Papers
A video published by the New York Post on Saturday morning shows Democratic presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. explaining to a group of supporters that Covid-19 may have been “ethnically targeted” at Caucasian and black people, sparing Ashkenazi Jews and Chinese from severe outcomes.
“COVID-19. There is an argument that it is ethnically targeted. COVID-19 attacks certain races disproportionately,” the Kennedy scion said during a dinner on the Upper East Side. “COVID-19 is targeted to attack Caucasians and black people. The people who are most immune are Ashkenazi Jews and Chinese.”
“We don’t know whether it was deliberately targeted or not but there are papers out there that show the racial or ethnic differential and impact,” the Democratic hopeful added.
Ah yes, there are papers out there – what more do we need to know?
In April, Kennedy launched his bid to challenge President Joe Biden for the Democratic Party’s nomination in the 2024 election.
In 2021, he published a book, The Real Anthony Fauci: Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and the Global War on Democracy and Public Health, which accused America’s leading public-health officials of collaborating in “a historic coup d’état against Western democracy.”
There are papers out there that say so.
Kennedy was sort of a hero to a lot of people during my time doing my doctorate. They saw mostly his work on clean water, which is okay to value someone’s work, but a lot of my fellow students were anti-vax, and pretty much all were big Pharma. I got a lot of flak for putting “chemicals” in my body in the form of my asthma medicine, needed to keep me alive.
I finally shot back at them for putting “chemicals” in their body every time they drank a glass of water or had a sprig of broccoli. These were science majors, and they didn’t get it. (And the philosophy department, housed in our building, was much, much worse, insisting that science is responsible for every evil under the sun.)
First, RFK jr is a complete loon and no-one should take what he says seriously. Secondly, the idea that covid was a targetted bio-weapon is ludicrous.
But there are indeed papers out there that show a differential racial impact of COVID. For example here is one, from Nature Genetics in 2021.
“Two large [studies] … identified a region of chromosome 3p21.31 as having the strongest association [with severe covid] … [which] confers a twofold increased risk of respiratory failure from COVID-19 and an over twofold increased risk of mortality for individuals under 60”.
Then: “the risk variants at this locus are carried by >60% of individuals with South Asian ancestry (SAS), compared to 15% of European ancestry (EUR) groups, partially explaining the ongoing higher death rate in this population in the UK”.
Note that this not a small effect, in that that one gene alone would account for a death rate increased by ~ 50% among the relevant immigrant population. [And there could well be other genetic effects, not known about.]
At the time, as you might guess, most of the UK media automatically attributed that enhanced death rate to “systemic racism”. [Where “systemic” racism seems to mean: “racism that we can’t find much evidence for, but we know it must be there because there’s a differential outcome and “racism” is the only explanation we’ll countenance”.]
I point this out because too much of popular discourse is oblivious to the importance of genetics in explaining a lot about human differences. And races are indeed biologically real, contrary to the wokeist notion that they are merely social constructs.
Papers, schmapers, there’s a whole book out there that says so. It’s called The Real Anthony Fauci: Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and the Global War on Democracy and Public Health. It was written by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. – a Kennedy, for crying out loud!
What more proof could any reasonable conspiracy theorist whackjob ask for?
I’m not a big Biden fan, but I don’t think he’s panicked about RFK jr being in race.
When the whole “Bio Engineered by China” hoo-hah began, I wondered why, if the Chinese were targeting any ethnic groups it wasn’t the Uighurs they targeted. Supposedly the people on Earth the Chinese government hates more than any other ethnic group, right in their own backyard, and well out of sight of nosey journalists and human rights activists. Plus, the Chinese did an excellent job shutting down criticism from Amnesty, Oxfam, UN, et al by bribing them to go all in on “Trans rights”. Clever, clever, Chinese.
I certainly do not recall ‘most of the UK media automatically attribut(ing)’ that enhanced death rate to “systemic racism”, as Coel alleges. I recall both genetic and social factors being widely discussed.
@Tim:
OK, well I’ve Googled the UK media for 2020, the time I was referring to, when the differential death rate had become clear. First The Guardian, from Oct 2020:
“Structural racism led to the disproportionate impact of the coronavirus pandemic on black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME) communities, a review by Doreen Lawrence has concluded.” (link.)
Also: Jun 2020: “Racism and discrimination suffered by Britain’s black, Asian and minority ethnic people has contributed to the high death rates from Covid-19 in those communities […] Racism and discrimination experienced by BAME key workers [is] a root cause affecting health and exposure risk.”
There are another 6 or 7 similar articles in The Guardian from 2020, all giving extensive accounts of social “systemic racism” factors that might be contributing to the difference in death rate (I’m not giving all the links since WordPress doesn’t like comments with lots of links). None of those articles suggests genetic susceptibility as a cause.
In fact, the only mention of genetic susceptibility in this context, from The Guardian for all of 2020, is an attempt to play down the possibility: “Ahead of the review, many BAME campaigners and leaders were concerned that the review would give insufficient weight to socioeconomic inequalities or structural racism and stress genetic factors, for political convenience.”
That’s the only mention of “gene” (in this context) by The Guardian in 2020. (That I could find in a few minutes of Googling anyhow.)
And recall, from my first comment, that by a year later (2021), a gene had been found that resulted in a 50%-greater death rate for the UK population deriving from the Indian sub-continent.
That one gene was thus a bigger cause than any of the social factors that the Guardian had discussed extensively in multiple articles.
I’ve also Googled the BBC for the same time period, 2020: E.g.:
Jun 2020: “Factors such as racism and social inequality may have contributed to increased risks of black, Asian and minority communities catching and dying from Covid-19, a leaked report says.”
The report does not include the word “gene”. There are several other similar articles by the BBC that year.
A notable article is one from April 2020: “Coronavirus: Why some racial groups are more vulnerable”
The sub-head is: “From discrimination to language, a variety of factors are affecting different groups’ vulnerability to coronavirus — with sometimes devastating results.”
Guess what factor isn’t even considered and isn’t mentioned even once, despite that fact that this lengthy article considers just about everything else under the sun? Correct, there is no mention of genetic susceptibility, with the word “gene” not occurring.
The article, though, does discuss pseudo-science such as (indeed the article highlights this into a quote):
“‘Weathering’ refers to the accumulated physiological burden from the stresses caused by racism and race-related disadvantage, such as the frequent secretion of stress hormones”.
So, Tim, I suggest that your memory is faulty. I suggest that, when the differential death rate became clear in 2020, it was not the case that “both genetic and social factors [were] widely discussed” in the mainstream media.
… though you’re welcome to prove me wrong with a couple of links …
My memory is not at fault. Try Googling a bit more assiduously:
High-risk Covid gene more common in South Asians – BBC
The Guardian: Gene common in south Asian people doubles risk of Covid
Tim, Tim, Tim … your links are from November 2021.
As I have adequately documented, when the higher death rate in for BAME people was first realised, from ~ March 2020 onwards and for the rest of 2020, the mainstream media did indeed: “automatically attribute that enhanced death rate to systemic racism”.
Only a year and a half later, in Nov 2021, with the publication of the study that I linked to in my first comment, did the media consider any role for genetics.
Now, admittedly, my “At the time …” comment wasn’t explicit about what “time” I was referring to, but November 2021 was well after both of the two big peaks in the UK COVID death rate (Spring 2020 and Winter of 2020/21).
So, no, you’re just very wrong to claim that “both genetic and social factors [were] widely discussed” at the time.
Rather, for 18 months, the UK media “automatically attributed that enhanced death rate to systemic racism”, until 18 months later with the November 2021 Oxford study (which did indeed get some limited coverage).
And just to add, here’s another Guardian article, this one from May 2022, so after the November 2021 Oxford study showing that a gene carried by >60% of Britons of Bangladeshi & Pakistani origin doubles the risk of death.
It quotes a letter: “black, Asian and minority ethnic people have experienced significant inequalities as a result of systemic racism throughout the pandemic […] For instance, there is continued disproportionality in deaths and infections for black, Asian and minority ethnic people.”
It then has a graphic showing a much higher death rate for Britons of Bangladeshi & Pakistani origin.
There is — surprise! — no mention of “gene” or “genetics” anywhere in the article. This is irresponsible journalism.
The discussion on the papers is interesting, but I notice from the article Ophelia quoted that RFK Jr. is saying that it is targeted at Caucasians and black people, with sparing of Chinese and Ashkenazim Jews. Coel notes a higher death rate for BAME, not Caucasians and black people. The “papers” RFK is referring to must not be the same “papers” Coel is referring to, since the studies Coel references do not show what RFK is saying. Therefore, it is possible that Ophelia’s snarky comment about papers is entirely justified.
I suggest you re-read your first post, where you are talking about 2021, when the news about the genetic susceptibility to Covid among South Asians first came out. I have no doubt that various theories, some few of them foolish (which you like to seize on), some not, were being proposed in the media before that, but you are adopting the Rufo-esque tactic of placing any and all discussion of social factors under the label of ‘systemic racism’. Fundamentally, here and elsewhere, you behaving in exactly the same way as those you affect to despise, and refusing, whether for polemical purposes or out of the kind of rigid belief that the infantile ideologues at the other end of the spectrum hold to, to countenance anything that you suppose your opponents might hold.
Here is a paragraph from an article entitled ‘Ethnic differences in COVID-19 infection, hospitalisation …’ published by The London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine from the London School:
‘Ethnic minority groups in the UK have experienced disproportionately high levels of poor
COVID-19 outcomes, with disparities increasing even within the course of the epidemic for
some groups. Reducing ethnic inequalities will need action across a broad range of
measures such as addressing the wider adverse effects of disadvantage and structural
discrimination, reducing within- and between-household transmission, and improving
control of clinical conditions. The relative importance of each of these measures will differ
by both ethnic group and stage of COVID-19 progression. Equality is difficult to achieve, but
structural and persistent inequalities must be addressed in a civilised society.’
And something from Goldman Sachs, since, given what appears to be your fascination with the wealthy, you may find its origin more trustworthy:
‘Compared with other countries, the most disadvantaged in the U.K. are less likely to climb the income ladder and the economically advantaged tend to stay at the top. Covid-19 has increased inequality further, and recent rises in inflation, especially energy costs, are intensifying the problem. ‘
I do not find those quotations exceptionable. Do you?
I am afraid that, rather than the over-confident pronouncements that you deal in, I prefer to trust responsible people who actually know something about the problems they are addressing — those who, for example, have been charged with preparing serious reports, such as those on institutional racism in the Metropolitan Police, for which Sir William MacPherson (1999) and Baroness Casey (2023) were responsible.
Regarding the Guardian article you reference, no, I do not find it irresponsible. The genetic problem was well-known by then. What I immediately note from the chart (as you appear to have not) is that the rate for Bangladeshis is huge, that for Pakistanis is the second greatest, whereas the rate for Indians is far lower. The reason for these discrepancies cannot be due to the genetic problem; it is probably due to the economic and social situations of these different groups, with the Bangladeshis the most impoverished.
There is also this sentence, from a letter to the government: “’Unfortunately, the government’s desire to explain away racial inequality has persisted in the face of eminent public health experts, such as Sir Michael Marmot, highlighting that racism was one of the ‘causes of the causes’.”
Eminent public health experts may be wrong on occasion, but I prefer trusting them than people with one idea in their minds and an obsession with Hunter Biden’s laptop.
I should also like to point out that it is not a matter of ‘either genetic factors or social & economic circumstances’, and just as it is ridiculous and foolish to suppose that the latter are the only important consideration, so it is ridiculous and foolish to suppose that the former are the only important consideration.
Tim, Tim, Tim:
I’m well aware of what I wrote, thanks.
During the peak of the epidemic, from when differential death rates became apparent, in March/April 2020, and for most of that year, the mainstream UK media discussed this purely in terms of “systemic racism” social factors. There was close to zero consideration of genetic factors.
When, 18-months later, in Nov 2021, the Oxford genetics study got published, that was indeed reported for a day or two. Pretty quickly afterwards, though, that idea mostly got ignored again, as shown, for example, by the May 2022 Guardian piece cited in #11.
For all your blather, that is an accurate summation.
Your “recollection” to the contrary is simply wrong. You’ve not pointed to even one article from 2020 that considers genetic factors, while there are dozens in that year discussing social factors at length.
By the way, no-one has ever suggested that social factors play zero role.
Well duh! Any and all social factors that lead to differential outcomes between racial groups is exactly how “systemic racism” is defined by those who invented and promote the term.
And here you’re resorting to personal attacks, as you usually do when you are out of your depth and have been shown to be wrong.
Every time the snarky nastiness!
And yes, there are indeed lots of people attributing differential outcomes to social factors that people label “systemic racism”. That is indeed what I started off saying! So quoting various people saying that doesn’t rebut anything I said.
@Tim:
By the way, I just read the the LSE paper you quoted.
They admit that they haven’t controlled for genetics (“Our inability to capture all potential explanatory factors of ethnic disparities in COVID-19 outcomes is likely to have affected our observed associations. For example, we were unable to account for ethnic differences in genetic ancestry …”), and well done to them for at least recognising that. But they then blithely proceed to draw their “social factors” conclusions anyhow without any further caveats.
But we’ve known from the outset of COVID that genetic susceptibility is by far the biggest factor in who dies from it. That’s clear. Take two people, both (say) 50-yr-old white males with the same BMI in otherwise good health, who catch the same variant of COVID. One shrugs it off with barely any symptoms, while the other is dying on a ventilator. The difference? Genetic susceptibility. That’s by far the biggest factor overall in who died versus who shrugged it off. [Ditto for many other diseases by the way.]
You can accuse me of going on about such factors. That’s because most mainstream public discourse is oblivious to it. Much of the social sciences is just wrong for this reason.
A good example is the way you yourself react with hostility to any reasonable and evidence-based mention of these factors.
Has anyone suggested that? Can you quote even one person suggesting that? (That’s “quote”, not “paraphrase” or “assert that …”)
This is a common tactic:
MSM> “Social factors, social factors, social factors … blah blah …”
People like me> “Well, genetics can also be important, the evidence is that, as a rough rule of thumb, genetic factors and social/environmental factors are equally important in accounting for human diversity.”
Reply from people like you> “… it is ridiculous and foolish to suppose that genetic factors are the only important consideration …”.
Tim, do you ever do anything that isn’t strawmanning, misrepresentation or snide?
“Well, genetics can also be important, the evidence is that, as a rough rule of thumb, genetic factors and social/environmental factors are equally important in accounting for human diversity.”
I made it clear above that that what was exactly I, and most thinking people, suppose. Perhaps in addition to your efforts to make your point about the importance of genetics you might stop following the libertarian & Christopher Rufio playbooks and actually address some social and economic factors, like poverty and racism, which hold people back, in a responsible way, instead of throwing out catchwords like ‘systemic racism’ (bad!) and ‘woke-ism’ (bad!).
As I said above, I have more trust in eminent health experts, and in people Macpherson and in Baroness Casey than in someone who gets excited over what’s on Hunter Biden’s laptop.
@Tim:
No you don’t. Or, rather, being way out of your intellectual depth, you’re utterly inconsistent on the issue.
You said that a good way of showing the effects of environment would be to compare outcomes of kids brought up in privilege with those brought up in poverty, making no mention that such a comparison would mostly be about the role of genes. And you then reacted with your usual snide, dishonest hostility when I, correctly and appropriately, pointed that out. So, no, you’re an intuitive blank slater. But one who can’t even argue the case, hence the snide, dishonest hostility.
By the way, if you ever want an actual, evidence-based discussion of what factors affect kids’ outcomes then I’m game.
I find it difficult to feel any respect, Coel, for people, whether of the left or right, who are not interested in facts for their own sake, but are interested in facts only insofar as they may be forced into supporting the political ideology they espouse, and which in certain cases they are careful not to spell out overly clearly on public forums. As I have said above, I respect fair-minded and intelligent people like Sir William Macpherson, Baroness Casey and Sir Michael Marmot who don’t confine their lives to a tiny intellectual cell of their own making, who genuinely engage with realities, and who don’t take a prurient interest in the contents of Hunter Biden’s laptop. But to each his taste.
So that’s a “no” then? You’re not interested in an actual, evidence-based discussion of what factors affect kids’ outcomes, and prefer just to make snide and dishonest attacks?
Yes, Coel, it is a no. I am not interested in discussing things with a person I have no respect for and do not trust.