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 Some information may be out of date.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 COVID-19.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 could place the 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

Young people may lose benefits if they don’t engage with help from new £820m scheme, government warns

Published

on

By

Young people may lose benefits if they don't engage with help from new £820m scheme, government warns

Young people could lose their right to universal credit if they refuse to engage with help from a new scheme without good reason, the government has warned.

Almost one million will gain from plans to get them off benefits and into the workforce, according to officials.

Latest updates from the Politics Hub

Pic: iStock
Image:
Pic: iStock

It comes as the number of young people not in employment, education or training (NEET) has risen by more than a quarter since the COVID pandemic, with around 940,000 16 to 24-year-olds considered as NEET as of September this year, said the Office for National Statistics.

That is an increase of 195,000 in the last two years, mainly driven by increasing sickness and disability rates.

The £820m package includes funding to create 350,000 new workplace opportunities, including training and work experience, which will be offered in industries including construction, hospitality and healthcare.

Around 900,000 people on universal credit will be given a “dedicated work support session”.

That will be followed by four weeks of “intensive support” to help them find work in one of up to six “pathways”, which are: work, work experience, apprenticeships, wider training, learning, or a workplace training programme with a guaranteed interview at the end.

However, Work and Pensions Secretary Pat McFadden has warned that young people could lose some of their benefits if they refuse to engage with the scheme without good reason.

“Doing nothing should not be an option,” he told Sky News’ Sunday Morning with Trevor Phillips.

“If someone just took that attitude, yes, they would then be subject to, you know, the obligations that are already part of the system.”

“What I want to see is young people in the habit of getting up in the morning, doing the right thing, going to work,” he added.

“That experience of that obligation, but also the sense of pride and purpose that comes with having a job.”

Some young people on benefits will be offered job opportunities in construction. Pic: iStock
Image:
Some young people on benefits will be offered job opportunities in construction. Pic: iStock

Read more from Sky News:
Child poverty strategy unveiled – but not everyone’s happy

Universal credit claimants soar by over million in a year

The government says these pathways will be delivered in coordination with employers, while government-backed guaranteed jobs will be provided for up to 55,000 young people from spring 2026, but only in those areas with the highest need.

However, shadow work and pensions secretary Helen Whately, from the Conservatives, said the scheme is “an admission the government has no plan for growth, no plan to create real jobs, and no way of measuring whether any of this money delivers results”.

She told Sky News the proposals are a “classic Labour approach” for tackling youth unemployment.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Youth jobs plan ‘the wrong answer’

“What we’ve seen today announced by the government is funding the best part of £1bn on work placements, and government-created jobs for young people. That sounds all very well,” she told Sunday Morning with Trevor Phillips.

“But the fact is, and that’s the absurdity of it is, just two weeks ago, we had a budget from the chancellor, which is expected to destroy 200,000 jobs.

“So the problem we have here is a government whose policies are destroying jobs, destroying opportunities for young people, now saying they’re going to spend taxpayers’ money on creating work placements. It’s just simply the wrong answer.”

Ms Whately also said the government needs to tackle people who are unmotivated to work at all, and agreed with Mr McFadden on taking away the right to universal credit if they refuse opportunities to work.

But she said the “main reason” young people are out of work is because “they’re moving on to sickness benefits”.

Ms Whately also pointed to the government’s diminished attempt to slash benefits earlier in the year, where planned welfare cuts were significantly scaled down after opposition from their own MPs.

The funding will also expand youth hubs to help provide advice on writing CVs or seeking training, and also provide housing and mental health support.

Some £34m from the funding will be used to launch a new “Risk of NEET indicator tool”, aimed at identifying those young people who need support before they leave education and become unemployed.

Monitoring of attendance in further education will be bolstered, and automatic enrolment in further education will also be piloted for young people without a place.

Continue Reading

Environment

Tesla Optimus robot takes a suspicious tumble in new demo

Published

on

By

Tesla Optimus robot takes a suspicious tumble in new demo

A new video surfacing from a Tesla demonstration in Miami this weekend shows the Optimus humanoid robot taking a nasty fall. But it’s not the fall itself that is raising eyebrows, it’s the specific hand movements the robot made on its way down, which strongly suggest it was mimicking a remote operator frantically removing a VR headset.

Humanoid robots are all the hype right now. Billions in investments are pouring in, and Elon Musk claims it will be a trillion-dollar product for Tesla, justifying its insane valuation.

The idea has been that with the advent of AI, robots in human form could use the new generalized artificial intelligence to replace humans in an increasingly larger number of tasks.

However, there are still many serious concerns about the effort, both at the ethical and technological levels.

Advertisement – scroll for more content

Technologically, most humanoid robot demonstrations have relied on remote control by human operators – pointing to a remaining gap between the software and hardware.

We discussed how the robots at the “We, Robot” event were heavily teleoperated, despite Tesla not explicitly disclosing that fact to the public.

That was more than a year ago, and despite claims that Tesla has made “AI demos” of Optimus since, it appears the company still relies on teleoperation to control them during demonstrations.

The Tesla Optimus Miami Incident

This weekend, Tesla held an event called ‘Autonomy Visualized’ at its store in Miami. The goal was to showcase Tesla’s “Autopilot technology and Optimus.”

However, there was nothing “autonomous” at Tesla’s “autonomy” event.

Many Tesla fans were seen posting videos of a Tesla Optimus robot handing out bottles of water at the event. It was also seen posing for pictures and dancing.

On Reddit, someone posted a different video of the demonstration:

As you can see, Tesla Optimus moved its hands too quickly, causing some water bottles to drop to the ground. It then loses its balance and begins to fall backward.

But the most interesting part is that just before falling backward, both of its hands immediately shoot up to its “face” in a distinct grasping motion, as if pulling an object off its head.

The robot, of course, is not wearing anything on its head.

The motion is instantly recognizable to anyone who has used VR or watched teleoperation setups. It appears the human operator, likely located backstage or in a remote facility, removed their headset in the middle of operating the robot for unknown reasons.

Optimus faithfully replicated the motion of removing a non-existent headset as it crashed to the floor.

Here’s a look at how Tesla trained Pptimus with VR headsets in its lab:

Electrek’s Take

This is embarrassing, but not just because the robot fell. Robots fall; that’s part of the R&D process. Boston Dynamics blooper reels are legendary, and they never really eroded the company’s credibility.

The problem here is the “Wizard of Oz” moment.

The specific motion of removing the “phantom headset” destroys the illusion of autonomy Tesla tries so hard to curate.

Even recently, Musk fought back against the notion that Tesla relies on teleoperation for its Optimus demonstration. He specified that a new demo of Optimus doing kung-fu was “AI, not tele-operated”:

Musk said again during Tesla’s last earnings call in October:

“Optimus was at the Tron premiere doing kung fu, just up in the open, with Jared Leto. Nobody was controlling it. It was just doing kung fu with Jared Leto at the Tron Premier. You can see the videos online. The funny thing is, a lot of people walked past it thinking it was just a person.”

Musk keeps telling shareholders that Optimus will be the biggest product in history and that millions of units will be working in factories soon. But if they are still relying on 1:1 teleoperation to hand out water bottles right now, it feels like we are still far away from a useful generalized Optimus robot.

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

Continue Reading

Sports

As Hall of Fame welcomes Kent, it prepares to slam door on Bonds and Clemens forever

Published

on

By

As Hall of Fame welcomes Kent, it prepares to slam door on Bonds and Clemens forever

ORLANDO, Fla. — There were a number of ironies surrounding the results of the contemporary baseball era committee’s Hall of Fame ballot, announced Sunday night at MLB’s winter meetings.

Perhaps the most poignant is this: If not for Barry Bonds, Jeff Kent — the only one of the eight players under consideration selected Sunday — might not be bound for Cooperstown. While Kent is the all-time home run hitter among second basemen, he was on the same ballot as Bonds — who hit more homers than anyone, at any position.

During a post-announcement news conference, Kent recalled the way he and Bonds used to push, prod and sometimes annoy each other during their six seasons as teammates on the San Francisco Giants. Those were Kent’s best seasons, a fairly late-career peak that ran from 1997 to 2002, during which Kent posted 31.6 of his 55.4 career bWAR.

The crescendo was 2000, when Kent enjoyed his career season at age 32, hitting .334 with a 1.021 OPS, hammering 33 homers with 125 RBIs and compiling a career-best 7.2 bWAR. Hitting fourth behind Bonds and his .440 OBP, Kent hit .382 with runners on base and .449 with a runner on first base.

During Kent’s six years in San Francisco, he was one of five players in baseball to go to the plate with at least one runner on base at least 2,000 times, and the other four all played at least 48 more games than he did. Turns out, hitting behind Bonds is a pretty good career move.

To be clear, Kent was an outstanding player and the numbers he compiled were his, and his alone. When you see how the news of election impacts players, it’s a special thing. I am happy Jeff Kent is now a Hall of Famer.

But I am less happy with the Hall of Fame itself. While Kent’s overwhelming support — he was named on 14 of the 16 ballots, two more than the minimum needed for induction — caught me more than a little off guard, what didn’t surprise me was the overall voting results. In what amounted to fine print, there was this mention in the Hall’s official news release: “Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Gary Sheffield and Fernando Valenzuela each received less than five votes.”

By the new guidelines the Hall enacted for its ever-evolving era committee process — guidelines that went into effect with this ballot — Bonds, Clemens, Sheffield and Valenzuela aren’t eligible in 2028, the next time the contemporary era is considered. They can be nominated in 2031, and if they are, that’s probably it. If they don’t get onto at least five ballots then, they are done. And there is no reason to believe they will get more support the next time.

I thought that the makeup of this committee was stacked against the PED-associated players, but that’s a subjective assessment. And who knows what goes on in those deliberations. With so many players from the 1970s and 1980s in the group, it seemed to bode well for Don Mattingly and Dale Murphy. But they were both listed on just six ballots. Carlos Delgado had the second most support, at nine.

Why? Beats me. I’ve given up trying to interpret the veterans committee/era committee processes that have existed over the years. But the latest guidelines seem perfectly designed to ensure that for the next six years, there’s no reason to wail about Bonds and Clemens being excluded. Then in 2031, that’s it.

Meanwhile, the classic era will be up for consideration again in 2027, when Pete Rose can and likely will be nominated. Perhaps Shoeless Joe Jackson as well. What happens then is anybody’s guess, but by the second week of December 2031, we could be looking at a Hall of Fame roster that includes the long ineligible (but no more) Rose and maybe Jackson but permanently excludes the never-ineligible Bonds and Clemens — perhaps the best hitter and pitcher, respectively, who ever played.

If and when it happens, another kind of symbolic banishment will take place: The Hall will have consigned itself, with these revised guidelines, to always being less than it should be. And the considerable shadows of Bonds and Clemens will continue to loom, larger and larger over time, just as they happened with Rose and Jackson.

Ironic, isn’t it?

Continue Reading

Trending