COVID systemic racism theory doesn’t hold up in U.K.

In an ar ticle Friday that stated Latinos make up 14% of Boulder County’s population and 18% of COVID deaths, two contradictor y statements are attributed to Boulder County Public Health Director Jeff Zayach. He first “emphasized” that the virus doesn’t discriminate, impacting people of ever y age and ethnicity. Then he was quoted “at the hear t of these disparities is systemic racism” to which he attributed numerous negative health and quality of life outcomes. His quotes were from April and maybe he’d answer differently now, but both statements are wrong.

The disease does discriminate. One of the largest studies (E.J. Williamson, et al.) used British NHS data (N = 17 million) to estimate risk factors for COVID death rates in the U.K. Baseline rates were set at 1.0. For example, for sex, women got a rate of 1.0, and the rate for men was 1.59, meaning a 59% higher chance of death, all else equal. For ethnicity, whites were 1.0, and Blacks and South Asians were 1.48 and 1.45 respectively. Severe obesity and diabetes had values close to 2.0. However, age related risks dominated all others. Under 40 was 0.06, 50-59 was 1.0, while 80+ was 20.

If we accept that the higher risks associated with age, obesity and being male are biological, why wouldn’t those associated with being Black or Latino also be biological?

The systemic racism theor y usually cites the legacy of slaver y, decades of Jim Crow, and lack of access to health care as the underlying reasons for unequal health outcomes. None is true in the U.K. The NHS covers ever yone and is free at the point of ser vice. The non-white population in the U.K. is mostly from India and the Caribbean and arrived in the post war period after the collapse of the British

Empire. They weren’t slaves and were arguably among the more enterprising people in their countries of origin. To still see higher death rates in the UK despite that, another explanation is needed.

Looking back, one lesson we’ll learn from the pandemic is how poorly we were ser ved by our public ser vants at all levels. Rather than objective and measured advice we got harmful and divisive rhetoric that was politically motivated and factually wrong.