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 governingI 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
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?
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.
...now you understand.and scaring people
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 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.
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.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?
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.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!
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?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
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 can’t find this. Do you have a link please?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?
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 thoughI 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. 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!
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
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?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?