Whilst it's obviously good to have an HBA1C closer to target (6.5% not generally 7%), and it does reduce risk, it doesn't eliminate it. If the OP says they are happy with their control, then probably better to listen to what they are saying. Actually in the studies, it was a J-curve. Lowest HBA1C and low body weight were linked to higher mortality. So between 6% and 7.5% probably the best place to be.
Sure. I should have been clear that I wasn't demanding an answer to those questions. It's more that I would encourage every diabetic to ask themselves those questions when evaluating their risk.
I'd be very careful in making a statement as you have that "between 6% and 7.5% probably the best place to be" for covid. It is not a simple relationship. It is certainly not the best place to be for diabetics in general.
A1c by itself does not give enough nuanced data about overall blood sugar management. That is why I also asked about time in range and standard deviation - a1c is only really useful in conjunction with these. It is possible to have an a1c that looks great on paper but to have really wide swings, or a lot of hypos. In that case the a1c is dangerously misleading.
People with diabetes deserve as close to NORMAL blood sugars as possible*, to give them the best shot at better health long term. The lack of access to both the tools and education on how to achieve this ('normal' sugars, without many lows) really angers me. But I digress.
Covid can do significant damage to the vascular system, as can diabetes. The better shape you are in to begin with, the better your chances.
Agree of course that risk can only be reduced, not eliminated!
*as close to possible to normal sugars - not 'perfect' sugars, because that's not realistic - but a hell of a lot better than what is happening at the minute. The UK's stats on adolescent diabetics management are fucking depressing.