Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Subpopulations of Special Concern Revision #610

Closed
cgreene opened this issue Aug 18, 2020 · 4 comments · Fixed by #652
Closed

Subpopulations of Special Concern Revision #610

cgreene opened this issue Aug 18, 2020 · 4 comments · Fixed by #652
Labels

Comments

@cgreene
Copy link
Member

cgreene commented Aug 18, 2020

Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.

I think this section could use a significant revision.

Describe the solution you'd like

Here's what I wrote in the TODO I added to the manuscript:

I think this section could use a revisiting. I think we should deal with the male sex and older age portion in an initial paragraph. After that, it looks like the racial burdens are likely to be attributable in large part to systemic racism - incarceration, wage discrimination, housing discrimination, and more - both now and in the past. Right now this jumps around b/w groups and presents discrimination as the basis in disparities as a possibility but not necessarily a likely contributor. I also worry that it makes many of these things research questions, even though one of the resources we cite ( 10.1093/tbm/ibaa055 ) includes policy recommendations. In short, it feels like we list a bunch of proximal causes but don't tie things back to the overarching likely cause. Finally, the way genetic factors are brought up makes me worry that someone might have, as a takeaway, that genetics may play a driving role in disparities at this level.

Describe alternatives you've considered

We could restructure this in a number of ways. What's here right now feels to me like it wanders around the point more than addressing it.

Additional context
Add any other context or screenshots about the feature request here.

cgreene added a commit to cgreene/covid19-review that referenced this issue Aug 18, 2020
@dziakj1
Copy link
Collaborator

dziakj1 commented Aug 19, 2020

I guess that reorganization would make sense. I know that @rando2 is working with a student on a related section in the discussion. When we are discussing research issues, there is another interesting paper we should mention:
Griffith, G., Morris, T. M., Tudball, M. et al. (2020). Collider bias undermines our understanding of COVID-19 disease risk and severity Epidemiology. @doi:10.1101/2020.05.04.20090506

@dziakj1
Copy link
Collaborator

dziakj1 commented Aug 19, 2020

The equity section in the discussion is discussed in #552 -- I don't know how to determine which information goes in each of the two sections, though. @tlukan and @rando2 are working on it.

@dziakj1
Copy link
Collaborator

dziakj1 commented Aug 19, 2020

Also, another important paper just came out on probability of mortality conditional on hospitalization (@doi:doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.18039)
with commentary (doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.18696)
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2769387
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2769381
I haven't read it yet, but apparently the racial disparities appear more in the probability of getting infected and/or hospitalized, not the probability of death conditional on hospitalization.

@rando2
Copy link
Contributor

rando2 commented Aug 19, 2020

@dziakj1 I have a draft PR in the works and will tag you when I put it up! Thanks for the articles!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

3 participants