Search Results

Agree with all of this. Worth pointing out that at this moment in time we don't actually know how much higher as we've really no idea how many people have/have had it

Agreed but I think it needs to be established that the overall risk in some groups is small... Not non existent. Eg if I am under 20 my risk may be 3.5 times that of someone under 20 without diabetes but that is 3.5 times an already very very small number.. So much so that no deaths have been...

Comment on deaths linked to hyperglycemia. Does this refer to control/hba1c or does this refer to hyperglycemia once admitted. I'm assuming the former as the latter isn't really referenced much throughout.

In that case my apologies. My tone wasn't intended to be short. Text can often misrepresent. It was just more a criticism of newspapers and their headlines sometimes!

I'd advise reading the paper rather than the takeaways from the article. Not saying what you've stated is incorrect but it puts those figures into some context.

Yea think it's given some legitimacy to a lot of the measures many have suggested previously. Ie good control, matabolic health etc will help

In addition my understanding of hazard ratios are that the type one figure of 3.5 is age, sex adjusted etc. But good control and some other factors can lower that risk a bit again.. Whereas comorbidities could perhaps add to it. Yes I could see shielding being advised for a particular age...

Not explicitly... Unless you're a whiz at hazard ratios, which I'm not. But it more or less says its very low!

I thought that but another way to look at it Under 50s make up over 50% of type 1 population yet deaths are so low they cannot be reported. Over 80s make up 4.3% of the diabetic population. Don't get me wrong I'm not saying don't be careful but if under 50s were at a very high risk then given...

In the second paper. Few quick screenshots for reference. Reference to it in the text of the article aswell mate [emoji106]

It does mention it. It's in one of the papers and talks about hazard ratios and hba1c. Control is also mentioned as being important in the findings/conclusion.

Find tresiba to be far better too. Less hypos in the morning also (aware it can be taken at anytime but my routine is to take it at night). Take a fairly hefty does though but all of our bodies are different!!

Yea think that's definitely the case but wouldn't discount that some people are more prone to bad outcomes than others. It's just another contributing factor

I think we will know a lot more in the next few days... (says me who kept at the point about risk earlier). Perhaps, and it's just a theory... We know the risk of raised levels and resultant DKA correlates with severity of infection However it may be true also that the risk of getting severe...

So in short person under 40 has 7% of the risk compared to a person aged 50-59. Person with diabetes under 40 has 10% (7% x 1.5) of the risk of a person aged 50-59 that doesn't have diabetes. Same ratio as I thought just a 100th or so out!! Takeaway is the risk someone aged under 40 is quite...

OK where I've got confused then is I read 0.07 as 0.07% which would tie in with other studies that puts risk of dying of someone under 40 at 0. 1% (rounded up). If its to be taken as 7%... What does the 7% represent then? Surely not 7% risk of dying with covid for someone aged 18-40 [emoji848].

I think it's a good guide in terms of whether to shield or not... Don't think anyone's going to be acting like they were before covid even if they fit into the lower risk category.

Got it. Its what I was doing originally but @copilost seemed to think differently?? However 0.07 x 1.5 is 0.1%... Not 10%??

Thanks for the feedback. Could you explain how you arrived at 7% if the HR for well controlled diabetes is 1.5? Apologies for my ignorance on this.

Starting to understand it don't worry haha. I get the limitation in the study now that you referred to a few posts back. It's 1.5 and the reference is someone without diabetes... But we simply don't know how the other factors play in.... And you can't simply multiply them either as it could be...