About two thirds of the way down of the next article lists hospitalizations and deaths by age
Type 1 and 2 Covid mortality risk, UK release, it looks like it might be appro. doubles your risk versus normal death rate.
I’ve quoted the some of the findings of the UK studies you posted below. These studies have not undergone peer-review yet - similar to many COVID-19 studies. I think their findings are disheartening.
From the second link (population study):
“Adjusted for age, sex, deprivation, ethnicity and geographical region, people with Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes had 3.50 (3∙15-3∙89) and 2.03 (1∙97-2∙09) times the odds respectively of dying in hospital with COVID-19 compared to those without diabetes, attenuated to 2.86 and 1.81 respectively when also adjusted for previous hospital admissions with coronary heart disease, cerebrovascular disease or heart failure.”
From the first link (cohort study):
“The adjusted hazard ratio (HR) of HbA1c >86 mmol/mol compared to HbA1c 48-53 mmol/mol was 2.19 (95% CI 1·46-3·29) for Type 1 and 1.62 (95% CI 1·48-1·79) for Type 2 diabetes. The relationship between BMI and COVID-19 mortality was Ushaped; HRs for BMI >40 kg/m2 compared to 25-29.9 kg/m2 were 2.15 (95% 1·37-3·36) and 1.46 (95% CI 1·50-1·79) for Type 1 and Type 2 respectively.”
Here is a link to convert the A1c values to the % we generally see.
It appears that people with Type 1 diabetes are at higher risk of death than people with type 2 diabetes, and that people with an A1c above 10% or a very high BMI are at the highest risk.
Thank you for posting Marie20, I’ve been wanting to see data on the risk levels of Type 1 vs Type 2.
Edit: However, it’s worth noting that the number of deaths in ages <50 (<40 and 40-50 groups) for people with Type 1 diabetes were so few that they were not reported in the table the authors provided. The Type 2 diabetes cohort had overall fewer people (n) in the <40 age group, but still reported enough deaths that the counts could be listed in the table (23 deaths of 67,800).
I’m not sure how those values factored into the age adjustments. Of course, I’m not a researcher, but given this discrepancy, it seems like it’d be more helpful to report hazard ratio by age. The population study appears to have addressed this more and posted this chart:
with the same caveat of not enough data on deaths of people with type 1 diabetes for ages <50.
Just so we are all on the same page, CDC is recommending that diabetics not return to work at this time. New legislation has been passed to help accommodate. American Diabetes Association is working like crazy to help everyone. They are totally inundated with calls, but they are answering phones. Two of us have called and gotten through.
Links are here: COVID-19 and the Americans with Disability Act
Professor Sunetra Gupta: the epidemic is on its way out (May 21, 2020)
We spoke to Sunetra Gupta, Professor of Theoretical Epidemiology at the University of Oxford and head of the team that released a study in March which speculated that as much as 50% of the population may already have been infected and the true Infection Fatality Rate could be as low as 0.1%.
In her first major interview since the Oxford study was published, she goes further by arguing that Covid-19 has already passed through the population and is now on its way out. She said:
• Many of the antibody tests are “extremely unreliable”
• They do not indicate the true level of exposure or level of immunity
• “Different countries have had different lockdown policies, and yet what we’ve observed is almost a uniform pattern of behaviour”
• “Infection Fatality Rate is less than 1 in 1000 and probably closer to 1 in 10,000.”
• That would be somewhere between 0.1% and 0.01%
On lockdown policy:
• Referring to the Imperial model: “Should we act on a possible worst case scenario, given the costs of lockdown? It seems to me that given that the costs of lockdown are mounting that case is becoming more and more fragile”
• Recommends “a more rapid exit from lockdown based more on certain heuristics, like who is dying and what is happening to the death rates”
On the UK Government response:
• “We might have done better by doing nothing at all, or at least by doing something different, which would have been to pay attention to protecting the vulnerable”
On the R rate:
• It is “principally dependent on how many people are immune” and we don’t have that information.
• Deaths are the only reliable measure.
On New York:
• “When you have pockets of vulnerable people it might rip through those pockets in a way that it wouldn’t if the vulnerable people were more scattered within the general population.”
On social distancing:
• “Remaining in a state of lockdown is extremely dangerous”
• “We used to live in a state approximating lockdown 100 years ago, and that was what created the conditions for the Spanish Flu to come in and kill 50m people.”
On next steps:
• “It is very dangerous to talk about lockdown without recognising the enormous costs that it has on other vulnerable sectors in the population”
• It is a “strong possibility” that if we return to full normal tomorrow — pubs, nightclubs, festivals — we would be fine.
On the politics of Covid:
• “There is a sort of libertarian argument for the release of lockdown, and I think it is unfortunate that those of us who feel we should think differently about lockdown"
• “The truth is that lockdown is a luxury, and it’s a luxury that the middle classes are enjoying and higher income countries are enjoying at the expense of the poor, the vulnerable and less developed countries.”
via UnHerd and LockdownTV: Niall Ferguson: Covid-19 is China’s Chernobyl moment
We spoke to Prof Neil Ferguson before his fall from grace, so it felt only fair to hear from the other Niall Ferguson — famous historian, writer, academic — who was one of the first to call the seriousness of the Covid-19 pandemic in the British press.
He joined us from his mountain cabin in Montana, and shared his thoughts on lockdown, the Asian century, Donald Trump’s re-election prospects and the dangers ahead for Boris Johnson. Hope you enjoy. (recorded May 20, 2020)
I dunno. He feels a little ‘economically’ hysterical. The 25% unemployment figure doesn’t rattle me much. As a younger American, watching older Americans retire in droves, part of me thinks this is what the economy has needed since the millennium. There’s gonna be reshuffling, there’s no doubt about that. But, reshuffling might make a lot of sense, even down to a biological level. The elderly were supposed to retire a long time ago. Its the law of nature exerting its will against economic will. This is the changing of the guard, for sure this time, I think.
hehehe, spit it out, @Marie20 , LOL. I wanna hear your thoughts about what the speaker said. Its all very interesting to me…You have big thoughts coming - I can tell. I’m gonna make a sandwich and read when I get back.
A very interesting listen! I enjoyed this.
ahhhh. sad day.
@mohe0001 Wait until you are one of the older generation.
Congratulations on being such a nice, diplomatic person, Marie.
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
I can’t wait, Marie20. The ‘olders’ keep assuming that I’m 20.
It sends me into such a rage at this point, I fume about it for days.
I believe you are in your 40’s? Might be late 30’s…
You really are bored, aren’t you.
Rain again. Tornado threats. Things really deteriorate with rain.
I am almost 40 - same as Jen.
I stayed up all night last night - All night, watching Americas Next Top Model episodes. This is a new low in productivity. I almost starting looking for an internet boyfriend.
@Jen might go back to work. You think she will be safe? She’s in Canada. Seems safer there.
via Ivor Cummins …
Anyone remotely interested in why influenza and coronavirus are seasonal in nature, should read this paper at the very least - entry level - it’s the tip of the iceberg.
No-one is talking about the most important vectors:
Have our Lockdowns been Effective?
Ivor Cummins unpacks the evidence in just 20 minutes to assess the Coronavirus mortality risk reality of Lockdown vs No Lockdown
Well, who knows. However, I question some of his data (and I am someone who likes Ivor’s videos), such as 41 grocery store workers killed by Covid. Not accurate. Then he says don’t lock down the healthy. Sigh. Naturally that makes sense, but without mass testing, and repeated mass testing, how do you not? Again, I don’t know the answer, I believe in challenging my own positions regularly, but I feel that anything can be twisted. Also, I expect to see more deaths as the country opens up, don’t you? I mean, more deaths caused by crowds. The only faint outside hope I have, is I have heard someone say, and maybe it was wishful thinking, that this virus is weakening.
I have almost no hope in a vaccine.
What is the difference whether 41 is an exact accurate number or not, depending on the date the number was released or the data from the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union (UFCW), or 1 of the several Washington Post articles, USA Today, Boston Globe, etc. The point Ivor was making was that these workers were dealing with the general public every day as essential workers and their rate of deaths from covid 19 was well under the national average. Every article I look at, appears to show the rate of death from these essential workers to be under 2% while the national average approached 6%. In this case, his argument that lockdown had no effect appears somewhat valid.
When the lockdown occurred, buses went from, oftentimes, 3/4 to totally full, to at the most 1/4 full. Are you saying that did not make a difference to the bus driver? Over 500 HCW worldwide have died, and over 100 grocery workers in the US have died. Essential workers always had a great risk, but they had a greater risk without the lockdown than with.
I am not someone who will be able to win any statistic argument, but still, whatever - I’m gonna question this national average comparison. Especially when his inputs are not believable. Yes, off by 60 is not a lot in the grand scheme, but get accurate data, man.