Just been told to shield

[mfactor]

Does this take into account things on your record not just the calculator....

I got a shielding letter last week but going by the calculator I would not of (below 5 and 10)

The risk table
The table shows the absolute risk of catching and dying COVID-19 over a 90-day period based on data from the first peak of the pandemic. There is a comparison with the risk for a person of the same age and sex but with no risk factors. The relative risk is the absolute risk divided by this average risk.
Absolute risk (a) Absolute risk with no risk factors (b) Relative risk (a/b)
COVID associated death 0.0494% 1 in 2024 0.0089% 1 in 11236 5.5506
COVID associated hospital admission 0.2539% 1 in 394 0.0659% 1 in 1517 3.8528
In other words in a crowd of 10000 people with the same risk factors, 5 are likely to catch and die from COVID-19 and 25 to be admitted to hospital during a 90 day period similar to the recent peak.
The Body Mass index is 36.3 kg/m2
COVID associated death
The absolute risk of a COVID-19 associated death is 1 in 2024.

This is in rank 83 out of 100, where 100 is most at risk.

but also had massive probs with bloods before Xmas , have high blood pressure and cholesterol ??

 

[HSSS]

Me too. Two weeks ago I could see my records, now I can't! It will only allow me to order meds like you. x

I used to be able to see past and current “problems/conditions”. They disappeared about a year ago and despite several requests haven’t come back

 

[HSSS]

Does this take into account things on your record not just the calculator....

I got a shielding letter last week but going by the calculator I would not of (below 5 and 10)

The risk table
The table shows the absolute risk of catching and dying COVID-19 over a 90-day period based on data from the first peak of the pandemic. There is a comparison with the risk for a person of the same age and sex but with no risk factors. The relative risk is the absolute risk divided by this average risk.
Absolute risk (a) Absolute risk with no risk factors (b) Relative risk (a/b)
COVID associated death 0.0494% 1 in 2024 0.0089% 1 in 11236 5.5506
COVID associated hospital admission 0.2539% 1 in 394 0.0659% 1 in 1517 3.8528
In other words in a crowd of 10000 people with the same risk factors, 5 are likely to catch and die from COVID-19 and 25 to be admitted to hospital during a 90 day period similar to the recent peak.
The Body Mass index is 36.3 kg/m2
COVID associated death
The absolute risk of a COVID-19 associated death is 1 in 2024.

This is in rank 83 out of 100, where 100 is most at risk.

but also had massive probs with bloods before Xmas , have high blood pressure and cholesterol ??

No but I bet the records have something slightly different to what you entered. Your calculations are very close to the cut off and a slightly different bmi for example could have tipped the balance. ( I think you’ve added an extra 0 in the absolute risk of death figures as the rest don’t match what you’ve typed)

 

[KK123]

Does this take into account things on your record not just the calculator....

I got a shielding letter last week but going by the calculator I would not of (below 5 and 10)

The risk table
The table shows the absolute risk of catching and dying COVID-19 over a 90-day period based on data from the first peak of the pandemic. There is a comparison with the risk for a person of the same age and sex but with no risk factors. The relative risk is the absolute risk divided by this average risk.
Absolute risk (a) Absolute risk with no risk factors (b) Relative risk (a/b)
COVID associated death 0.0494% 1 in 2024 0.0089% 1 in 11236 5.5506
COVID associated hospital admission 0.2539% 1 in 394 0.0659% 1 in 1517 3.8528
In other words in a crowd of 10000 people with the same risk factors, 5 are likely to catch and die from COVID-19 and 25 to be admitted to hospital during a 90 day period similar to the recent peak.
The Body Mass index is 36.3 kg/m2
COVID associated death
The absolute risk of a COVID-19 associated death is 1 in 2024.

This is in rank 83 out of 100, where 100 is most at risk.

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

but also had massive probs with bloods before Xmas , have high blood pressure and cholesterol ??

...and it then gives GPs or whoever, the 'threshold' to assist them in deciding who gets told to shield. The threshold states 'those who fall into the top 2%' get the letter, with that top 2% described as those with;

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

How does that equate to this score out of a 100, what would you need to hit to reach the above? My score was 78/100.

 

[Andydragon]

and it then gives GPs or whoever, the 'threshold' to assist them in deciding who gets told to shield. The threshold states 'those who fall into the top 2%' get the letter, so presumably that means those who 'score' 98/100? If anyone reached that level surely they would have already been shielding. I played about with the QCovid calculator and inserted a fair few different conditions, ages, weight etc and still only managed to get into the 80s. My real score was 78/100.

Those scores don't matter. You need to look at the percentages. I could get above 10 relative (I.e. shielding level) by making myself younger. Which I still think is wrong but there you go...

 

[KK123]

Those scores don't matter. You need to look at the percentages. I could get above 10 relative (I.e. shielding level) by making myself younger. Which I still think is wrong but there you go...

I know I sound a bit thick but how are you going to work out percentages?

 

[Andydragon]

I know I sound a bit thick but how are you going to work out percentages?

You aren't sounding thick. The qcovid does that
So here's mine for example:

 

[KK123]

You aren't sounding thick. The qcovid does that
So here's mine for example:

Thanks Andy, you're very patient!!!

 

[KK123]

You aren't sounding thick. The qcovid does that
So here's mine for example:

Mine came up with similar numbers I think but how do you work out whether that places you in this top 2% threshold?


Absolute risk (a) Absolute risk with no risk factors (b) Relative risk (a/b)
COVID associated death 0.0317% 1 in 3155 0.0071% 1 in 14085 4.4648
COVID associated hospital admission 0.2493% 1 in 401 0.0537% 1 in 1862 4.6425

This is mine. x

 

[Andydragon]

Mine came up with similar numbers I think but how do you work out whether that places you in this top 2% threshold?


Absolute risk (a) Absolute risk with no risk factors (b) Relative risk (a/b)
COVID associated death 0.0317% 1 in 3155 0.0071% 1 in 14085 4.4648
COVID associated hospital admission 0.2493% 1 in 401 0.0537% 1 in 1862 4.6425

This is mine. x

Based on the values you posted earlier, absolute value > 0.5% or relative > 10%

It's not totally the whole picture it seems as some are reporting letters where their values differ.

 

[HSSS]

by making myself younger..

I wish I knew that trick

 

[Deleted member 475901]

Does this take into account things on your record not just the calculator....

I got a shielding letter last week but going by the calculator I would not of (below 5 and 10)

The risk table
The table shows the absolute risk of catching and dying COVID-19 over a 90-day period based on data from the first peak of the pandemic. There is a comparison with the risk for a person of the same age and sex but with no risk factors. The relative risk is the absolute risk divided by this average risk.
Absolute risk (a) Absolute risk with no risk factors (b) Relative risk (a/b)
COVID associated death 0.0494% 1 in 2024 0.0089% 1 in 11236 5.5506
COVID associated hospital admission 0.2539% 1 in 394 0.0659% 1 in 1517 3.8528
In other words in a crowd of 10000 people with the same risk factors, 5 are likely to catch and die from COVID-19 and 25 to be admitted to hospital during a 90 day period similar to the recent peak.
The Body Mass index is 36.3 kg/m2
COVID associated death
The absolute risk of a COVID-19 associated death is 1 in 2024.

This is in rank 83 out of 100, where 100 is most at risk.

but also had massive probs with bloods before Xmas , have high blood pressure and cholesterol ??

I scored over 91 but didn't get a letter, mind you I don't think my doctors actually know what conditions I have as they only focus on 1 at a time and don't do the NHS mandated annual reviews for 2 of them.

 

[Deleted member 475901]

I have mixed feeling about postcodes and health assessments. Yes living in a socially deprived area does mean more chance of having poorer health outcomes. But if those health conditions (diabetes, obesity, smoking, etc) are already being counted in the algorithm then it’s double dipping the risk isn’t it? On the other hand the likelihood of working in occupations that expose you to more risk or living in crowded housing isn’t in this particular covid algorithm so it’s more relevant there. Surely addressing these issues individually for example looking at occupation and size of household, prevents huge assumptions being made the the risk actually being yours as opposed to an “average” of everyone around you.

Apart from overcrowded, mouldy terraced housing more people work in factories or shops where they cannot work from home, and use public transport to get there. And many poorer people eat less nutritious food. So using a postcode linked to deprivation as a proxy is a quick way of capturing the areas plus conditions that lead to higher deaths.

 

[HSSS]

Apart from overcrowded, mouldy terraced housing more people work in factories or shops where they cannot work from home, and use public transport to get there. And many poorer people eat less nutritious food. So using a postcode linked to deprivation as a proxy is a quick way of capturing the areas plus conditions that lead to higher deaths.

Yes I know. Which is why I said occupation could easily (and should) be calculated separately. Possibly a yes no for using public transport regularly Eating less nutritious food would often lead to health conditions or obesity which are already counted.

I understand the concept of social determinants of health and depravation. I just don’t agree with postcode being a good proxy when it comes to shielding people. It’s a population based approach being used for individuals. It’s too assumptive at that micro level.

 

[padulica]

I had gestational pregnancy 27 yrs ago. I have been instigating my regular hba1c . MyGP has never called for me for it, it turns out that they don’t have it on record that I had GD!!! Despite every time me going for a test I told them !
I have asked about shielding and not been given an answer as my GP knows nothing about the tool !!!

 

[RohanP01]

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?

Friend of mine who had GD.... maybe... for about 3 weeks..... 9 years ago had a letter - on querying it, the GD was on her notes as 9 months ago, not 9 years ago........ so not only does it seem to be really random, there are possibly quite a lot of people out there with errors on their GP notes that are causing issues!