1. Get the Diabetes Forum App for your phone - available on iOS and Android.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Guest, we'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the Diabetes Forum Survey 2020 »
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Diabetes Forum should not be used in an emergency and does not replace your healthcare professional relationship. Posts can be seen by the public.
    Dismiss Notice
  4. Guest, stay home, stay safe, save the NHS. Stay up to date with information about keeping yourself and people around you safe here and GOV.UK: Coronavirus (COVID-19). Think you have symptoms? NHS 111 service is available here.
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Find support, ask questions and share your experiences. Join the community »

Covid/Coronavirus and diabetes - the numbers

Discussion in 'Diabetes Discussions' started by Lupf, May 15, 2020.

  1. JohnEGreen

    JohnEGreen Other · Master

    Messages:
    11,057
    Likes Received:
    21,712
    Trophy Points:
    298
  2. tim2000s

    tim2000s Type 1 · Expert
    Retired Moderator

    Messages:
    8,914
    Likes Received:
    11,774
    Trophy Points:
    198
    Amongst the tables there's a statement that says values with a * have not been included as they mean 5 or fewer and would allow identification of individuals. This is true in both the full population data and in the T1 and T2 only cohort data.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  3. KK123

    KK123 Type 1 · Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,782
    Likes Received:
    1,757
    Trophy Points:
    198
    Ah but Ellie, that would mean most of the Cabinet would be out of action. :)
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  4. KK123

    KK123 Type 1 · Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,782
    Likes Received:
    1,757
    Trophy Points:
    198
    My head hurts......I am a simple person and what I take from this is that if the general public are being told to social distance in a certain way, then as someone with diabetes I need to do a little bit extra. x
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  5. Mr_Pot

    Mr_Pot Type 2 · Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,716
    Likes Received:
    1,721
    Trophy Points:
    178
    Would that be a bad thing?
     
    • Funny Funny x 2
    • Winner Winner x 2
    • Optimistic Optimistic x 1
  6. KK123

    KK123 Type 1 · Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,782
    Likes Received:
    1,757
    Trophy Points:
    198
    I'm saying nothing.....
     
  7. Lupf

    Lupf Type 2 · Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    81
    Likes Received:
    37
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Interesting, I only checked a couple of papers and they seemed to be in legit medical journals. The science mag article raises scepticism, but I couldn't find a study which claims that it is all wrong. Not all claims of correlations with 2D:4D are well established, some may be non-existing. This seems to be what the literature is about. @Bill_St do you have an opinion on this?
     
  8. Bill_St

    Bill_St Type 1 · Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    164
    Likes Received:
    62
    Trophy Points:
    68
    While the first impression is that this is just a prank, it becomes clear from the data and sources that there is some genuine science behind it.
    Where it is particularly relevant is with the scare stories.
    Small differences can have a big psychological effect and we have to be particularly careful with even larger apparent differences when they are applied to small data sets.

    Examples of such differences would be :
    Death rates of PWD in hospitals
    Immunity resulting from vaccination.

    Taking the first, many are panicking that twice as many T2 and 3 1/2 times as many T1, die of Coronavirus and translate that into T2 are at double the risk and T1 are at almost 4x the risk.
    But the data set is just of those PWD treated in hospital, more specifically in ICU, because those were the only ones tested in the small data set used from early China.
    It ignores the vast numbers who do not go to hospital and thus were not tested.

    The second is even more important that we take great care.
    The Abbott antibody test seems highly useful with percentages such as 100% and 99.6% quoted.
    (reliable results with 99.6% specificity and 100% sensitivity)

    But can we say those percentages mean that if we get a positive from the test then we are quite safe to just ignore the virus until we can find out if the antibodies are in fact long lasting?
    To make such assumptions would be wrong and potentially dangerous.
    Statistics can be misleading which may be why the Government statisticians put a hold on these tests.
    I’ll leave it up to them with their fancy diagrams to explain ;) why lower prevalence means you are less safe.
    https://assets.publishing.service.g...ponses-covid-19-antibody-testing-13042020.pdf

    Numbers can be so misleading - particularly to the vast majority.
    Just look at how many try to believe that BGM and HbA1c readings are accurate to a fraction of a percent just because the number is shown to a decimal place.
    Just look at the crazy reliance on giving detailed numbers of deaths and infections to a single figure when considering hundreds of thousands. Is this deliberate?

    Numbers can be used by Both “scientists” and politicians to obscure information.

    What I particularly liked about the 2D/4D paper is that here was something simple that everyone could just look at their hand and make a judgement of comparative risk.
    What I particularly disliked was the attending mass of numbers that completely obscured the level of that risk.

    All too often papers are not written to be understood by many people. How many actually contain a clear diagram or graphical abstract?
    Such as this which I really like : Not often you see such as this published in a peer reviewed paper in a Medical Journal
    upload_2020-5-30_17-9-47.jpeg

    We can give information rather than just numbers.

    A similar confusion I regularly see is the BG level for driving- How often do we hear “Five to Drive” in the U.K.?
    Catchy phrase that is easy remembered and often quoted But something that is wrong.
    Just Four to Drive does not sound right.

    How much better than the numbers and text put out by the DVLA (and most D organisations) is the one put out by the CAA for aircraft pilots (who you would reasonably expect to fully understand numbers and texts)
    upload_2020-5-30_17-15-31.png

    We can use numbers but particularly now should do so with care to ensure understanding and clarity.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
    #188 Bill_St, May 30, 2020 at 5:17 PM
    Last edited: May 30, 2020
  9. Draco16

    Draco16 Type 1 · Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    162
    Likes Received:
    117
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Hi, this statement seems to be confusing a few different things. Those recent findings (2x and 3.5x) came from the large dataset UK study in hospitals (Paper linked again below) not sure why the references to China and ICU?

    The key UK study finding again:
    "People with Type 1 diabetes have 3·5 (95% CI 3·15-3·89) times the odds, and people with Type 2 diabetes 2·0 (9% CI 1·97-2·09) times the odds, of dying in hospital with COVID-19, compared to the population without known diabetes, independent of age, sex, socioeconomic status and ethnicity"

    Deaths in hospital do represent the majority of coronavirus deaths in the UK. Deaths outside of hospital (vast yes, but a minority), we don't yet know: maybe the 2x and 3.5x ratios are not the same.

    https://www.england.nhs.uk/wp-conte...D-19-and-Diabetes-Paper-2-Full-Manuscript.pdf
     
  10. Antje77

    Antje77 LADA · Moderator
    Staff Member

    Messages:
    7,906
    Likes Received:
    5,442
    Trophy Points:
    198
    Hi all, a couple of posts have been moved. They were interesting but had nothing to do with this thread.

    May I once again remind everyone the topic of this thread is "Covid/Coronavirus and diabetes - the numbers"
    Meandering off on to other topics - interesting or not - only waters down the focus and impact of this thread.

    Thank you all.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    #190 Antje77, May 31, 2020 at 1:27 PM
    Last edited: May 31, 2020
  11. Tallyhoo

    Tallyhoo · Member

    Messages:
    5
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    23
    I would love to know how many of those who have died as a result of Covid with diabetes as an underlying health condition didn't know they had it until they were tested in hospital and therefore were not being treated for it and that's why it was not 'controlled'. Too many people still don't know about diabetes, and docs should not be frightened of offending overweight/obese patients by getting them tested in the first place surely?!
     
  12. JohnEGreen

    JohnEGreen Other · Master

    Messages:
    11,057
    Likes Received:
    21,712
    Trophy Points:
    298
    Not every obese person is of necessity diabetic and many people who are diabetic are thin I am talking of course about T2 diabetes so such a strategy would not by any means cover every one and would be discriminatory. My doctor would have to test himself first.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  13. Brunneria

    Brunneria Other · Moderator
    Staff Member

    Messages:
    20,944
    Likes Received:
    34,584
    Trophy Points:
    298
    Why would running a routine HbA1c offend patients? And it is by no means only the 'obese' that need health checks.

    In the UK, the NHS has a system of regular monitoring for patients (which includes an HBA1c test as part of the list of tests).
    https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/nhs-health-check/
    Everyone between the ages of 40 and 74 years is invited to attend a health check every few years.
    Not everyone accepts the invitation.

    Those who already have conditions that need monitoring are excluded from the health check invite, on the expectation that their scheduled monitoring will cover the same ground as the health check.
     
    • Like Like x 3
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Informative Informative x 1
    #193 Brunneria, Jun 3, 2020 at 10:15 AM
    Last edited: Jun 3, 2020
  14. TDavies

    TDavies Type 1 · Member

    Messages:
    18
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    43
    I agree with this. My mum is very sensitive to insulin. She also seems to do better when unwell if she has a higher blood sugar. She is an older person (over 80) with Type 1 (diagnosed age 50 as Type 2)
    Also I don't know if this is relevant but she has almost never has high ketones.
     
    #194 TDavies, Jun 3, 2020 at 12:37 PM
    Last edited: Jun 3, 2020
  15. derry60

    derry60 Prediabetes · Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,187
    Likes Received:
    591
    Trophy Points:
    153
    Propolol, Ramipril, Thyroxine, Atorvastatin, Lansolprazal
     
  16. derry60

    derry60 Prediabetes · Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,187
    Likes Received:
    591
    Trophy Points:
    153
    How can one shield themselves if they have to go shopping? If people are not on the list, they cannot get shopping delivered. We can now because slots have opened up.
     
  17. derry60

    derry60 Prediabetes · Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,187
    Likes Received:
    591
    Trophy Points:
    153
    I meant to say. On the daily updates, they said that they have put people in the vulnerable category, they have now realised this. These people should not of been on the list. If we get a second wave then Diabetics and people with heart disease will be put on the list. Bit late now lol
     
  18. derry60

    derry60 Prediabetes · Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,187
    Likes Received:
    591
    Trophy Points:
    153
    Exactly
     
  19. derry60

    derry60 Prediabetes · Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,187
    Likes Received:
    591
    Trophy Points:
    153
    Actually. My doctor told me that I am at a very very high risk but not vulnerable. Now on one of the daily updates, they have said that some people were on the vunerable shield list when they should not have been, and as time has gone on, they have missed some medical conditions who should of been on it. Heart Disease and type 2 diabetes. If we get a second wave they said these will be added to the list. 29% people with type 2 died when getting Covid, 30% with Heart Disease. As time has gone on they have found out what health conditions are affected by this virus. Well seeing that it attacks the heart and lungs, I would of thought that is not rocket science. We should of been on the list
     
  20. Mr_Pot

    Mr_Pot Type 2 · Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,716
    Likes Received:
    1,721
    Trophy Points:
    178
    That is 29% of people ill enough from Covid-19 to be admitted to hospital and who happened to have Type 2 diabetes. It doesn't necessarily mean that diabetes hastened their demise. The 29% doesn't apply to Type 2's in general, those who caught the virus and had mild or no symptoms are not included in any calculation.
     
    • Agree Agree x 4
    • Like Like x 1
  • Meet the Community

    Find support, connect with others, ask questions and share your experiences with people with diabetes, their carers and family.

    Did you know: 7 out of 10 people improve their understanding of diabetes within 6 months of being a Diabetes Forum member. Get the Diabetes Forum App and stay connected on iOS and Android

    Grab the app!
  • Tweet with us

  • Like us on Facebook