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 Some information may be out of date.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

US

Canadians ‘weren’t impressed’ by second UK state visit for Trump, Mark Carney says

Published

on

By

Canadians 'weren't impressed' by second UK state visit for Trump, Mark Carney says

Canadians “weren’t impressed” by the decision of the UK government to offer Donald Trump an unprecedented second state visit to the UK, the country’s prime minister has told Sky News.

Sir Keir Starmer handed the invitation to the US president during a visit to the Oval Office.

The newly elected Liberal leader Mark Carney said that the invitation “cut across clear messages” that the Canadian government was trying to send to the White House in response to their threats against Canada’s sovereignty.

“I think, to be frank, they [Canadians] weren’t impressed by that gesture… given the circumstance. It was at a time when we were being quite clear about the issues around sovereignty.”

Explained: Who is Mark Carney?

Mark Carney with Sam Washington
Image:
Mark Carney speaking to Sky News’ Sam Washington

It comes as the Canadian prime minister has invited the King, who is Canada’s head of state, to open its parliament later this month in a “clear message of sovereignty”.

It is the first time the sovereign has carried out this function in nearly 50 years and Mr Carney says it’s “not coincidental”.

More on Canada

“All issues around Canada’s sovereignty have been accentuated by the president. So no, it’s not coincidental, but it is also a reaffirming moment for Canadians.”

The former Bank of England governor was re-elected after a campaign fought on the promise of standing up to American threats to Canadian statehood. He had refused to speak to Mr Trump until Canadian sovereignty was respected.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Trump and Carney’s ‘awkward meeting’ analysed

It followed Mr Trump threatening to make Canada the 51st state of the US.

Mr Carney justified making his first foreign trip as prime minister to the White House by stating Mr Trump had changed his intentions to annex Canada from an “expectation to a desire”.

“He was expressing a desire. He’d shifted from the expectation to a desire. He was also coming from a place where he recognised that that wasn’t going to happen.

“Does he still muse about it? Perhaps. Is it ever going to happen? No. Never.”

The high-stakes meeting in the Oval Office was not confrontational, with Mr Carney praising the president’s approach as “very on top of the essence of a wide range of issues” and “able to identify the points of maximum leverage, both in a specific situation but also in a geopolitical situation”.

A King’s tension between allies


Photo of Samantha Washington

Samantha Washington

Fractured geopolitical relations have produced an interesting phenomenon: two Commonwealth nations both deploying their head of state, King Charles, to manage the vagaries of Donald Trump.

For Canada, and its new prime minister, Mark Carney, the King is being unveiled at the opening of Parliament in Ottawa later this month as an unequivocal spectacle and symbol of sovereignty.

For the UK, Sir Keir Starmer is positioning the monarch as a bridge and has proffered a personal invitation from King Charles to the president for an unprecedented second state visit in order to facilitate negotiations over trade and tariffs.

This instrumentalisation of the crown, which ordinarily transcends politics, has created tension between the historically close allies.

Canadians view the UK’s red carpet treatment of a leader who is openly threatening their sovereignty as a violation of Commonwealth solidarity, while the British seem to have no compunction in engaging in high-level realpolitik.

The episode is emblematic of how pervasive disruptive American influence is and how extreme measures taken to combat it can aggravate even the most enduring alliances.

Since the meeting, tensions between the two countries have abated.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

‘President Trump is trying to break us’

Further negotiations on trade and security are expected soon.

Given the deep economic integration of the two nations, neither side expects a deal imminently, but both sides concur that constructive talks have led to progress on an agreement.

Follow The World
Follow The World

Listen to The World with Richard Engel and Yalda Hakim every Wednesday

Tap to follow

With greater goodwill between the two North American neighbours, Mr Carney also expressed optimism about Mr Trump’s efforts to broker peace between Ukraine and Russia.

The prime minister confirmed his view that the president was an “honest broker” and that his counterpart had been “helpful” in bringing momentum to a 30-day ceasefire between the warring nations.

Despite a reset in relations between the United States and Canada, Mr Carney remained circumspect.

His motto is: “Always plan for the worst.”

Read more from Sky News:
Trump signs deals in Saudi Arabia – with murder long forgotten
Menendez brothers’ murder sentences reduced

And to that end, nothing is being taken for granted: “We do plan for having no deal, we do plan for trouble in the security relationship. We do plan for the global trading system not being reassembled: that’s the way to approach this president.”

Continue Reading

US

Menendez brothers’ murder sentences reduced – making them eligible for parole

Published

on

By

Menendez brothers' murder sentences reduced - making them eligible for parole

A judge has reduced the Menendez brothers’ murder sentences – meaning they are eligible for parole.

Lyle, 57, and Erik, 54, received life sentences without the possibility of parole after being convicted of murdering their parents, Jose and Kitty Menendez, at their Beverly Hills home in 1989.

Last year, the then Los Angeles district attorney George Gascon asked a judge to change the brothers’ sentence from life without the possibility of parole to 50 years to life.

Lyle, left, and Erik Menendez leave a courtroom in Santa Monica in August, 1990.
Pic: AP
Image:
Lyle, left, and Erik Menendez leave a courtroom in Santa Monica in August, 1990.
Pic: AP

On Tuesday, Los Angeles County superior court Judge Michael Jesic did so, paving the way for the brothers’ parole and possible release.

The ruling capped off a day-long hearing in which several relatives, a retired judge and a former fellow inmate testified in support of efforts to shorten the brothers’ sentences.

‘I killed my mum and dad’

The brothers appeared at the proceedings in Los Angeles County Superior Court via video feed from prison in San Diego.

“I killed my mum and dad. I make no excuses and also no justification,” Lyle said in a statement to the court. “The impact of my violent actions on my family… is unfathomable.”

Erik also spoke about taking responsibility for his actions and apologising to his family.

He said: “You did not deserve what I did to you, but you inspire me to do better.”

The brothers did not show any apparent emotion during much of the testimony but chuckled when one of their cousins, Diane Hernandez, told the court that Erik received A+ grades in all of his classes during his most recent semester in college.

Lyle (left) and Erik Menendez in a courtroom in 1990.
Pic: AP
Image:
Lyle (left) and Erik Menendez in a courtroom in 1990.
Pic: AP

Anamaria Baralt, another cousin of the brothers, told the court they had repeatedly expressed remorse for their actions.

“We all, on both sides of the family, believe that 35 years is enough. They are universally forgiven by our family,” she said.

‘They have not come clean’

Los Angeles County prosecutors argued against the resentencing, saying the brothers have not taken complete responsibility for the crime.

The current district attorney Nathan Hochman said he believes the brothers were not ready for resentencing because “they have not come clean” about their crimes.

His office has also said it does not believe they were sexually abused.

“Our position is not ‘no’. It’s not ‘never’. It’s ‘not yet’,” Mr Hochman said. “They have not fully accepted responsibility for all their criminal conduct.”

An official speaks to the media on Tuesday at the Menendez brothers' resentencing hearing.
Pic: Reuters
Image:
District attorney Nathan Hochman speaks to the media on Tuesday at the Menendez brothers’ resentencing hearing.
Pic: Reuters

Path to freedom?

“I’m not saying they should be released, it’s not for me to decide,” Judge Jesic said. “I do believe they’ve done enough in the past 35 years, that they should get that chance.”

After the judge’s decision, the brothers now have a new path to freedom after decades in prison.

Follow The World
Follow The World

Listen to The World with Richard Engel and Yalda Hakim every Wednesday

Tap to follow

They are now eligible for parole under California’s youthful offender law because they committed the crime while under the age of 26.

The state parole board must still decide whether to release them from prison.

While this decision is made, the brothers will remain behind bars.

During the original trial, prosecutors accused the brothers of killing their parents for a multimillion-dollar inheritance, although their defence team argued they acted out of self-defence after years of sexual abuse by their father.

Read more from Sky News:
Man who spent 38 years in jail has conviction quashed
Trump to lift sanctions on Syria
Tory MP charged with sexual assaults

The brothers have maintained since they were first charged with the murders that their parents abused them.

A Netflix series and subsequent documentary about the brothers thrust them back into the spotlight last year.

Continue Reading

US

Cassie tells court ‘freak offs’ became like a job as she alleges years of abuse by Sean ‘Diddy’ Combs

Published

on

By

Cassie tells court 'freak offs' became like a job as she alleges years of abuse by Sean 'Diddy' Combs

Sean “Diddy” Combs’s former girlfriend Cassie has told his sex-trafficking trial that “freak offs” with male escorts became like a job, as the music mogul allegedly abused and sexually exploited her for years.

The musician and model, whose full name is Casandra Ventura, did not look at Combs as she took to the witness stand in court in Manhattan, New York.

Over about six hours, the 38-year-old, who is eight months pregnant with her third child with husband Alex Fine, at times became emotional as she alleged she was degraded by her former partner during their 10-year on-off relationship.

Sean ‘Diddy’ Combs trial: Day 2 – As it happened

Sean 'Diddy' Combs makes a hand gesture to family members at his New York trial. Pic: Reuters
Image:
Combs made a heart gesture to family members in court. Pic: Reuters/Jane Rosenberg

Sean "Diddy" Combs watches as former girlfriend Casandra "Cassie" Ventura reacts during testimony to prosecutor Emily Johnson at Combs' sex trafficking trial in New York City, New York, U.S., May 13, 2025 in this courtroom sketch. REUTERS/Jane
Image:
Ms Ventura became emotional at times. Pic: Reuters/Jane Rosenberg


Combs, 55, has pleaded not guilty and strenuously denied allegations of sexual abuse. His lawyers argue that although he could be violent, he never veered into sex trafficking and racketeering, and that all sexual encounters were consensual.

Ms Ventura, who is the central witness in the prosecutors’ case, began by telling the jury how Combs was violent to her over the course of their relationship, giving her black eyes and bruises.

The hip-hop star became increasingly controlling, she said, and was allegedly abusive over the smallest perceived slights. “You make the wrong face, and the next thing I knew I was getting hit in the face,” she said.

Ms Ventura was 19 when she signed to his label, Bad Boy, she said, and 22 when, during the first year of their relationship, Combs first proposed a “freak off” – a sexual encounter with a third party. Her “stomach churned”, she said, and she was “confused, nervous, but also loved him very much” and wanted to please him. She described him as “charming” but “polarising”.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Combs’s family arrive for Day 2

‘There was no space to do anything else’

Throughout her time on the stand, she gave graphic details of these drug and drink-fuelled encounters with male escorts, saying Combs would watch and masturbate, and often record the encounters and watch the videos back.

They could last for hours or even days, she said – telling the court the longest went on for four days. They ended up becoming weekly events and took priority over her music career, jurors heard. While she had hits with singles Me & U and Long Way 2 Go in 2006, and signed a 10-album deal with Bad Boy, jurors heard she only released one album.

“Freak-offs became a job where there was no space to do anything else but to recover and just try to feel normal again,” Ms Ventura said. Each time, she added, she had to recuperate from lack of sleep, alcohol, drugs “and other substances”, and “having sex with a stranger for days”.

Read more:
The rise and fall of Sean Combs

Diddy – a timeline of allegations
Everything you need to know about the trial

Sean 'Diddy' Combs and Cassie Ventura at the 2017 Costume Institute Benefit Gala ub 2017. Pic: zz/XPX/STAR MAX/IPx 2017/AP
Image:
Combs and Cassie pictured in 2017. Pic: zz/XPX/STAR MAX/IPx 2017/AP

Alleged violence detailed in court

Ms Ventura told the court she began feeling as if she could not say no to Combs’s demands because “there were blackmail materials to make me feel like if I didn’t do it, it would be held over my head in that way or these things would become public”.

She was also worried about potential violence, she told the court. When asked in court how frequently Combs became violent with her, Ms Ventura responded: “Too frequently.”

The rapper “would mash me in the head, knock me over, drag me, kick me”, she said. “Stomp me in the head if I was down”.

Ms Ventura also told the court that Combs kept cash, jewellery, guns and “sometimes tapes from cameras” in safes at several properties in New York, Los Angeles, Miami and Alpine, New Jersey.

“The guns came out here and there. I always felt it was a little bit of a scare tactic,” she told the court.

Pic: CNN via AP
Image:
This footage from 2016 was made public in 2024. Pic: CNN via AP

Towards the end of her first day of evidence, a surveillance video made public last year, which showed Combs allegedly beating Ms Ventura at a Los Angeles hotel in 2016, was played to jurors in court for a second time.

“How many times has he thrown you like that before?” prosecutor Emily Johnson asked her.

“Too many to count,” Ms Ventura replied.

On Monday, prosecutors in their opening statement told the court that while Combs’s public persona was that of a “charismatic” hip-hop mogul, behind the scenes he was violent and abusive.

His defence lawyers argued that the case is really about nothing more than the rapper’s sexual preferences, which they said should remain private, and do not make him a sex trafficker.

The trial is to last about eight weeks.

Ms Ventura is set to continue giving evidence on Wednesday.

Continue Reading

Trending