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 Some information may be out of date.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

Business

End the ‘absolute scandal’ of new homes built without solar panels, government urged

Published

on

By

End the 'absolute scandal' of new homes built without solar panels, government urged

The government is being urged to end the “absolute scandal” of new homes being built without solar panels.

Doing so would cut both household bills and greenhouse gases that cause climate change, the Local Government Association (LGA) said in a new report.

Just four in 10 new homes in England come with solar power, according to separate figures from the industry body Solar Energy UK.

Although that is a significant three-fold increase over the space of a year, the LGA said making it mandatory would benefit bill-payers and the climate for years to come, saving people £440 per year.

The UK lags behind its neighbours in the European Union, which last year adopted new legislation demanding all new residential buildings come with solar panels from 2030.

Greenpeace UK called it an “absolute scandal that homes are built without rooftop solar panels in this day and age”.

Its campaigner, Lily Rose Ellis, said: “Given the soaring cost of electricity, our desperate need to cut planet-heating emissions, and the relatively low cost of installation to housebuilders, solar panels on all new builds should be mandatory.”

More on Climate Change

Last year, Labour promised a “rooftop revolution” that would see millions more homes fitted with solar panels.

But they have been accused of wavering over proposals to make it mandatory, as it also courts the house-building industry to help it meet its target to build 1.5 million homes during this parliament.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

‘Tropical nights’ soar in European hotspots

The LGA wants the government to allocate them long-term funding in the upcoming spending review so they can help the country meet net zero.

A spokesperson for the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government said they plan to “maximise the installation of solar panels on new homes” in its long-delayed new regulations, the Future Homes Standard, due later this year.

The Home Builders Federation said “Moving forward, to meet the ever more challenging carbon reductions set by government, we will see solar on the overwhelming majority of new homes, albeit it is not appropriate in every situation.”

Pylon rows

The push on solar power is part of the government’s broader plans to ensure all the UK’s electricity comes from green sources by 2030.

Electricity demand is also growing as the country switches to electric cars and heating, and builds more data centres.

All this requires more wind and solar farms, as well as 1,000 kilometres of new cables to carry the electricity from where it is generated – often a wind farm in the North Sea – to where it is used in urban areas far away.

In parts of the country like East Anglia, a row has been simmering over whether to run those cables overhead on pylons or, to protect countryside views, underground.

A hefty new report by the Institution of Engineering and Technology today weighed in on the debate, finding underground cables are on average 4.5 times more expensive than overhead lines.

Liam Hardy, head of research at thinktank Green Alliance, said: “Those costs need to go somewhere. They go on to all of our electricity bills. And of course, it’s the poorest in society for whom those bills make up a bigger percentage of their income.

He added: “What they want to see is value for money as we build out that clean infrastructure that we need.”

The government has promised communities disrupted by the new infrastructure that they should reap some of the benefits, including giving households near new pylons £2,500 off their energy bills over 10 years.

Continue Reading

Business

UK-US trade talks ‘moving in a very positive way’, says White House spokesperson Karoline Leavitt

Published

on

By

UK-US trade talks 'moving in a very positive way', says White House spokesperson Karoline Leavitt

Trade talks between the UK and the United States are “moving in a very positive way”, according to the White House.

President Donald Trump’s press secretary Karoline Leavitt spoke about the likelihood of the long-discussed agreement during a press briefing.

In Westminster, there are hopes such a deal could soften the impact of the Trump tariffs announced last month.

Leavitt told reporters: “As for the trade talks, I understand they are moving in a very positive way with the UK.

“I don’t want to get ahead of the president or our trade team in how those negotiations are going, but I have heard they have been very positive and productive with the UK.”

She said Mr Trump always “speaks incredibly highly” of the UK.

“He has a good relationship with your prime minister, though they disagree on domestic policy issues,” she added.

More on Trade

“I have witnessed the camaraderie between them first hand in the Oval Office, and there is a deep mutual respect between our two countries that certainly the president upholds.”

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt speaks during a press briefing at the White House April 28, 2025. (Francis Chung/POLITICO via AP Images)
Image:
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said she was positive about a deal. Pic: AP

Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster Pat McFadden gave the UK’s position on the talks when speaking to Sunday Morning With Trevor Phillips.

He said there was “a serious level of engagement going on at high levels” to secure a UK-US trade deal.

Mr McFadden is one of the most powerful members of Sir Keir Starmer’s government and a key ally of the prime minister.

Read more:
Deal ‘possible’ but not certain
Chancellor lays out redlines for deal

He was careful to not get ahead of developments, however, saying: “I think an agreement is possible – I don’t think it’s certain, and I don’t want to say it’s certain, but I think it’s possible.”

He went on to say the government wanted an “agreement in the UK’s interests” and not a “hasty deal”, amid fears from critics that Number 10 could acquiesce a deal that lowers food standards, for example, or changes certain taxes in a bid to persuade Donald Trump to lower some of the tariffs that have been placed on British goods.

Mr McFadden’s tone was more cautious than Chancellor Rachel Reeves’ last week.

She had been in the US and, speaking to Sky News business and economics correspondent Gurpreet Narwan, the chancellor said she was “confident” a deal could be done.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

‘We’re confident’, says Reeves

But she sought to play down fears that UK standards could be watered down, both on food and online safety.

“On food standards, we’ve always been really clear that we’re not going to be watering down standards in the UK and similarly, we’ve just passed the Online Safety Act and the safety, particularly of our children, is non-negotiable for the British government,” Ms Reeves said.

Continue Reading

UK

Sex offenders to be denied refugee status under plans to improve women’s safety

Published

on

By

Sex offenders to be denied refugee status under plans to improve women's safety

Migrants convicted of sex offences in the UK or overseas will be unable to claim asylum under government plans to change the law to improve border security.

The Home Office announcement means foreign nationals who are added to the sex offenders register will forfeit their rights to protection under the Refugee Convention.

Politics latest: Tory-Reform coalition would be disaster, warns PM

As part of the 1951 UN treaty, countries are allowed to refuse asylum to terrorists, war criminals and individuals convicted of a “particularly serious crime” – which is currently defined in UK law as an offence carrying a sentence of 12 months or more.

The government now plans to extend that definition to include all individuals added to the Sex Offenders’ Register, regardless of the length of sentence, in an amendment to the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, which is currently going through parliament. It’s understood they also hope to include those convicted of equivalent crimes overseas.

Those affected will still be able to appeal their removal from the UK in the courts under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

More than 10,000 people have now been detected crossing the Channel. Pic: PA
Image:
More than 10,000 people have now been detected crossing the Channel. Pic: PA

It is unclear how many asylum seekers will be affected, as the government has been unable to provide any projections or past data on the number of asylum seekers added to the Sex Offenders’ Register.

More from Politics

Home Secretary Yvette Cooper said: “Sex offenders who pose a risk to the community should not be allowed to benefit from refugee protections in the UK.

“We are strengthening the law to ensure these appalling crimes are taken seriously.”

Safeguarding and Violence Against Women and Girls Minister Jess Philips said: “We are determined to achieve our mission of halving violence against women and girls in a decade.

“That’s exactly why we are taking action to ensure there are robust safeguards across the system, including by clamping down on foreign criminals who commit heinous crimes like sex offences.”

Read more:
PM ‘doesn’t want to see strike action’
Former Streeting aide avoids jail after exposing himself

The Home Office would like voters to see this as a substantial change. But that’s hard to demonstrate without providing any indication of the scale of the problem it seeks to solve.

Clearly, the government does not want to fan the flames of resentment towards asylum seekers by implying large numbers have been committing sex crimes.

But amid rising voter frustration about the government’s grip on the issue, and under pressure from Reform – this measure is about signalling it is prepared to take tough action.

Conservatives: ‘Too little, too late’

The Conservatives claim Labour are engaged in “pre-election posturing”.

Chris Philp MP, the shadow home secretary, said: “This is too little, too late from a Labour government that has scrapped our deterrent and overseen the worst year ever for small boat crossings – with a record 10,000 people crossing this year already.

“Foreign criminals pose a danger to British citizens and must be removed, but so often this is frustrated by spurious legal claims based on human rights claims, not asylum claims.”

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Has Labour tackled migration?

The Home Office has also announced plans to introduce a 24-week target for appeal hearings (known as “first-tier tribunals”) to be held for rejected asylum seekers living in taxpayer-supported accommodation, or for foreign national offenders.

The current average wait is 50 weeks. The idea is to cut the asylum backlog and save taxpayers money – Labour have committed to end the use of asylum hotels by the end of this parliament.

It’s unclear how exactly this will be achieved, although a number of additional court days have already been announced.

The government also plans to crack down on fake immigration lawyers who advise migrants on how to lodge fraudulent asylum claims, with the Immigration Advice Authority given new powers to issue fines of up to £15,000.

Continue Reading

Trending