Connect with us

Published

on

COVID-19 affects people differently, in terms of infection with the virus SARS-CoV-2 and mortality rates. In this Special Feature, we focus on some of the sex differences that characterize this pandemic. Share on Pinterest The data that are available so far indicate that there are significant differences between how the sexes respond to the new coronavirus.

All data and statistics are based on publicly available data at the time of publication. Some information may be out of date. Visit our coronavirus hub for the most recent information on the COVID-19 pandemic.Was this helpful?

There are many ways in which the pandemic itself affects peoples day-to-day lives, and gender understood as the ensemble of social expectations, norms, and roles we associate with being a man, woman, trans- or nonbinary person plays a massive part.

On a societal level, COVID-19 has affected cis- and transwomen, for example, differently to how it has cismen, transmen, and nonbinary people. Reproductive rights, decision making around the pandemic, and domestic violence are just some key areas where the pandemic has negatively impacted women.

However, sex differences understood as the biological characteristics we associate with the sex that one is assigned at birth also play an undeniable role in an epidemic or pandemic.

While sex and gender are, arguably, inextricably linked in healthcare, as in every other area of our lives, in this Special Feature, we will focus primarily on the infection rates of SARS-CoV-2 and the mortality rates that COVID-19 causes, broken down by sex.

In specialized literature, these effects fall under the umbrella term of primary effects of the pandemic, while the secondary impact of the pandemic has deeper social and political implications.

Throughout this feature, we use the binary terms man and woman to accurately reflect the studies and the data they use. Sex-disaggregated data lacking

Before delving deeper into the subject of sex differences in COVID-19, it is worth noting that the picture is bound to be incomplete, as not all countries have released their sex-disaggregated data.

A report appearing on the blog of the journal BMJ Global Health on March 24, 2020, reviewed data from 20 countries that had the highest number of confirmed cases of COVID-19 at the time.

Of these 20 countries, Belgium, Malaysia, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, United Kingdom, and the United States of America did not provide data that was disaggregated, or broken down, by sex.

At the time, the authors of the BMJ report appealed to these countries and others to provide sex specific data.

Anna Purdie, from the University College London, United Kingdom, and her colleagues, noted: We applaud the decision by the Italian government to publish data that are fully sex- and age-disaggregated. Other countries [] are still not publishing national data in this way. We understand but regret this oversight.
At a minimum, we urgently call on countries to publicly report the numbers of diagnosed infections and deaths by sex. Ideally, countries would also disaggregate their data on testing by sex.

Anna Purdie et al.

Since then, countries that include Belgium, the Netherlands, Portugal, and Spain have made their data available.

The U.K. have made only a part of the sex-disaggregated data available for England and Wales, without covering Scotland and Northern Ireland while Malaysia and the U.S. have not made their sex-disaggregated data available at all.

At the time of writing this article, the U.S. still have not released their sex-disaggregated data despite the country having the highest number of COVID-19 cases in the world.

For more research-backed information and resources for mens health, please visit our dedicated hub.Was this helpful? Men more than twice as likely to die

Global Health 5050, an organization that promotes gender equality in healthcare, has rounded up the total and partial data that is available from the countries with the highest numbers of confirmed COVID-19 cases.

According to their data gathering, the highest ratio of male to female deaths, as a result of COVID-19, is in Denmark and Greece: 2.1 to 1.

In these countries, men are more than twice as likely to die from COVID-19 as women. In Denmark, 5.7% of the total number of cases confirmed among men have resulted in death, whereas 2.7% of women with confirmed COVID-19 have died.

In the Republic of Ireland, the male to female mortality ratio is 2 to 1, while Italy and Switzerland have a 1.9 to 1 ratio each.

The greatest parity between the genders from countries that have submitted a full set of data are Iran, with 1.1 to 1, and Norway, with 1.2 to 1.

In Iran, 5.4% of the women patients have died, compared with 5.9% of the men. In Norway, these numbers stand at 1.3% and 1.1%, respectively.

China has a ratio of 1.7, with 2.8% of women having died, compared with 4.7% of men.
Infection rates in womenand men

A side-by-side comparison of infection rates between the sexes does not explain the higher death rates in men, nor is there enough data available to draw a conclusion about infection rates broken down by sexes.

However, it is worth noting that in Denmark, where men are more than twice as likely to die of COVID-19 as women, the proportion of women who contracted the virus was 54%, while that of men was 46%.

By contrast, in Iran, where the ratio of deaths between men and women is less different (1.1 to 1), just 43% of cases are female compared with 57% cases in men.

Until we know the proportion of people from each sex that healthcare professionals are testing, it will be difficult to fully interpret these figures.

What we do know so far is that, overall, nine of the 18 countries that have provided complete sex-disaggregated data have more COVID-19 cases among women than they do among men. Six of the 18 countries have more cases among men than they do among women.

Norway, Sweden, and Germany have a 5050% case ratio.

Other countries where more women have developed COVID-19 include:
Switzerland (53% of women to 47% of men)Spain (51% to 49%)The Netherlands (53% to 47%)Belgium (55% to 45%)South Korea (60% to 40%)Portugal (57% to 43%)Canada (52% to 48%)Republic of Ireland (52% to 45%)

Greece, Italy, Peru, China, and Australia all have a higher number of confirmed cases among men than women.Why are men more likely to die?

Part of the explanation for why the new coronavirus seems to cause more severe illness in men is down to biological sex differences.

Womens innate immune response plays a role. Experts agree that there are sex differences, such as sex chromosomes and sex hormones, that influence how a persons immunity responds to a pathogen.

As a result, women are in general able to mount a more vigorous immune response to infections [and] vaccinations. With previous coronaviruses, specifically, some studies in mice have suggested that the hormone estrogen may have a protective role.

For instance, in the study above, the authors note that in male mice there was an exuberant but ineffective cytokine response. Cytokines are responsible for tissue damage within the lungs and leakage from pulmonary blood vessels.

Estrogens suppress the escalation phase of the immune response that leads to increased cytokine release. The authors showed that female mice treated with an estrogen receptor antagonist died at close to the same rate as the male mice.

As some researchers have noted, lifestyle factors, such as smoking and alcohol consumption, which tend to occur more among men, may also explain the overall higher mortality rates among men.

Science has long linked such behaviors with conditions that we now know are likely to negatively influence the outcome of patients with COVID-19 cardiovascular disease, hypertension, and chronic lung conditions. Why women might be more at risk

On the other hand, the fact that societies have traditionally placed women in the role of caregivers a role which they continue to fulfill predominantly and the fact that the vast majority of healthcare workers are women cold place them at a higher risk of contracting the virus and might explain the higher infection rates in some countries.

An analysis of 104 countries by the World Health Organization (WHO) found that Women represent around 70% of the health workforce. In China, women make up more than 90% of healthcare workers in Hubei province.

These data emphasize the gendered nature of the health workforce and the risk that predominantly female health workers incur, write the authors of a report on the gendered impacts of the pandemic that appears in The Lancet.

Although we cannot yet draw definitive conclusions because sex-disaggregated data is not yet available from all the countries affected, The Lancet report looks at previous epidemics for clues.

During the 201416 west African outbreak of Ebola virus disease, the authors write, gendered norms meant that women were more likely to be infected by the virus, given their predominant roles as caregivers within families and as frontline healthcare workers.

The authors also call out for governments and health institutions to offer and analyze data on sex and gender differences in the pandemic.
Why sex-disaggregated data are urgent

The report in The Lancet reads, Recognising the extent to which disease outbreaks affect women and men differently is a fundamental step to understanding the primary and secondary effects of a health emergency on different individuals and communities, and for creating effective, equitable policies and interventions.

For instance, identifying the key difference that makes women more resilient to the infection could help create drugs that also strengthen mens immune response to the virus.

Devising policies and intervention strategies that consider the needs of women who work as frontline healthcare workers could help prevent the higher infection rates that we see among women.

Finally, men and women tend to react differently to potential vaccines and treatments, so having access to sex-disaggregated data is crucial for conducting safe clinical trials.

As Anna Purdie who also works for Global Health 5050 and her colleagues summarize in their article, Sex-disaggregated data are essential for understanding the distributions of risk, infection, and disease in the population, and the extent to which sex and gender affect clinical outcomes.
Understanding sex and gender in relation to global health should not be seen as an optional add-on but as a core component of ensuring effective and equitable national and global health systems that work for everyone. National governments and global health organizations must urgently face up to this reality.

Anna Purdie et al

For live updates on the latest developments regarding the novel coronavirus and COVID-19, click here.

Continue Reading

Politics

How a chaotic 24 hours unfolded ahead of Trump and Zelenskyy’s crunch White House talks

Published

on

By

How a chaotic 24 hours unfolded ahead of Trump and Zelenskyy's crunch White House talks

If there’s one thing the past 24 hours has confirmed, it’s that it’s still Donald Trump’s world, and we’re all just living in it.

In the aftermath of the Alaska meeting, the US president’s deal-making skills came under question when he seemingly walked away empty-handed.

But it was clear he had retained his ability to catch everyone off guard, as a meeting between him and President Volodymyr Zelenskyy unexpectedly became a last-minute White House peace summit.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Ukraine faces biggest challenge yet ahead of White House talks

The invitation to European leaders drifted out, and within hours, the cast list had grown to include six more, as world leaders dropped everything to fit in with Mr Trump’s unpredictable timetable.

There were signs of disorganisation behind the scenes.

When the British Prime Minister’s spokesman was asked who the invite had come from – the White House or the Ukrainian president – they replied: “A bit of both.”

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

What happened when Zelenskyy last went to White House

Read more:
The land Ukraine could be told to give up
Key takeaways from Alaska summit

Meanwhile, the meeting of the coalition of the willing – a Starmer and Macron-led group of Ukraine’s European allies – had a nervous feel to it as members resolved to stand firm with Ukraine – even if it puts them at odds with the US.

At times, it sounded like they were trying to convince themselves they could do it.

And as all of this frantic diplomatic reaction played out, the man in the middle of it all headed to the golf course – calm at the centre of the diplomatic storm he created as his allies swirl around him.

Continue Reading

Politics

Sir Keir Starmer and his allies have no choice but to keep their Trump criticisms implicit

Published

on

By

Sir Keir Starmer and his allies have no choice but to keep their Trump criticisms implicit

Sir Keir Starmer is straining his diplomatic sinews to simultaneously praise Donald Trump’s efforts to end the war in Ukraine, while repeating calls for a completely different approach – one which ends the cosy bonhomie with Vladimir Putin, threatens the Russians with sanctions, and puts the Ukrainians back centre stage.

If that’s a message which feels like quite a stretch in writing, in person, during this morning’s call of international leaders, it must have been even more awkward.

Major shift as Trump backs peace deal over ceasefire; follow latest

Donald Trump‘s public dismissal of the Europeans’ previous calls for a ceasefire – after his tete-a-tete with Putin – has only highlighted divisions.

Of course, the prime minister and his European allies have no choice but to keep their criticism of the Alaskan summit implicit, not explicit.

Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin after their private meeting in Alaska. Pic: Reuters/ Kevin Lamarque
Image:
Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin after their private meeting in Alaska. Pic: Reuters/ Kevin Lamarque

Even as they attempt to ramp up their own military preparedness to help reinforce any future peace deal, they need President Trump to lead the way in trying to force President Putin to the negotiating table – and to back up any agreement with the threat of American firepower.

For Downing Street, President Trump’s new willingness to contribute to any future security guarantee is a significant step, which Starmer claims “will be crucial in deterring Putin from coming back for more”.

It’s a commitment the prime minister has been campaigning for for months, a caveat to all the grand plans drawn up by the so-called Coalition of the Willing.

While the details are still clearly very much to be confirmed, whatever comments made by Donald Trump about his openness to help police any peace in Ukraine have been loudly welcomed by all those present, a glimmer of progress from the diplomatic mess in Anchorage.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Trump-Putin meeting: Key takeaways

Read more
Analysis: Trump is the real loser
Analysis: Indicted war criminal treated like a king
Key takeaways from the Alaska summit

Of course, the promise of security guarantees only means anything if a peace deal is actually reached.

At the moment, as the European leaders’ bluntly put it in repeating Donald Trump’s words back to him: “There’s no deal until there’s a deal.”

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Wallace: Putin ‘laughing all the way home’

Fears of Zelenskyy being painted as warmonger

There is clearly real concern in European capitals following the US president’s comments that the onus is now on Volodymyr Zelenskyy to ‘do a deal’, that the Ukrainians will come under growing pressure to make concessions to the Russians.

As former defence secretary Ben Wallace said: “Given that Donald Trump has failed to deliver a deal, his track record would show that Donald Trump then usually tries to seek to blame someone else. I’m worried that next week it could be President Zelenskyy who he will seek to blame.

“He’ll paint him as the warmonger, when in fact everybody knows it’s President Putin.”

The European leaders’ robust statements describing the “killing in Ukraine” and Russia’s “barbaric assault” are an attempt to try to counter that narrative, resetting the international response to Putin following the warmth of his welcome by President Trump – friendlier by far than that afforded to many of them, and infinitely more than the barracking President Zelenskyy received.

They’ll all be hoping to avoid a repeat of that on Monday.

Continue Reading

Politics

Thousands more Afghans affected by second data breach, ministers say

Published

on

By

Thousands more Afghans affected by second data breach, ministers say

Thousands more Afghan nationals may have been affected by another data breach, the government has said.

Up to 3,700 Afghans brought to the UK between January and March 2024 have potentially been impacted as names, passport details and information from the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy has been compromised again, this time by a breach on a third party supplier used by the Ministry of Defence (MoD).

This was not an attack directly on the government but a cyber security incident on a sub-contractor named Inflite – The Jet Centre – an MoD supplier that provides ground handling services for flights at London Stansted Airport.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

July: UK spies exposed in Afghan data breach

The flights were used to bring Afghans to the UK, travel to routine military exercises, and official engagements. It was also used to fly British troops and government officials.

Those involved were informed of it on Friday afternoon by the MoD, marking the second time information about Afghan nationals relocated to the UK has been compromised.

It is understood former Tory ministers are also affected by the hack.

Earlier this year, it emerged that almost 7,000 Afghan nationals would have to be relocated to the UK following a massive data breach by the British military that successive governments tried to keep secret with a super-injunction.

Defence Secretary John Healey offered a “sincere apology” for the first data breach in a statement to the House of Commons, saying he was “deeply concerned about the lack of transparency” around the data breach, adding: “No government wishes to withhold information from the British public, from parliamentarians or the press in this manner.”

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

July: Afghan interpreter ‘betrayed’ by UK govt

The previous Conservative government set up a secret scheme in 2023 to relocate Afghan nationals impacted by the data breach, but who were not eligible for an existing programme to relocate and help people who had worked for the British government in Afghanistan.

The mistake exposed personal details of close to 20,000 individuals, endangering them and their families, with as many as 100,000 people impacted in total.

Read more from Sky News:
Data breach victims sent spam emails
Afghan data leak timeline
MoD urged to reveal details of nuclear incident

A government spokesperson said of Friday’s latest breach: “We were recently notified that a third-party sub-contractor to a supplier experienced a cyber security incident involving unauthorised access to a small number of its emails that contained basic personal information.

“We take data security extremely seriously and are going above and beyond our legal duties in informing all potentially affected individuals. The incident has not posed any threat to individuals’ safety, nor compromised any government systems.”

In a statement, Inflite – The Jet Centre confirmed the “data security incident” involving “unauthorised access to a limited number of company emails”.

“We have reported the incident to the Information Commissioner’s Office and have been actively working with the relevant UK cyber authorities, including the National Crime Agency and the National Cyber Security Centre, to support our investigation and response,” it said.

“We believe the scope of the incident was limited to email accounts only, however, as a precautionary measure, we have contacted our key stakeholders whose data may have been affected during the period of January to March 2024.”

Continue Reading

Trending