Interesting study

Thanks for cheering me up, by the way those two links go to Fox News. Found it, it was in the Journal of the American Medical Association. Here's the first sentence of their conclusion: I note they don't mention smoking, or drinking, have I missed it.

"Results A total of 5700 patients were included (median age, 63 years [interquartile range {IQR}, 52-75; range, 0-107 years]; 39.7% female). The most common comorbidities were hypertension (3026; 56.6%), obesity (1737; 41.7%), and diabetes (1808; 33.8%)."

Although it lists these as comorbidities it doesn't actually state whether they actually had high blood pressure or poorly controlled BG. I have high blood pressure (usually 130/75), type II diabetes (last Hba1C 44).

One other thing they will have had in common, none of them would have worn a mask. Not foolproof, but definitely effective to a degree. Just look at Austria, it made masks wearing compulsory in supermarkets on April 6th. Their graph of new cases is interesting. Total number of cases graph, new cases tapering off. I get it that the NHS need the masks, but there's plenty we can do, like ask the government why they keep lying to us.

DavidGrahamJones said:

Thanks for cheering me up. Is there any chance of naming the research and by the way those two links go to Fox News. Found it, it was in the Journal of the American Medical Association. Here's the first sentence of their conclusion:

"Results A total of 5700 patients were included (median age, 63 years [interquartile range {IQR}, 52-75; range, 0-107 years]; 39.7% female). The most common comorbidities were hypertension (3026; 56.6%), obesity (1737; 41.7%), and diabetes (1808; 33.8%)."

Click to expand...

Hmm, wonder what causes all those... hyperinsul............ nah, couldn't be, no one wants to talk about that.

DavidGrahamJones said:

I have high blood pressure (usually 130/75), type II diabetes (last Hba1C 44).

Click to expand...

Thats not high blood pressure and nor is 44mmol/m T2 diabetes either..

You have normal blood pressure and pre -diabetes..?

bulkbiker said:

You have normal blood pressure and pre -diabetes..?

Click to expand...

I take medication for the blood pressure and it works. I low carb and just take metformin and my BG is usually pretty good, however I am insulin resistant and my insulin production is the low end of normal although that needs a recheck because it suddenly dropped over a 6 month period when I injected Victoza to help with metabolic problems (to no avail).

I have been type II since 1997 and have taken Rosiglitazone, Gliclazide and Januvia over those years, not now.

Hmm getting a bit tired of seeing studies that say statistically I should have died of the virus.

Still here lol and whilst a couple of weeks ago I was unable to walk more than 100 metres due to being too weak and breathless, this morning I walked a mile.

Hi all, just did a very quick search so this may not be accurate but according to my info nearly 25% of over 65 in the USA and 17 % of the over 45 to 64 bracket are diabetic. These would seem to mitigate somewhat against the death percentages quoted as you'd expect nearly a quarter to be diabetic anyway?
Is that right ? That would indicate that diabetes is obviously a factor but not quite so emphatically as the figures at first look suggest?

Dusty911 said:

Hi all, just did a very quick search so this may not be accurate but according to my info nearly 25% of over 65 in the USA and 17 % of the over 45 to 64 bracket are diabetic. These would seem to mitigate somewhat against the death percentages quoted as you'd expect nearly a quarter to be diabetic anyway?
Is that right ? That would indicate that diabetes is obviously a factor but not quite so emphatically as the figures at first look suggest?

Click to expand...

Yes, and since none of the studies give any indication of what level of control the patient has, whether blood glucose or blood pressure - which is a pretty crucial piece of information. No consolation to those who are at the high end of both, but equally, no official reassurance for those at the lower ends either.

I am really surprised that there is no mention of any pneumatic comorbidities (e.g. COPD, Pneumonia, Emphysema, asthma or smoking) or CVD ( such as CHF, MI, AF etc). They are also very coy about the actual mechanisms involved in the final days, so is it purely pneumonia causing asphyxia and if so is it primary pneumonia directly caused by the virus, or a secondary pneumonia following on from the first stages of infection? I see there is no mention of kidney or liver failures being reported so previous CKD or pancreas failure does not seem to be involved even with the diabetic patients. Again, atherosclerosis does not seem to be a factor, but high blood pressure is,

In the UK they are reporting a strong association with obesity which is not part of the the NY picture as described in the OP.

So what is it about diabetes that makes us more susceptible? Knowing the breakdown between T1 and T2 could help solve the conundrum, or whether insulin treatment has any association. Somebody must be collating this data surely?

Maybe we need to compare survival rates for people on ventilators with 'normal' pneumonia against the COVID patients. I suspect that any ventilator use is bad news for anyone. As one who personlly manages to tick most of the boxes I will be keeping my head indoors for the foreseeable future. My GP has told me I have used up most of my 9 lives and I have little chance of overcoming the odds. My thoughts are with all who are suffering loss at this time.

Edit to update: Report discussed today in the news claims the primary cause of death in COVID -19 patients is stroke, and mainly ischaemic (e.g. bloodclot) stroke, the other point it makes is that the site of the thrombosis is not just the usual arteries in the heart or brain,, but there is a high prevalence of other embolisms in the legs, lungs, kidneys etc, so it seems that blood clotting is a factor at play. This may explain why diabetes makes us part of the vulnerable group since this disease increases the risk of CVE by itself.

One wonders what the survival rates of two random groups with serious covid would be on a ventilator or just on oxygen?
D.

Pura Vida said:

A new study by a medical journal revealed that most of the people in New York Citywho were hospitalized due to coronavirus had one or more underlying health issues.

Health records from 5,700 patients hospitalized within the Northwell Health system -- which housed the most patients in the country throughout the pandemic -- showed that 94 percent of patients had more than one disease other than COVID-19, according to the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA).



Data taken from March to early April showed that the median age of patients was 63 years old and 53 percent of all coronavirus patients suffered from hypertension, the most prevalent of the ailments among patients.

In addition, 42 percent of coronavirus patients who had body mass index (BMI) data on file suffered from obesity while 32 percent of all patients suffered from diabetes.

The study also revealed that the overwhelming majority of patients who were on ventilators eventually died, and those who did more often had diabetes.

Data gathered from 2,634 patients who either died or were discharged from the hospital showed that 12 percent of them were placed on ventilators and of those who were, 88 percent of them died.


“Having serious comorbidities increases your risk,” said Karina Davidson, one of the study’s authors and senior vice president for the Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research, which is part of the Northwell Health system, according to reports by Time.

“This is a very serious disease with a very poor outcome for those who have severe infections from it. We want patients with serious chronic disease to take a special precaution and to seek medical attention early, should they start showing signs and symptoms of being infected. That includes knowing that they’ve been exposed to someone who has this virus

Click to expand...

lindisfel said:

One wonders what the survival rates of two random groups with serious covid would be on a ventilator or just on oxygen?
D.

Click to expand...

I don't think that would be feasible. The Ethics Comittee would not sanction it. From what I understand it is not a binary choice. Ventilator is only used when oxygen alone ( even with CPAP or BPAP assistance) is insufficient. By that token it is clear that the ventilaor group is already selected, The question is = is there a preselection factor that predisposes this group compared to the O2 only treatment cases. Is that dichotomy a random event or predisposed?

Nothing new to see here. Studies outside of COVID-19 repeat this time and again. The general populous are generally walking sick. I would like to see the cross referencing of other hard end point events super imposed, I bet it's similar.

When I was growing up 1 in 3 got cancer, now 1 in 2; even taking out the noise of living longer. Often a family member will take up say marathon running from the couch to support a loved one with cancer; I think real progress will be made when people make lifestyle changes on mass without the need for such a horrid stimulus. It doesn't need to be marathon running or even close, just a dropping of fake food and a little movement.

What is holding all societies back from being more robust is the guidelines and the industry that grows from this. Nina Teicholz is correct. I believe that the population of say 1955 would not be as affected as our present generation, I believe "we" are genetically weaker and reliant on medicine more than our own "systems".

A policy maker on YouTube has said that they are actively taking down contrary views to the World Health Organisation - well that's just great for truth. This is the message within the last couple of days the WHO have said (I highlighted the areas I find interesting):

http://www.emro.who.int/noncommunicable-diseases/campaigns/nutrition-for-adults-during-covid-19.html



With this type of advice what chance is there for better basic health. This of course in the same group that talk about meat being a carcinogen.

bulkbiker said:

Thats not high blood pressure and nor is 44mmol/m T2 diabetes either..

You have normal blood pressure and pre -diabetes..?

Click to expand...

Beg to differ normal blood pressure is systolic 120 or below , with diastolic below 80

Stage 1 high blood pressure (hypertension) is systolic 130 - 139 with diastolic 80 - 89

With elevated blood pressure mid way between those levels.

so 130/75 is at least elevated blood pressure.

JohnEGreen said:

Beg to differ normal blood pressure is systolic 120 or below , with diastolic below 80

Stage 1 high blood pressure (hypertension) is systolic 130 - 139 with diastolic 80 - 89

With elevated blood pressure mid way between those levels.

so 130/75 is at least elevated blood pressure.

Click to expand...

NHS seem to differ maybe we should agree on mildly elevated?
.. and wasn't this lowered recently too (cynically I would suggest to get more people on hypertension medication?).


BHF say

Mbaker said:

Nothing new to see here. Studies outside of COVID-19 repeat this time and again. The general populous are generally walking sick. I would like to see the cross referencing of other hard end point events super imposed, I bet it's similar.

When I was growing up 1 in 3 got cancer, now 1 in 2; even taking out the noise of living longer. Often a family member will take up say marathon running from the couch to support a loved one with cancer; I think real progress will be made when people make lifestyle changes on mass without the need for such a horrid stimulus. It doesn't need to be marathon running or even close, just a dropping of fake food and a little movement.

What is holding all societies back from being more robust is the guidelines and the industry that grows from this. Nina Teicholz is correct. I believe that the population of say 1955 would not be as affected as our present generation, I believe "we" are genetically weaker and reliant on medicine more than our own "systems".

A policy maker on YouTube has said that they are actively taking down contrary views to the World Health Organisation - well that's just great for truth. This is the message within the last couple of days the WHO have said (I highlighted the areas I find interesting):

http://www.emro.who.int/noncommunicable-diseases/campaigns/nutrition-for-adults-during-covid-19.html

View attachment 40681




With this type of advice what chance is there for better basic health. This of course in the same group that talk about meat being a carcinogen.

Click to expand...

That is horrendous advice and most people don't even know it. I agree, society is getting sicker and sicker. It's obvious and yet the nutrition guidelines remain unchanged. The corrupt element of big food, medical research and medical pharmaceutical industries certainly have a strong grip. Ivor cummins has talked about it with Dr.Jason Fung before... it's a real eye opener when you start really digging into stuff.

bulkbiker said:

NHS seem to differ maybe we should agree on mildly elevated?
.. and wasn't this lowered recently too (cynically I would suggest to get more people on hypertension medication?).
View attachment 40682

BHF say
View attachment 40683

Click to expand...

https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases...pressure/in-depth/blood-pressure/art-20050982

"All systems for categorizing high BP are somewhat arbitrary, but the current consensus is that normal BPs are less than 120 mm Hg systolic and 80 mm Hg diastolic, on average. Borderline high BPs (prehypertension) are between 120 and 139 mm Hg systolic and 80 to 89 mm Hg diastolic. Patients with BP readings between 140/90 and 160/100 mm Hg are said to have stage 1 (mild) HTN."

https://www.tabers.com/tabersonline/view/Tabers-Dictionary/765649/all/hypertension


So it's a matter of opinion and in the opinion of @DavidGrahamJones and his doctor he has high blood pressure.

JohnEGreen said:

https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases...pressure/in-depth/blood-pressure/art-20050982

"All systems for categorizing high BP are somewhat arbitrary, but the current consensus is that normal BPs are less than 120 mm Hg systolic and 80 mm Hg diastolic, on average. Borderline high BPs (prehypertension) are between 120 and 139 mm Hg systolic and 80 to 89 mm Hg diastolic. Patients with BP readings between 140/90 and 160/100 mm Hg are said to have stage 1 (mild) HTN."

https://www.tabers.com/tabersonline/view/Tabers-Dictionary/765649/all/hypertension


So it's a matter of opinion and in the opinion of @DavidGrahamJones and his doctor he has high blood pressure.

Click to expand...

Maybe it was in the US that the "normal" levels were lowered.. that would explain the Mayo Clinic levels and the NHS / BHF recommendations discrepancy.

JohnEGreen said:

So it's a matter of opinion and in the opinion of @DavidGrahamJones and his doctor he has high blood pressure.

Click to expand...

I didn't realise there would be so much debate about blood pressure.Just messing about, so please don't take too seriously.

I looked up the word opinion 'a view or judgement formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.' So in this case my GP's opinion is based on fact and knowledge and I agree with it. Although I would say if I disagreed like with statins LOL

If I wasn't medicated , my BP would be bonkers and I'd be a prime candidate for a stroke. There are times when it's been as low as 117/70 but I have no way of knowing how accurate that is. All I can do is eat the right things which I do by following a low carb diet. I exercise as much as I can, although a back that goes into spasm if I sneeze doesn't help.

Here's a little interesting paper that suggests all these poor so and so dying from covid have low cholesterol. At the end of the day, I don't want it but if I get it, my outcome could go either way.

I got my letter today so we're now getting the co-op to deliver and although free we can't get the 10% of on Tuesdays so effectively the free delivery is costing £10 - £15 per week. Not complaining, just an observation, I'd sooner be alive, especially after last Tuesday when I went at 07:00 to avoid the crowd and the checkout assistant was sneezing, complaining of saw eyes and hanging on to a grotty paper hanky. Hay fever I hope but I'm not a medic so I mentioned it to his manager.

Stay safe everyone.

It has already been established that other Coronoviruses such as SARS and MERS gain entry to the patient by hijacking the ACE-2 enzymes in the bloodstream. This is the so called S-protein in the spikes. Now one piece of evidence we are so far missing is how many infected patients were using an ACE Inhibitor such as Ramipril for their BP control. This med it seems may be increasing the risk factor for infection in the first place, and may be why diabetics are so prevalent in the listings.

https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/JAHA.120.016509

There was another thread on the forum discussing this so I wil not elaborate further. I remember that no firm conclusion was reached either way in the thread, and the advice so far is to continue using ACE and ARB meds since alternative comorbidities may arise instead.
https://www.rbht.nhs.uk/our-service...i-and-arb-medication-during-covid-19-outbreak

I find all of the replies interesting and thanks to everyone for the links but I do think that all any of us can do is look after ourselves, try to keep our glucose levels in check (and everything else), eat well, exercise and if nothing else, that may put us in the risk category of anyone without any underlying conditions. I know it's not a simple thing but like DNA & age, what else can you do! x