Just been told to shield

Andydragon

Well-Known Member
Retired Moderator
Messages
3,324
Type of diabetes
Treatment type
Diet only
I am going to be tactless and ask, does it matter? The government may, or maybe not be getting things right, but at least they are trying.
Yes it matters. Because a year in and they are still confused. Sending mixed messages and scaring people. From the information on this thread it seems clear there are those with lower risk being told to shield, so why are others of us not? Its incompetent and we as a country are getting through through by luck not by governing

I fully expect not to get a letter, I just want to know why given others above are
 
  • Like
Reactions: HSSS
Messages
18,448
Type of diabetes
Type 1
Treatment type
Insulin
Dislikes
Bullies, Liars, Trolls and dishonest cruel people
Yes it matters. Because a year in and they are still confused. Sending mixed messages and scaring people. From the information on this thread it seems clear there are those with lower risk being told to shield, so why are others of us not? Its incompetent and we as a country are getting through through by luck not by governing

I fully expect not to get a letter, I just want to know why given others above are

I totally agree with your above statement. I have been looking up so many things on google to try to get some sort of an answer as to why some are getting shielding letter's/emails when they don't fit in with the Covid-19 Clinical Risk Assessment Tool, tbh nothing really has come up, no clear answer's.
Over the years I have found many medical professionals living in the dark ages and the care for the patient can be indifferent, even bad and occasionally good.
Life is a lottery, I am back to work tomorrow and hoping I will be ok and not catch Covid 19.
So basically our lives are in the medical profession's hands.
At nearly 63, it doesn't fill me with much hope.
 
Messages
18,448
Type of diabetes
Type 1
Treatment type
Insulin
Dislikes
Bullies, Liars, Trolls and dishonest cruel people
Errr.. I’ve been added to the new shielding list.

I am not diabetic, my BMI is 22. It was 30 when I was pregnant and it was last recorded as I had suspected gestational diabetes.

On my groups literally hundreds of previous GD pregnancies are reporting the same letter, but I can’t understand why diabetics aren’t told to shield, yet a previous gestational diabetes diagnosis are??

Has anyone been told to shield now?

Hi, if you have been advised to shield, then it is your choice whether or not to do so, it's entirely up to you, but personally can't see you being at high risk.
As you had suspected gestational diabetes in the past (my daughter had gestational diabetes in 2018 when she was expecting my granddaughter, it went away soon after baby was born)
Do you have a meter you could use to test your BG ?
If you don't think you should shield then get in touch with your GP and ask if you can be taken off the list.
 

Jam&Scones

Well-Known Member
Messages
100
Type of diabetes
MODY
Treatment type
Diet only
A family member had the same thing and we think it’s because of gestational diabetes. I took the test and got a 75/100. I’ve had my vaccination and received my shielding letter this week!
 

Sarah69

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,444
Type of diabetes
Treatment type
Insulin
Dislikes
Anything healthy!
It gives you absolute and relative risks. If if you have an absolute risk of death of 0.5% or a relative risk of 10 expect a letter or speak to your gp if you don’t get one.

This is my result,
Absolute risk (a) Absolute risk with no risk factors (b) Relative risk (a/b)
COVID associated death 0.0357% 1 in 2801 0.0032% 1 in 31250 11.1562
COVID associated hospital admission 0.2084% 1 in 480 0.0401% 1 in 2494 5.197

What does it mean?
 

HSSS

Expert
Messages
7,471
Type of diabetes
Type 2
Treatment type
Diet only
I am going to be tactless and ask, does it matter? The government may, or maybe not be getting things right, but at least they are trying.
Who knows if it matters medically, we won’t unless we catch it as a result of contact we could have avoided if shielded and then the outcome of that infection is your answer. Honestly I’d rather stay in the dark and never know what difference it makes by not catching it at all. And I’ve just reduced our family income to effectively zero rather than go to my part time work. Shielding would have paid the food bill.
I’m not getting into a political dispute on here but the government have had choices all the way along. A few I think were right. Many wrong. And it has nothing whatsoever to do with non covid issues in either direction.
 
Last edited:

HSSS

Expert
Messages
7,471
Type of diabetes
Type 2
Treatment type
Diet only
This is my result,
Absolute risk (a) Absolute risk with no risk factors (b) Relative risk (a/b)
COVID associated death 0.0357% 1 in 2801 0.0032% 1 in 31250 11.1562
COVID associated hospital admission 0.2084% 1 in 480 0.0401% 1 in 2494 5.197

What does it mean?
if the one I highlighted is the relative risk, it is above 10. This means 10 times more likely than the equivalent person without the risk factors. According to the guidance this is above the threshold and you should be contacted by email (check junk) or letter. If not - and you wish to be shielded - I’d check in with the GP and ask for it to be double checked.
 

Andydragon

Well-Known Member
Retired Moderator
Messages
3,324
Type of diabetes
Treatment type
Diet only
I was interested in how this works and whether the calculation is flawed

Set my age to 44, relative risk 4.07 (absolute 0.0026%)
Set my age to 26, relative risk 11 (absolute 0.0002%)

Yet age is a factor but in the wrong direction. but younger you are due to how they derive the calculation reduces absolute and increased relative risk unless I've messed up...

So let's hope they aren't using just relative risk!
 
Last edited:

HSSS

Expert
Messages
7,471
Type of diabetes
Type 2
Treatment type
Diet only
I was interested in how this works and whether the calculation is flawed

Set my age to 44, relative risk 4.07 (absolute 0.0026%)
Set my age to 26, relative risk 11 (absolute 0.0002%)

Yet age is a factor but in the wrong direction. but younger you are due to how they derive the calculation reduces absolute and increased relative risk unless I've messed up...

So let's hope they aren't using just relative risk!
I read something about this last night. The comparison gap between young and old is what causes the relative risk to be greater. An old diabetic has a raised risk but being old already makes it high. So the difference is less.
A young diabetic would otherwise have very low risk so the difference is much greater.
Crazy that even having a lower absolute risk gets the younger person shielded over the old one though. Sure absolute risk is the one that gets you dead or not?

they use both. Absolute over 0.5% or relative over 10
 

Andydragon

Well-Known Member
Retired Moderator
Messages
3,324
Type of diabetes
Treatment type
Diet only
I read something about this last night. The comparison gap between young and old is what causes the relative risk to be greater. An old diabetic has a raised risk but being old already makes it high. So the difference is less.
A young diabetic would otherwise have very low risk so the difference is much greater.
Crazy that even having a lower absolute risk gets the younger person shielded over the old one though. Sure absolute risk is the one that gets you dead or not?

they use both. Absolute over 0.5% or relative over 10
So basically the nhs is using absolute OR relative? Where age has a direct impact on relative, causing those who are, by what we know of covid, safer into shielding? Those of us getting older suddenly are safer?

You couldn't make this stuff up!

But that if true answers a lot of questions I had as to why unexpected people are shielding, while others aren't
 

Doireallyneedanams

Well-Known Member
Messages
154
I was interested in how this works and whether the calculation is flawed

Set my age to 44, relative risk 4.07 (absolute 0.0026%)
Set my age to 26, relative risk 11 (absolute 0.0002%)

Yet age is a factor but in the wrong direction. but younger you are due to how they derive the calculation reduces absolute and increased relative risk unless I've messed up...

So let's hope they aren't using just relative risk!

I read a bmj page on QCovid and it repeatedly stated that they had found young type 2 to be more at risk than older type 2’s.
 

DJTT1

Newbie
Messages
2
So, the final number in the calculation (absolute risk of death ranked out of 100) is not used to determine whether to shield. I must admit that my calculated figure of 91/100 feels concerning, but difficult to put into context.
 

HSSS

Expert
Messages
7,471
Type of diabetes
Type 2
Treatment type
Diet only
I read a bmj page on QCovid and it repeatedly stated that they had found young type 2 to be more at risk than older type 2’s.
I can’t find this. Do you have a link please?
Edit to add the most recent article says
Thus, the largest group on the current shielding list is patients taking immune suppressant drugs. Evidence shows a relative risk of around 1.2 for these patients, compared with a relative risk of 1.8 for being male.4 On the other hand, evidence has consistently shown age to be the major factor.56 There is no evidence that the extremely vulnerable list is materially any different from the vulnerable list: at age 55, the relative risk for solid organ cancer in the past year is 5.2, organ transplant 6.4, and type 1 diabetes 8.7.7 The data clearly show that the most vulnerable are the old, with multiple comorbidities, particularly diabetes, heart disease, and respiratory disease.89Evidence shows that most patients on the extremely vulnerable list do not become extremely vulnerable until they are in their 70s and 80s.​
https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n382


ie the list makes little sense and says amongst the most at risk are older diabetics the opposite of what you state above.​
 
Last edited:

Doireallyneedanams

Well-Known Member
Messages
154
I can’t find this. Do you have a link please?

it’s very possible my understanding of it is wrong, I skimmed over it, but I definitely thought I read younger more at risk and specifically women. I could be going mad

“Supplementary figures A and B show graphs of the adjusted hazard ratios for body mass index, age, and the interaction between age and type 2 diabetes for deaths and hospital admissions due to covid-19 (which showed higher risks associated with younger ages). ”

https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m3731
 
Last edited:

Andydragon

Well-Known Member
Retired Moderator
Messages
3,324
Type of diabetes
Treatment type
Diet only
I can’t find this. Do you have a link please?
i have seen reports saying having diabetes at 40 puts you in as much risk as someone 16 years older. The cohorts in the UK do seem to be reflecting this view though

Thing is, younger type 2s are generally rarer, so I wonder how much evidence there really is for such a new condition. younger will relitively have more risk as there's less t2 in that range? their absolute is lower, it's not an OR condition... That's where I think it Doesn't work

But not an expert... I may be totally wrong. Does happen, rarely! :angelic:

That said, the answer as to why younger are being shielded where me as a middle aged person isn't now because clearer. But then I've also had type 2 for significantly longer. So this scoring, to me, seems too blunt a tool. What about smokers? Uncontrolled bloods etc... This qcovid doesn't take that into account

Still, hopefully the vaccine will be imminent regardless
 

Doireallyneedanams

Well-Known Member
Messages
154
i have seen reports saying having diabetes at 40 puts you in as much risk as someone 16 years older. The cohorts in the UK do seem to be reflecting this view though

Thing is, younger type 2s are generally rarer, so I wonder how much evidence there really is for such a new condition. Of course younger will relitively have more risk, there's less t2 in that range! there absolute is lower, it's not an OR condition... That's where I think it Doesn't work

But not an expert... I may be totally wrong. Does happen, rarely! :angelic:

That said, the answer as to why younger are being shielded where me as a middle aged person isn't now because clearer. But then I've also had type 2 for significantly longer. So this scoring, to me, seems too blunt a tool. What about smokers? Uncontrolled bloods etc... This qcovid doesn't take that into account

Still, hopefully the vaccine will be imminent regardless

it’s strange. I may have said above, using my postcode I must shield (assuming GD falls under type 2) - if I use my in laws postcode I don’t need to shield. I can’t get my head around what that actually means thought. I get that statistically i am more at risk, but am I REALLY more at risk because of my postcode? Is it assuming I’m living with 10 other people who are putting me at risk, when I’m not? I mean I just dont understand it.
 
Last edited:

Peri

Member
Messages
16
Type of diabetes
Treatment type
Tablets (oral)
Errr.. I’ve been added to the new shielding list.

I am not diabetic, my BMI is 22. It was 30 when I was pregnant and it was last recorded as I had suspected gestational diabetes.

On my groups literally hundreds of previous GD pregnancies are reporting the same letter, but I can’t understand why diabetics aren’t told to shield, yet a previous gestational diabetes diagnosis are??

Has anyone been told to shield now?

Yes - I've been told to shield. T2, BMI over 30. My vaccination is tomorrow but the letter clearly says even if I've had both vaccinations, I am still to shield until 31st March.
 

Doireallyneedanams

Well-Known Member
Messages
154
clearly a coding error!! Saying that, it says “as long as they’ve had their checks” ... where do you draw the line? Type 2 can develop whenever!!

Last hba1c August 2020 was 30 but if I’ve smashed the carbs since then i could in theory be in the diabetic range now.
 

Attachments

  • 6C9F2DB5-6AEC-4B5B-B27E-9BDA3898BF7E.png
    6C9F2DB5-6AEC-4B5B-B27E-9BDA3898BF7E.png
    402.4 KB · Views: 99