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. copilost

    copilost Type 2 · Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    353
    Likes Received:
    230
    Trophy Points:
    103
  2. Jamie H

    Jamie H · Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    126
    Likes Received:
    89
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Ohh yea sorry... Actually glad that's explained as I'm no expert so thanks!! ...


    Read that paper too. I see the hazard ratio for well controlled is 1.5... So would that be 1.5 against your relavant age? So under 40 would be 1.5 x 0.07 for example?
     
  3. copilost

    copilost Type 2 · Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    353
    Likes Received:
    230
    Trophy Points:
    103
    No my bad, I should have quoted the reference, sorry again.:)
     
  4. Jamie H

    Jamie H · Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    126
    Likes Received:
    89
    Trophy Points:
    28
    No 100 percent I should have read more thoroughly. Just on my point about HR so if you say it's against someone of your same age BMI etc it's 1.5 (Well controlled) x 0.07 (I'm 31 and under 40 risk is 0.07)... Something like that anyway??
     
  5. copilost

    copilost Type 2 · Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    353
    Likes Received:
    230
    Trophy Points:
    103
    Ah no! For someone of your age the additional risk of having controlled diabetes is 1.5 as this estimate has been adjusted for age. For someone of 70 the additional risk is also 1.5. Does that mean we think the risk from diabetes is the same for both groups? Short answer we don't know. To find out we would need to run additional statistical models that look for an interaction. i.e does the risk from diabetes change with age. The 1.5 is an average for all age groups, it might be the same whatever your age, it might be more for younger people or for older people, we can't say from this data.
     
  6. Jamie H

    Jamie H · Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    126
    Likes Received:
    89
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Got you.. I think. But what confuses me is 1.5 times what? Someone who's the same age, sex, BMI etc? Then it's 1.5 times someone of a similar age

    If that's the case then would it not infer it changes with age? Just trying to get my head around it all.. Without trying to sound argumentative... Not my area of expertise haha!!
     
  7. bulkbiker

    bulkbiker Type 2 · Oracle

    Messages:
    16,380
    Likes Received:
    11,308
    Trophy Points:
    298
    • Informative Informative x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
  8. kev-w

    kev-w Type 1 · Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,903
    Likes Received:
    3,154
    Trophy Points:
    178
    • Like Like x 2
    • Useful Useful x 1
  9. Lupf

    Lupf Type 2 · Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    80
    Likes Received:
    36
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Thanks for your posts @Jamie H @copilost @urbanracer @DavidGrahamJones. I agree with the explanation on how to read the risk factors by
    @copilost "paper reports adjusted hazard. That means if you compare two people who are same age, sex, BMI, etc etc for everything on the list in the table then the hazard reported for diabetes is the additional hazard regardless of all the other factors."
    Two more points: i) When you multiply two risks from this study, correlations are neglected, so it could be an overestimate
    ii) while usually the baseline is clear, e.g. no diabetes, for the age related risks, the comparison is made with respect to the 50 to 59 age bracket, so @Jamie H risk is 7% compare to an average 50 to 59 year old.

    I use this comment to discuss how science works: We are still learning about Covid. While scientists in the field broadly agree on many issues (spreading and transmission), many questions are still not clear (why does it affect the elderly and diabetics more?, what are the causal mechanism?). When scienties carry out a study, they write a paper with the results and submit it, e.g. to Medrxiv and to a journal such as bmj. At this time the paper will undergo peer review. This means that other specialists in the field will study the paper and try to establish if the methods and results are correct and compare it with other findings. Basically they'll do their best to prove the study wrong. This is looks like scientists not being able to agree on anything, but it is actually not only important but also very healthy. This is how science progresses. Only peer-reviewed results will be accepted by the journals.

    We have to be careful when we look at results. Before peer review results could actually be wrong. If different groups arrive at the same result confidence in a result will grow. I try to read papers like the one I quoted at the beginning of the thread. These are made by expert groups and their methods are explained. While I am not a specialist, a paper gives me the chance to read how a result was reached.

    Unfortunately many media like to pick up raw numbers such the fact that a quarter of hospital fatalities also had diabetes. Taking such a number without context can easily lead to the wrong conclusion, be used to fear monger in this case, but also to trivialise - R is smaller than one - therefore the lockdown was not required - depending on the intention.
     
  10. copilost

    copilost Type 2 · Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    353
    Likes Received:
    230
    Trophy Points:
    103
    The figure of 1.5 is compared to a 'reference case' (for diabetes it's someone with no diabetes). The 0.07 for age is compared to someone who is 50-69. If you look at the table there is (ref) in each category, that's what the risk is referencing. For sex the reference is female, so whatever the risk for a female the male risk is 1.99. If the risk to a woman was 1% then the risk for a man is 1% x 1.99=2%. (nb I should be saying hazard really).

    it's not easy :)
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  11. Jamie H

    Jamie H · Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    126
    Likes Received:
    89
    Trophy Points:
    28
    I think what Partha Kar is doing is excellent work. My only worry is there may not be enough data around extremely young and to a lesser extent younger type 1 diabetics to analyse. There may be a risk unidentified simply on the basis both groups are a small % of the UK population. Best to not assume though until the data comes out
     
  12. Jamie H

    Jamie H · Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    126
    Likes Received:
    89
    Trophy Points:
    28
    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 an overestimate.

    I just know my HR is 1.5 against someone of same sex age and weight ... I think!
     
  13. Jamie H

    Jamie H · Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    126
    Likes Received:
    89
    Trophy Points:
    28
    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.
     
  14. Lupf

    Lupf Type 2 · Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    80
    Likes Received:
    36
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Apologies if this wasn't clear. What the study says is that your risk is 7% compared to a 50 to 59 year old if all other factors are equal. so this number does not take into account diabetes.
    If you want to calculate your overall risk then you can multiply 0.07 (age) times 1.5 (controlled diabetes) = 0.105. This then means: Compared to your 55 year old "twin" with exactly the same lifestyle, weight, genes ... , but no diabetes (could be your dad?) your risk is only 10%. However, when doing this you neglect correlations between age and diabetes, so could be an overestimate (technically even an underestimate, but this is very unlikely).
     
  15. Jamie H

    Jamie H · Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    126
    Likes Received:
    89
    Trophy Points:
    28
    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%??
     
  16. Mr_Pot

    Mr_Pot Type 2 · Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,707
    Likes Received:
    1,719
    Trophy Points:
    178
    While someone at very high risk is likely to act differently to someone at very low risk I can't see that having some precise figure for risk is much help to individuals. You can shield, self isolate, social distance or not bother. There is no point in tailoring your response to exactly match your risk factor.
     
  17. Jamie H

    Jamie H · Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    126
    Likes Received:
    89
    Trophy Points:
    28
    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.
     
  18. Lupf

    Lupf Type 2 · Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    80
    Likes Received:
    36
    Trophy Points:
    38
    There are many self styled experts who make analyses, this one is by far not the worst. However a quick look on the author's twitter profile tells me the person has a political agenda, This study is not science. It starts with the conclusion - lockdown was a mistake - and cherry picks the data to suit their belief, ignoring basic facts - infections were spreading exponentially in March which would have resulted in over a million deaths in Europe alone by now, if no drastic action would have been taken.
    I've decided some time ago that there is no point in discussing with them and that this would be a waste of my time.

    Whenever I see a claim, result, I ask - where is the paper? If - like in this case - there is none - I move on. I hope you come to the same concluson.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Agree Agree x 2
  19. Lupf

    Lupf Type 2 · Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    80
    Likes Received:
    36
    Trophy Points:
    38
    0.07 is 7%, 1.5 is 150%, 0.07 x 1.5 = 0.105 which is 10%
     
  20. Jamie H

    Jamie H · Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    126
    Likes Received:
    89
    Trophy Points:
    28
    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 .
     
  • 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