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 Some information may be out of date.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

Emerging technology regulations: a comprehensive, evergreen approach

Published

on

By

Emerging technology regulations: a comprehensive, evergreen approach

Emerging technology regulations: a comprehensive, evergreen approach

Opinion by: Merav Ozair, PhD

Technology is advancing at the speed of light today more than ever. We have surpassed Moore’s law — computational power is doubling every six months rather than every two years — while regulations are, and have been, playing catchup.

The EU Artificial Intelligence Act just came into force in August 2024 and is already falling behind. It did not consider AI agents and is still wrestling with generative AI (GenAI) and foundation models. Article 28b was added to the act in June 2023 after the launch of ChatGPT at the end of 2022 and the flourishing of chatbot deployments. It was not on their radar when lawmakers initially drafted the act in April 2021.

As we move more into robotics and the use of virtual reality devices, a “new paradigm of AI architectures” will be developed, addressing the limitations of GenAI to create robots and virtual devices that can reason the world, unlike GenAI models. Maybe spending time drafting a new article on GenAI was not time well spent.

Furthermore, technology regulations are quite dichotomized. There are regulations on AI, like the EU AI Act; Web3, like Markets in Crypto-Assets; and the security of digital information, like the EU Cybersecurity Act and The Digital Operational Resilience Act.

This dichotomy is cumbersome for users and businesses to follow. Moreover, it does not align with how solutions and products are developed. Every solution integrates many technologies, while each technology component has separate regulations.

It might be time to reconsider the way we regulate technology.

A comprehensive approach

Tech companies have been pushing the boundaries with cutting-edge technologies, including Web3, AI, quantum computing and others yet to emerge. Other industries are following suit in the experimentation and implementation of these technologies. 

Everything is digital, and every product integrates several technologies. Think of the Apple Vision Pro or Meta Quest. They have hardware, goggles, AI, biometric technology, cloud computing, cryptography, digital wallets and more, and they will soon be integrated with Web3 technology.

A comprehensive approach to regulation would be the most suitable approach for the following principal reasons.

A full-system solution

Most, if not all, solutions require the integration of several emerging technologies. If we have separate guidelines and regulations for each technology, how could we ensure the product/service is compliant? Where does one rule start and the other end? 

Recent: Animoca Brands revenue climbs as AI cuts costs by 12%

Separate guidelines would probably introduce more complexity, errors and misinterpretations, which eventually might result in more harm than good. If the implementation of technologies is all-encompassing and comprehensive, the approach to regulating it should also be.

Different technologies support each other’s weaknesses

All technologies have strengths and weaknesses, and often, the strengths of one technology can support the shortcomings of the other.

For example, AI can support Web3 by enhancing the accuracy and efficiency of smart contract execution and blockchain security and monitoring. In contrast, blockchain technology can assist in manifesting “responsible AI,” as blockchain is everything that AI is not — transparent, traceable, trustworthy and tamper-free.

When AI supports Web3 and vice versa, we implement a comprehensive, safe, secure and trustworthy solution. Would these solutions be AI-compliant or Web3-compliant? With this solution, it would be challenging to dichotomize compliance. The solution should be compliant and adhere to all guidelines/policies. It would be best if these guidelines/policies encompass all technologies, including their integration.

A proactive approach

We need proactive regulation. Many of the regulation proposals, across all regions, seem to be reactions to changes we know about today and don’t go far enough in thinking about how to provide frameworks for what might come five or 10 years down the line. 

If, for example, we already know that there will be a “new paradigm of AI architectures,” probably in the next five years, then why not start thinking today, not in 5 years, how to regulate it? Or better yet, find a regulatory framework that would apply no matter how technology evolves.

Think about responsible innovation. Responsible innovation, simplistically, means making new technologies work for society without causing more problems than they solve. In other words: “Do good, do no harm.”

Responsible innovation

Responsible innovation principles are designed to span all technologies, not just AI. These principles recognize that all technologies can have unintended consequences on users, bystanders and society, and that it is the responsibility of the companies and developers creating those technologies to identify and mitigate those risks.

Responsible innovation principles are overarching and international and apply to any technology that exists today and will evolve in the future. This could be the basis for technology regulation. Still, companies, regardless of regulation, should understand that innovating responsibly instills trust in users, which will translate to mainstream adoption.

Truth in Technology Act

The Securities Act of 1933, also known as the “truth in securities” law, was created to protect investors from fraud and misrepresentation and restore public confidence in the stock market as a response to the stock market crash of 1929. 

At the core of the act lie honesty and transparency, the essential ingredients to instill public trust in the stock market, or in anything for that matter. 

This act has withstood the test of time — an “evergreen” law. Securities trading and the financial industry have become more digital and more technological, but the core principles of this act still apply and will continue to.

 Based on the principles of responsible innovation, we could design a “Truth in Technology Act,” which would instill public trust in technology, internationally, now and in the future. Fundamentally, we seek these products and services to be safe, secure, ethical, privacy-preserving, accurate, easy to understand, auditable, transparent and accountable. These values are international across regions, industries and technologies, and since technology knows no boundaries, neither should regulations.

Innovation may create value, but it may also extract or destroy it. Regulation helps limit the latter two types of innovation, while well-designed regulation may enable the first kind to survive and flourish. A global collaboration may find ways to incentivize innovation that creates value for the good of the global economy and society.

It might be time for a Truth in Technology Act — an international, comprehensive, evergreen regulation for the good of the citizens of the world.

Opinion by: Merav Ozair, PhD.

This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal or investment advice. The views, thoughts, and opinions expressed here are the author’s alone and do not necessarily reflect or represent the views and opinions of Cointelegraph.

Continue Reading

Politics

Mike Amesbury to quit as MP after punching man in street – triggering by-election

Published

on

By

Mike Amesbury to quit as MP after punching man in street - triggering by-election

Mike Amesbury has announced he will stand down as an MP after he was convicted of punching a man in the street.

A by-election will now be triggered in his seat of Runcorn and Helsby, where constituents will vote to elect a new MP.

Amesbury, who was suspended from the Labour Party, was jailed on 24 February for 10 weeks after he pleaded guilty in January to assault by beating of 45-year-old Paul Fellows in Main Street, Frodsham, Cheshire, in the early hours of 26 October.

However, following an appeal, his sentence was suspended for two years, so he does not have to serve it in prison.

Amesbury, 55, told the BBC on Monday he will begin the “statutory process” of closing up his office before resigning as an MP “as soon as possible”.

His resignation will trigger a by-election – the first of Sir Keir Starmer’s Labour government.

He said he regrets the attack “every moment, every day” and said he would have tried to remain as an MP if he had been given a lighter community sentence.

Parliamentary rules state any prison sentence, even suspended, given to an MP triggers a recall petition.

A by-election will then be called if 10% of constituents vote to remove him as their MP.

Amesbury has continued to take his £91,000 salary after he was sentenced, including when he spent three nights in prison before his appeal was successful.

He told the BBC he carried out casework while behind bars as his office manager forwarded on emails.

“Life doesn’t stop as an MP,” he said.

Labour suspended Mr Amesbury from the party shortly after the incident, so he has been sitting as an independent MP in the Commons.

The party said he would not be readmitted to Labour and had called for a by-election, saying Mr Amesbury’s constituents “deserved better” after his “completely unacceptable actions”.

This breaking news story is being updated and more details will be published shortly.

Please refresh the page for the fullest version.

You can receive breaking news alerts on a smartphone or tablet via the Sky News app. You can also follow us on WhatsApp and subscribe to our YouTube channel to keep up with the latest news.

Continue Reading

Environment

Destroyed Cybertruck used in Vegas bombing is for sale, Musk said Tesla would rebuild it

Published

on

By

Destroyed Cybertruck used in Vegas bombing is for sale, Musk said Tesla would rebuild it

The Tesla Cybertruck used in the Las Vegas bombing appears to have landed in an auction for sale as salvaged, still destroyed. CEO Elon Musk said Tesla would put it back on the road.

Good luck with that.

In January, a Tesla Cybertruck exploded at the Trump Tower in Las Vegas.

The driver is believed to have shot himself in the head right before the vehicle exploded. Evidence proved that some firework mortars and gas canisters were inside the Cybertruck’s bed.

Advertisement – scroll for more content

After the explosion, Tesla CEO Elon Musk praised the Cybertruck for “containing” the explosion and reducing the damage.

He even went as far as claiming that the powertrain was still working and that Tesla would rebuild the Cybertruck and bring it back on the road:

“Once we get this Cybertruck back to Tesla, we’ll buff out the scratches and get it back on the road.”

When questioned about the seriousness of this statement, he affirmed, “No, I mean it.”

They clearly haven’t yet because the Cybertruck has now shown up as a salvaged vehicle for auction on IAA’s site:

It’s not clear if Tesla had an opportunity to get the truck until now, but they certainly could buy it now.

Electrek’s Take

Good luck rebuilding the truck. Maybe they can salvage the battery pack and motors in a new truck, but there’s no way or point to salvage the chassis.

Elon has already confirmed that Tesla engineers have looked at the car. I’m sure that they had the opportunity to get it from the insurance company.

I bet that Tesla doesn’t want the car, and it won’t be back on the road as Elon claimed. You can add it to the list of lies he told this year. Are we in the hundreds already? And we are only in March.

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

Continue Reading

Trending