> There's nothing about being Black, in and of itself, that makes people more biologically susceptible to Covid-19. Instead, the disproportionate impact is due to an accumulation of factors from centuries of systemic racism.
-But how does Samuel _know_ this? I agree that an accumulation of factors from centuries of systemic racism is almost certainly going to be a significant _part_ the explanation for ethnic differences. But the claim that "there's _nothing_ about being Black, in and of itself" (emphasis mine) affecting susceptibility to this disease is a _much_ stronger assertion, one that I think has a substantial probability of being false, if it turns out that one of the various minor ways in which humans vary by genetic ancestry happens to be relevant to the progression of this particular disease.
+But how does Samuel _know_ this? I agree that an accumulation of factors from centuries of systemic racism is almost certainly going to be a significant _part_ the explanation for the observed differences. But the claim that "there's _nothing_ about being Black, in and of itself" (emphasis mine) affecting susceptibility to this disease is a _much_ stronger assertion—one that I think has a substantial probability of being false, if it turns out that one of the various minor ways in which humans vary by genetic ancestry happens to be relevant to the progression of this particular disease.
-I remember back in February-ish there was a claim being floated around that Asians might be more susceptible to COVID-19 due to differences in [angiotensin-converting enzyme 2](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angiotensin-converting_enzyme_2) activity. So, I don't think that panned out, and I'm sure many people with domain expertise who [actually read the paper](https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.01.26.919985v1.full) called it. (Seriously, _n_=8?!) But the claim wasn't a priori _absurd_—genetic differences in disease risk are a thing that happens sometimes!
+In the case of people of African descent, I think we _do_ have a specific candidate for a biological difference affecting COVID-19 outcomes. A randomized clinical trial found that
-In the case of people of African descent, I think we _do_ have a specific candidate for a biological difference affecting COVID-19 outcomes.
+"Autumn COVID-19 surge dates in Europe correlated to latitudes, not to temperature-humidity, pointing to vitamin D as contributing factor"
+https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-81419-w
+https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960076020302764
+https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16549493/
+https://vitamin-d-covid.shotwell.ca/#supplementation-studies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism
+https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m3872/rr-5
+
[racialists get annoyed that people use "skin color" as a metonym for "race", but in this case, we actually are talking about skin color!]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causal_graph
-(I ordinary would have written _racialism_ here—)
+Jablonski–Chaplin
+(I ordinary would have written _racialism_ here—)
It's kind of nuts that we live in a world where I perceive opportunity in writing this post. "It's an open empirical question" is just about _the_ lamest, most _uninformative_ thing you can possibly say about an issue, [followed only by just "It's an empirical question"](http://theboundsofcognition.blogspot.com/2011/01/its-empirical-question-versus-its-open.html). (Some empirical questions are settled!)
-
the U.S. has much fewer mixed-race people than Brazil specifically because of institutionalized racism (the one-drop rule discouraging intermarriage)
-
https://www.gnxp.com/WordPress/2020/09/28/white-men-invented-everything/
+https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-77093-z
projects / Ultimately_Untrue_Thought.git / blobdiff