Just been told to shield

[Doireallyneedanams]

Errr.. I’ve been added to the new shielding list.

I am not diabetic, my BMI is 22. It was 30 when I was pregnant and it was last recorded as I had suspected gestational diabetes.

On my groups literally hundreds of previous GD pregnancies are reporting the same letter, but I can’t understand why diabetics aren’t told to shield, yet a previous gestational diabetes diagnosis are??

Has anyone been told to shield now?

 

[bulkbiker]

Gotta keep the panic stoked somehow..?

 

[Goonergal]

Hi there

There’s a new system in place as of today, which uses an algorithm. From what I can see, running my own figures through this calculator, postcode is making a big difference.

https://qcovid.org/Calculation

And this is the basis for the algorithm: https://digital.nhs.uk/coronavirus/risk-assessment/population

Editing to show my scores (with an HbA1c in the 30s for over 3 years now, I think leaving diabetes out if the equation is justified as a variable):

- Based on non-diabetic status, postcode not added (risk of contracting Covid and dying)

Absolute risk - 0.0046%, 1 in 21,739, 55/100

- Based on type 2, no postcode added

Absolute risk - 0.0224%, 1 in 4,464, 74/100

- Based on type 2 living in my postcode

Absolute risk - 0.0346%, 1 in 2,890, 79/100

 

[woollygal]

Yes I’m type 2 and I’ve received the shielding email this morning.
My last hba1c was 58 up from 54.

ive got my jab Tuesday. After that I’ll ring dr to see why. But I want the jab first.

 

[Doireallyneedanams]

Yes I’m type 2 and I’ve received the shielding email this morning.
My last hba1c was 58 up from 54.

ive got my jab Tuesday. After that I’ll ring dr to see why. But I want the jab first.

Definitely! I haven’t had any info on my vaccine yet. My post partial hba1c was 30! My BMI whilst pregnant was 30/31 so perhaps that is what they have and the algorithm is using, despite it being lower now.

 

[Doireallyneedanams]

Hi there

There’s a new system in place as of today, which uses an algorithm. From what I can see, running my own figures through this calculator, postcode is making the biggest difference.

https://qcovid.org/Calculation

And this is the basis for the algorithm: https://digital.nhs.uk/coronavirus/risk-assessment/population

I just did mine, no mention of gestational diabetes on there though? Just type 1 or 2 - of which I am neither.

 

[OB87]

Perhaps it is an error ? It seems a bit surprising that you would need to shield when you aren't even diabetic.

 

[Doireallyneedanams]

Perhaps it is an error ? It seems a bit surprising that you would need to shield when you aren't even diabetic.

Doesn’t it? I thought due to the increased risk, and people not having follow up hba1c’s it could be a precaution, but since I had mine in August..

 

[Deleted member 475901]

Having checked the new system I'm expecting a shielding letter any minute.
Makes sense as research done months ago showed that having 2 of the 3 key conditions increased risks from covid19, having all 3 was even worse. I complained to the govt when they ignored this evidence in limiting the classes of people told to shield before.
In addition to reassessing overlapping risks from health conditions they've added in areas with a high proportion of poor or overcrowded housing and increased the age risk.
The housing link is established but they have to use postcode as a proxy.

 

[eabhamurphy]

I got a shielding letter today. I'm type 1. Have to say I was very surprised! Didn't see it coming and I used the calculator when the news story came out earlier this week. Didn't seem high enough risk to be in the new group.

 

[KK123]

I got a shielding letter today. I'm type 1. Have to say I was very surprised! Didn't see it coming and I used the calculator when the news story came out earlier this week. Didn't seem high enough risk to be in the new group.

Hi there, what was your 'score' out of a 100 if you don't mind me asking.

 

[Lemonie]

I got my email today but I was expecting it. It doesn't just take into account illnesses but also ethnicity and if your are in a deprived area etc. It looks at the whole picture. Mine is because I am type 2 and have a couple of other autoimmune conditions and histamine intolerance.

It's done autonomously and does say if you think there has been a mistake to contact them. You also are under no obligation to shield. My score was 88/100.

 

[Robinredbreast]

Hi there, what was your 'score' out of a 100 if you don't mind me asking.

I got 85 out of 100.

 

[lucylocket61]

I got 85/100 but no shielding letter or text or email.

 

[JFWinstone]

88/100 on the algorithm and got shielding letter in my email today.

 

[Ladybird1]

Errr.. I’ve been added to the new shielding list.

I am not diabetic, my BMI is 22. It was 30 when I was pregnant and it was last recorded as I had suspected gestational diabetes.

On my groups literally hundreds of previous GD pregnancies are reporting the same letter, but I can’t understand why diabetics aren’t told to shield, yet a previous gestational diabetes diagnosis are??

Has anyone been told to shield now?

I've just done the test and scored 96 out of 100

 

[Amrit1712]

I got 36/100 and received a shielding email today. Very confused

 

[HSSS]

From the document @Goonergal linked to above

The research showed that most people included in the study who died from coronavirus would have had risk assessment results that placed them in approximately the top 2% of the population in England that are at the highest risk. For the combined risk of catching and dying of coronavirus, most results were higher than or equal to:​

• an absolute risk of 0.5% (or 5 in 1,000)
• a relative risk of 10 (or 10 times the baseline risk)

So no mention of scores out of 100 being the criteria used.
And

The CMO and senior clinicians decided that these thresholds should be used to help protect people who may be high risk.
Where data is missing, we have used some default values that have higher than average risk associated with them, according to QCovid®. This means that we are likely to be overestimating the level of risk for some people with information missing from their records and therefore identifying more people as potentially high risk (clinically extremely vulnerable).

As a result, some people may be advised to shield based on these default values.​

 

[Doireallyneedanams]

Having spent the whole afternoon reading various forums, I am still clueless.

Some GP’s have claimed it’s an error! Meant for current gestational diabetes only.

Someone called Diabetes UK and was told there has been a connection made between historic diabetes (gestational) and covid severity! And apparently a further surge in type 1 & 2 diagnosis following the recent mutations. I’m sorry, but if this was true, surely it would be breaking news! All over the place!

 

[bulkbiker]

Having spent the whole afternoon reading various forums, I am still clueless.

Some GP’s have claimed it’s an error! Meant for current gestational diabetes only.

Someone called Diabetes UK and was told there has been a connection made between historic diabetes (gestational) and covid severity! And apparently a further surge in type 1 & 2 diagnosis following the recent mutations. I’m sorry, but if this was true, surely it would be breaking news! All over the place!

Probably something like this guy
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...ed-covid-vaccine-after-nhs-blunder-liam-thorp