Search Results

Wondering is anyone has seen this? Interesting in perhaps moving away from the one size fits all approach. Fully appreciate that there are many on this forum at higher risk so its not in anyway to come across as insensitive. Just shows varying degrees of risk in line with the recent NHS studies...

Wondering is anyone has seen this? Interesting in perhaps moving away from the one size fits all approach. Fully appreciate that there are many on this forum at higher risk so its not in anyway to come across as insensitive. Just shows varying degrees of risk in line with the recent NHS studies...

The risk decreases if your diabetes is well controlled according to the NHS study, which just legitimises what was assumed by most beforehand. For both type 1 and type 2. One of the key takeaways is to ensure good glycemic control and optimal weight. So to me that says the risk isn't the same.

Get you now. It was reported in newspapers it was being discussed. It does not say anywhere that scientists are or were reccomending a blanket approach to shield all those with diabetes. A very subtle difference in my opinion. I've read on numerous platforms that many are not suggesting a...

It doesn't say all diabetics should shield. Think this is what the poster was referring to. IMO it does all depend. Confusion as the original poster has said on a few occasions scientists are suggested all diabetics shield... I've read nowhere that this is the case.

Good on you mate [emoji123][emoji123]

Up until about a fortnight before lockdown, travel a lot to mainland UK for work.. At that time there was no talk of masks or protection... Count myself lucky I didn't pick anything up.. Especially through some very busy London airports... Unless I did so and was asymptomatic.. I doubt it though...

Yea this doesn't seem right. Hopefully the new data can help change your employers mind! Hope you get sorted OK

Yea you're right and we can talk abstractly to a point then stories really hit home, such as your neighbour's nephew. All we can do is try to stay as fit and healthy as possible. Even with the data and trying to figure out associated risk.. as you say unfortunately luck will always play its part.

If solely relying on the data then I don't see it being a one size fits all approach with regard to shielding... I don't think scientists are suggested that either.. Although it keeps being quoted in this thread? In saying that the paper for under 40s doesn't eliminate risk.. It just says its...

Tend to agree with this.. On balance without being complacent and diminishing the seriousness of things... When weighing up risk (not guaranteed outcome) blanket shielding doesn't make sense. Note also that the risk for under 40s diminishes a bit further if you're well controlled and not obese...

Yup agree with all of that 100%. I know they've identified diabetes as a risk solely so regardless of how low risk an individual is based on age it would be extremely ignorant to ignore that risk altogether however its also ignorant so suggest a blanket policy for all diabetics when risk varies...

I think some had misinterpreted the headlines (not yourself) . Nowhere does it say there is going to be a recommendation for blanket shielding... Most people like partha kar etc don't seem to expect so either

My understanding is that scientists are reviewing, but nowhere has it been suggested or written that scientists are going to advise all diabetics are shielded. . Partha Kar has suggested on a number of threads that it would be extremely unlikely that there will be a one size fits all approach...

My GP has never once suggested I shield but was also open enough to tell me many diabetics under his care have received letters. This is not a one size fits all approach. I think the research legitimises that

Im not sure that they are recommending that? I believe it's up for review and I don't think it'll be a one size fits all approach either..

Wouldn't read too much into sensationalist headlines from any newspaper during this pandemic. I think If sheilding for diabetics does become policy it certainly won't be a blanket policy. The article itself has a quote from someone in diabetes UK saying the data shows a one size fits all...

Yes I got to that number with subtracting the published data from the total on paper 2.. Also given the statement "risk if very low in under 40s" it must have been a very small number if it was decided not to publish it... Given that it was easy to get to the number of under 50s being 22. Age...

Not strictly true. Numbers for under 50s were extremely low and surpressed due to data protection. Point remains that risk for that age group, esp under 40s, is extremely low.

7.5 today. Not disasterous. Blaming small overload in carbs pre bed to compensate for the bigger overload of single malt beforehand [emoji1634]. Need to not get complacent after a good recent hba1c! Have a great day everyone [emoji16]