanddowns.
No one can say the government communications has not been poor. The media has not been much better in its reporting. So I can completely understand why people could get confused.
During a press briefing before Christmas a member of the public asked for advice because their clinically extremely vulnerable partner was being required to attend work. The Prime Minister responded that he hoped that was not happening. However since shielding was paused in August, that was his government's policy. People in the group were expected to attend work, where it is Covid-secure, just like anyone else. There was no allowance for working from home, even where possible.
And In his statement last night he said he will be asking people who are clinically extremely vulnerable to shield once again. However, most of the country already was as shielding was part of the tier 4 restrictions. Being in one of the first areas to be put in this tier I have been shielding since December 20th, having received an unambiguous text message from the government.
Clinically Extremely Vulnerable people should shield in areas of England in Tier 4. Guidance can be found at:
https://www.gov.uk/coronavirus. A letter will also be sent to CEV patients.
Today various reporters have made issue of the "big revelation" by Professor Chris Whitty that even after vaccination some measures may still be needed next winter. However this is something Professor Jonathan Van-Tam has said repeatedly at briefings when giving updates on the status of the vaccines. Either they do not listen or have very short memories.
Similarly the reporting around the "government" extending the period between first and second doses of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine, followed by the claims by the New York Times that the government would mix-and-match doses of different vaccines. This all coming a week after the joint J.V.C.I.-M.H.R.A briefing to approve the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine in which they announced the change to dosing schedules, and the reason for it. They also made clear that you cannot mix-and-match vaccines. The report from the J.V.C.I. only allows for this in limited circumstances; where it cannot be confirmed which vaccine a person took for their first dose or where they do not have the same vaccine to administer a second dose and the person would not return for the correct one.
It is also important to note that The Health Protection (Vaccination) Regulations 2009 puts a legal requirement on the Secretary of State to implement the recommendations of the J.V.C.I. unless they are impractical to do so. So the government cannot ignore the guidance nor change it.
Whilst there is a valid scientific debate on the merits of the strategy of the J.V.C.I., public confidence in the system has been massively undermined by the reporting which has cast it as a political decision rather than one made by scientists. Sadly this also includes many opposition M.P.s using it for political point scoring.
But even of the specialist journalists who asked questions at the original briefing, only Sky News' correspondent questioned it, particularly that decisions were made on the basis of confidential information from the manufacturers when such things should be put in the public and open to scrutiny.
But as I said, I have done a lot of research and followed all of this closely. Which is frustratingly a curse as much as a blessing. It means on the medical issues I only trust official sources and not journalists or politicians, nor paraphrased podcasts. But it also means I can feel very confident about what I know.
And I know that diabetes alone has never put people "at highest risk" making them "clinically extremely vulnerable."
Its true they are sitting ducks seeing 100s of people a day and social distancing is impossible in smaller stores with narrow aisles.
