• Guest - w'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the 2025 Survey »

Outrageous. What a disgrace

It may be that men don't go to their GPs 'cos it can be a negative experience.
Click to expand...
Or maybe it could be related to T2 in particular having rather ambiguous symptoms - "increased thirst"? What exactly does that mean? More than 4l per day? More than 10l per day? and it similarly isn't hard to see why people won't run to their GP and demand a test for diabetes when they get constipated
 
phoenix said:
No the figures aren't drawn out of thin air , they use a model based on available data.
The number of undiagnosed is estimated by applying the results of screening studies to the population as a whole. Using the data from these studies they apply them to models that take into account the variations between areas, (age, deprivation , ethnicity etc)
Here is one of the studies that was used to develop the current model:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19573116 . In this study, of the people identified with diabetes, 18.5% did not know and were therefore undiagnosed .

There is a lot of data about prevalence diagnosed and undiagnosed by area and detail about the current model here (very technical) http://www.yhpho.org.uk/default.aspx?RID=81090

In the UK there is actually a far lower incidence of undiagnosed diabetes than many places and the numbers who don't know are going down because of better screening.
The IDF estimates that worldwide around half of those with diabetes don't know they have it.

.
Click to expand...
The first link quotes 750,000 and the Mail suggests 600,000 which is quite a difference. No matter how the study is put together, it's a guesstimate. I know of nobody who has been asked to take part in any of these tests.
 
mo1905 said:
The first link quotes 750,000 and the Mail suggests 600,000 which is quite a difference. No matter how the study is put together, it's a guesstimate. I know of nobody who has been asked to take part in any of these tests.
Click to expand...

The model is more than a guestimate though of course any model will have errors. if you look at the other link I gave then you will see where the researchers think they are likely to be and the predicted variation.

If you reread the abstract you will see that this particular study was comparing it's results with the previous figure of 750, 000. This was in fact higher than found in this study
"In 2004 the prevalence of undiagnosed diabetes, and the proportion of cases of diabetes that were undiagnosed, appear smaller than in previous studies. This is likely to be due to increased awareness of diabetes and improved clinical care resulting in many of those with previously undetected disease having been diagnosed"
I linked to that study just to give an example but there are others that were used in developing the model.

As for not knowing anyone who has taken part in this sort of study;
Let me ask you whether you know anyone who has taken part in the Labour Force survey ? It's.one of the biggest surveys that takes place in the UK , far bigger than the type of studies used for diabetes prevalence. I certainly don't know of any friends or acquaintances that have mentioned it but I know it happens because I spent part of my life working for it. (even interviewed a few famous people but the official secrets act means I can't tell you who ;) )
 
phoenix said:
The model is more than a guestimate though of course any model will have errors. if you look at the other link I gave then you will see where the researchers think they are likely to be and the predicted variation.

If you reread the abstract you will see that this particular study was comparing it's results with the previous figure of 750, 000. This was in fact higher than found in this study
"In 2004 the prevalence of undiagnosed diabetes, and the proportion of cases of diabetes that were undiagnosed, appear smaller than in previous studies. This is likely to be due to increased awareness of diabetes and improved clinical care resulting in many of those with previously undetected disease having been diagnosed"
I linked to that study just to give an example but there are others that were used in developing the model.

As for not knowing anyone who has taken part in this sort of study;
Let me ask you whether you know anyone who has taken part in the Labour Force survey ? It's.one of the biggest surveys that takes place in the UK , far bigger than the type of studies used for diabetes prevalence. I certainly don't know of any friends or acquaintances that have mentioned it but I know it happens because I spent part of my life working for it. (even interviewed a few famous people but the official secrets act means I can't tell you who ;) )
Click to expand...
)
lol ! I should have known better than to awaken The Phoenix :-) You win ( although I still sort of think it's a guess ;-)
 
Well she's retiring to bed now, as she's just realised it's past midnight here. (I can't find a sleepy smiley! )
 
No labour force study for me to answer!!

Has anybody on here ever been MORI polled for anything? Or ever done any survey that hits the headlines..

I have had one study in 50 years that was something to do with the cost of living.. Meant to have been followed up in following years and never was...

Just would be intersting to hear anybody ever questioned..


Sent from the Diabetes Forum App
 
Brunneria said:
Yes, and think how much more annoying it is for those of us who ARE overweight and lazy, because of years of undiagnosed impaired glucose responses, causing the grinding low energy levels.
Click to expand...
Luckily those of us who are overweight and lazy due to our simple moral defectiveness can hide ourselves amongst you more virtuous types. ;-)
 
TuTusweet said:
Bit late I admit I have just read an article that has all the hallmarks of a press release from the fear and panic generation division of the Diabetes industry about 3.8 million people in UK with diabetes. This figure --probably just plucked out of thin air --is said to include 600,000 people who ARE UNAWARE THAT THEY HAVE DIABETES !!! So "they" the "powers that be" or doctors or some other "workers" in the industry have found 600,000 people with diabetes AND KEPT IT TO THEMSELVES --- HAVE NOT HAD THE HUMAN DECENCY TO LET THEM KNOW. DESPICABLE. What is the world coming to. Or maybe the 600.000 figure has been plucked out of thin air to sex up this report in the Mail. I wonder what idiocy the June press release will contain. Tiresome.
Click to expand...

AND the MAIL will have another report soon saying that it is all our own fault that we have diabetes because we are all lazy and greedy!

Would not even use this rag on a nail in the smallest room!
 
donnellysdogs said:
No labour force study for me to answer!!

Has anybody on here ever been MORI polled for anything? Or ever done any survey that hits the headlines..

I have had one study in 50 years that was something to do with the cost of living.. Meant to have been followed up in following years and never was...

Just would be intersting to hear anybody ever questioned..


Sent from the Diabetes Forum App
Click to expand...

I'm a participant in the Million Womens Study.

http://www.millionwomenstudy.org/dss_protocols/
I usually get a questionnaire about every 9 months and update anything that is happening or has changed in my health, employment status, health problems within the immediate family etc... since the previous one. Have been doing it for a few years now.
 
mo1905 said:
The first link quotes 750,000 and the Mail suggests 600,000 which is quite a difference. No matter how the study is put together, it's a guesstimate.
Click to expand...
For estimates of a "known unknown" those numbers are reasonably consistent. An educated estimate rather than a guesstimate, I think would be fair.
 
isn't being fat and lazy as much a genuine condition than being thin and active? how many fat lazy people would rather be thin? all/99% of them i suppose, so its kinda cringey when folks try and disassociate themselves from the "fat and lazy" types, it seems to me they are in fact buying into the same thing, "i was thin when diagnosed I'm not one of those people that brought it on themselves and i don't like being labelled as such" i can however understand them not wanting to be classed as a self inflicted diabetic, alls I'm saying is, the fat and or lazy folks go through hell with their weight, self esteem etc etc their whole lives, this is as much a disease/illness mental/physical as any other, for the same reason some people can eat anything and never gain a pound, some people eat like a sparrow and get fat, if its a metabolism thing then its medical surely? being lazy too, having low energy is a physical or mental disability and its a vicious circle, the less energy = the less movement = the less energy, so in recap lol please don't be so harsh on the fat and lazy type, as i reckon saying you don't like be labelled as such is a way of saying your better of them and more deserving of help because its not your fault, which is suggesting it is theirs.

make sense?... lol it does to me
 
I see your point(s)... I don't blame fat lazy people... Just the food available nowadays. They don't even have cookery lessons in schools, many of them had their kitchens taken out... Although many now have gardening clubs... They then can't educate children about foods and more importantly nutrition.

I would love to go to a school and educate these kids that are growing up with ****. I dread the outlook for them becoming fat n lazy...


Sent from the Diabetes Forum App
 
donnellysdogs said:
I see your point(s)... I don't blame fat lazy people... Just the food available nowadays. They don't even have cookery lessons in schools, many of them had their kitchens taken out... Although many now have gardening clubs... They then can't educate children about foods and more importantly nutrition.

I would love to go to a school and educate these kids that are growing up with ****. I dread the outlook for them becoming fat n lazy...


Sent from the Diabetes Forum App
Click to expand...

My daughter is 13 and she has cookery lessons in school. She has a good varied diet, with fruit, veg, meat, fish and she has just asked if she can make a fruit salad, that's my girl :-D. She does have cake, biscuits or some sweets, especially at the weekend, as these things are more treat foods, not an every day occurrence. But I wouldn't stop giving her these foods, because she may end up eating them secretly :-( and that's not good. Lastly, she hasn't had any work done to her teeth, not one filling or any teeth out at all :-)It's hopefully getting the balance right.
 
Robinredbreast said:
My daughter is 13 and she has cookery lessons in school. She has a good varied diet, with fruit, veg, meat, fish and she has just asked if she can make a fruit salad, that's my girl :-D. She does have cake, biscuits or some sweets, especially at the weekend, as these things are more treat foods, not an every day occurrence. But I wouldn't stop giving her these foods, because she may end up eating them secretly :-( and that's not good. Lastly, she hasn't had any work done to her teeth, not one filling or any teeth out at all :-)It's hopefully getting the balance right.
Click to expand...
Thats so good to hear!! Our cooking facilities in out school taken out in 1990's... They now having to find a way to re introduce them.
My friends kids have takeaways 6/7days.... I dread their future... Their example limpacts on way I think kids are educated. I love them to bits, got the hubby to go circuit training and gym by buying him membership, give his kids gardening lessons every weekend.. But still they serve tlrubbish...


Sent from the Diabetes Forum App
 
Nothing new really... Back in the days when I was "the only diabetic in the village."

image.jpg
 
Back
Top