For this week’s blog, I will be analyzing an article by the Cape Times titled “Women’s reproductive health disrupted by Covid-19 pandemic”. The article argues that the psychological burden caused by the pandemic has resulted in a disruption in female reproductive health, citing research presented at the Society for Endocrinology annual conference in Edinburgh.

“Stress is a known factor that can disturb women’s menstrual cycles by affecting hormone levels, as well as causing sleep and body weight disturbances,” says the article. The premise of the article’s argument is based on the correlation between the psychological and reproductive health of women, as identified by the research.

As part of the research, Dr. Lisa Owens and Dr. Michelle Mahir surveyed 1300 women in April 2021 to investigate changes in depression, anxiety, sleep quality, and menstrual cycles. The survey results are as follows: 56% reported an overall change in their menstrual cycles since the beginning of the pandemic; 64% reported a worsening in pre-menstrual symptoms; 54% reported reduced sex drive. Additionally, compared to pre-pandemic times, the rates of depression, anxiety, and poor sleep had more than doubled.

While the article correctly cites statistics discovered during the survey making them valid, it is the validity of the survey method itself which would make the results dubious in the eyes of statisticians. Firstly, the sample size of 1300 is simply not large enough to make a general hypothesis for the larger population of women. Secondly, neither the article nor the actual research itself mentions if other factors such as age and chronic diseases were taken into account. Moreover, even social factors such as ethnicity, race, and economic background could arguably have affected stress levels among women especially since the pandemic affected certain social groups disproportionately. Thirdly, when speaking about pre-pandemic times, the research does not mention if the data regarding depression, anxiety, and poor sleep was collected from the same sample of women.

However, regardless of the flaws within the data collection method, the survey’s results and the article’s main argument that the pandemic adversely affected female reproductive health make sense. The article also mentions that the research team is planning to conduct these surveys every 6 months to “determine progress and identify any longer-term effects on female reproductive and mental health”. New variables in the form of “more objective measurements of blood pressure, weight, sex hormone levels, and ovulation” will also be added to the survey. This will increase the validity of the resulting statistics.

As for the article, overall, the main argument makes sense, but some of the information is redundant and repetitive. Perhaps, changing the structure and organization of the article would improve this. In certain places, I also noticed the article was quoting directly from the research but without the use of quotation marks which could lead to plagiarism charges. Regardless, the article does convince the readers that further studies to investigate the long-term impact of the pandemic on female reproductive health are necessary.

“As we gain on covid, we’re losing ground against diseases we’ve already defeated”, says an article by The Washington Post.

The Covid-19 pandemic has accelerated the spread of vaccine-preventable diseases such as Measles and Polio which we’ve already created global immunity for. This is due to two reasons: pandemic-induced disruption of routine childhood vaccinations and an increase in vaccine hesitancy due to the politicization of the Covid vaccines.

In 2019, the World Health Organization listed vaccine hesitancy as one of 10 threats to global health in the Thirteenth General Program of Work for the five-year period 2019-2023. Due to “aggressive antivaccination campaigns”, vaccine-preventable diseases such as Measles were on the rise. Between 2015 to 2019, Measles cases had increased by 50% worldwide. Even in the United States where the disease was eliminated in 2000, 1300 cases were reported.

Of course, the unforeseen Covid pandemic made this threat a lot worse.

According to The Washington Post article, the Covid-19 pandemic “supercharged this movement” by “providing fertile ground for anti-vaccine advocates as well as politically-driven, state-sponsored disinformation actors”.

One big challenge standing in the way of achieving global immunity against Covid is “the alignment of vaccine uptake with political ideology”. In the United States, this reflects in the red-blue political vaccine gap: 90 percent of Democrats are in favor of vaccinating their children compared to only 19 percent of Republicans. This divide is not only impacting immunity against Covid but also other diseases.  A YouGov poll shows that now fewer than half of Republicans are in support of childhood vaccines – representing a 13 point decline since 2019.

Additionally, red states such as Nebraska and Montana are passing new legislation to make exemptions from childhood vaccine requirements easier. 11 states have also filed lawsuits in response to Biden’s Covid vaccine mandate for businesses. In mid-October, West Virginia passed a bill forcing businesses to allow employees exemptions from the vaccines. Recently, Iowa passed a similar bill allowing employees to seek religious and medical exemptions from Covid-19 vaccine mandates.

Coming back to vaccine-preventable diseases, in July, WHO reported that more than 23 million children missed out on immunizations in 2020. Whether this was due to a disruption of health services or growing vaccine hesitancy – or both as per The Washington Post article – this news is alarming.

The article also explains how the percentage of vaccinated required for global immunity is different for different diseases: 95 percent for measles, 80 percent for polio etc. Regardless, the decrease in childhood immunizations threatens both global health and global economy (by increasing the likelihood of disease poverty).

Overall, the article makes a strong argument and successfully argues that Covid-19 has caused a rise in other diseases due to a decrease in immunizations. Although the article correctly identifies vaccine hesitancy and disruption of health services as the leading cause for this, my only criticism is the lack of mention of the global vaccine divide and how this links to vaccine hesitancy and disruption of health services.

The article has also substantiated the main argument with ample statistics which are relevant and correct as I have fact checked. However, it does not include statistics to show the supposed “rise” in other diseases, for example, stats related to the total number of measles cases reported this year or references to case studies where a certain disease was misdiagnosed. Adding these stats would have helped make the main argument sounder.

Earlier this year, President Joe Biden expressed his commitment to “advance racial equity and support underserved communities”. One of the goals he listed was closing the racial gap in healthcare especially following the effects of covid-19 which disproportionately impacted non-White communities.

Recently, a White House fact sheet was released crediting Biden’s government for closing the racial coronavirus vaccination rate since May. “Now Black, Brown and White rates for first injections are all in the 70 percent-plus range”, it says – representing an increase of 14 percent for both Black Americans and Hispanics.

However, are we looking at the right data to make this assertion? Or better still, do we have enough data to make this assertion?

For this week’s blog, I will mainly look at an article titled “Lacking data hinders Biden’s push for racial equity in health care”, published by The Washington Post on October 23. The article quotes stats thathighlight the disparity between the covid-19 death rates of White and non-White people: “death rate among Black people is two times greater; Hispanic people, 2.3 times; Native Americans, 2.4 times.” This data is taken from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

A study conducted by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) found “racial and ethnic data gaps” in the testing rates, cases, hospitalizations, deaths, and even vaccinations reported to the CDC. “Race and ethnicity information sent to CDC was incomplete for almost half of reported COVID-19 cases (47.2 percent),” said the report.

Earlier in 2019, GAO had reported “weaknesses in the completeness and accuracy” of Department of Veterans Affairs health records, which included “conflicting race and ethnicity information.” However, no attention was paid to this finding.

Today, the lack of data continues to hinder the government’s ability to identify and counter disparities and inequities within the healthcare system. It also prevents the government from taking credit for “closing gaps” when the data related to the gaps is incomplete.

Sources:

Davidson, J. (2021). Lacking data hinders Biden’s push for racial equity in health care. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/10/22/biden-federal-health-racial-equity-data/

This pie chart and graph should explain the argument I made in my blog post: although the overall rate of food insecurity remained 10.5 percent according to the report, the rates were disproportionately high among certain groups such as Hispanic and Black households, which the article overlooked.

Source: https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/food-security-in-the-us/key-statistics-graphics.aspx

For this week’s blog, I will mainly be analyzing an article called “Food insecurity in the U.S. didn’t worsen during the pandemic. Here’s why.” by The San Diego Union Tribune published on September 27.

This article describes the findings released in a report by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), particularly focusing on how the “2020 prevalence of food insecurity in the United States was unchanged from 10.5 percent in 2019” despite “such economic and social turmoil” caused by the pandemic.

The article credits the “extraordinary levels of federal nutrition assistance and aid from hunger relief organizations” for this shocking result. I agree that the work of relief programs is undoubtedly commendable especially as they were able to maintain 89.5 percent of U.S. households remain food secure throughout 2020 – a number unchanged from 2019 – at least according to the report.

However, I have some issues with the way the data compiled by the USDA is being used in this article.

While the article has not misquoted the 10.5 percent statistic from the report, it has completely ignored the other statistics mentioned in the report – particularly stats related to how food insecurity has disproportionately affected households with Black and Hispanic reference persons. Although the article does acknowledge that the pandemic exacerbated already present socio-economic and racial inequalities which lead to food insecurity, it purposefully chooses not to quote any stat here.

The USDA report mentions that while overall, food insecurity unchanged from 10.5 percent of U.S. households in the one year since the outbreak of the pandemic, the rates of food insecurity among certain household types were much higher than the national average. This includes a 21.7 percent for households with Black reference persons and a 17.2 percent for households with Hispanic reference persons.

In addition to race, family type and the number of children were also factors in determining whether the household was food-insecure or not. For example, the rate of food insecurity for all households with children was 14.8 percent while the rates for households with children headed by a single woman and a single man were 27.7 and 16.3 percent respectively.

All these numbers are higher than the 10.5 percent overall percentage so conveniently quoted by this article, but the article won’t tell you that.

Moreover, the report also states that “the prevalence rates of food insecurity varied considerably from State to State. But the article makes no mention of this either.

Conclusively, according to the data compiled by this report, it’s true that the overall percentage of food insecurity has not changed since 2019, particularly due to food relief efforts. However, we do not know yet how this number will change into 2021 especially as relief programs that cushioned the effects of the pandemic have already started expiring. It is also of great concern that food insecurity among certain households is higher than the average.

Whether this is because the pandemic and the resulting unemployment disproportionately affected Black and Hispanic households and/ or because food relief efforts were disproportionate among the population is up to debate and further analysis. However, one thing which is clear is that media sources will purposefully hide certain stats while emphasizing on others to push for certain propaganda.

Sources:

Shea, D. (2021). Food insecurity in the U.S. didn’t worsen during the pandemic. Here’s why. The san Diego Union-Tribune. https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/opinion/commentary/story/2021-09-27/food-insecurity-united-states-snap

Linking this image here taken from the New York Times’s covid vaccinations tracker which gives a full perspective on the vaccine divide between low-income developing countries and high-income countries. This link contains both graphs and tables to understand the concept of vaccine inequity better:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/world/covid-vaccinations-tracker.html

In his latest address from the White House on September 23, President Joe Biden announced that the USA was going to double its vaccine donation to 1.1 billion – a number larger than the total amount of donations by all other countries collectively.

As part of Biden’s challenge to world leaders to vaccinate 70% of the global population and 70% of each country’s population by 2022, he urged wealthier nations to step in and follow the USA’s example, emphasizing on “donating, not selling” to lower-income countries. Biden further stressed that the donations should be made “with no political strings attached”, in what is being viewed as a jab at rival China.

But when has the United States of America ever done anything “with no political strings attached”?

The USA has historically used countries in the Global South as a pawn in its own wars – be it the War on Terror or the Cold war – under the guise of protecting the citizens of these developing countries and upholding democracy. Hence, President Biden’s latest address seems oddly familiar, in which he said, “America will become the arsenal of vaccines, as we were the arsenal for democracy during World War II”.

The timing of Biden’s announcement seems impeccable especially because earlier in the week, China announced that it had delivered 1.1 billion vaccine doses to 100 countries. Based on past precedent, it is evident that similar to how the US used countries like Afghanistan, Vietnam, Korea as a battlefield in its Cold War against the Soviet Union, the US is using low-income countries as a battlefield in its war for “vaccine diplomacy” against China.

In the address, President Biden also declared a new EU-US partnership to “work more closely on expanding global vaccinations” in the wake of which the EU announced that it was increasing its vaccine donations to 500 million. Ironically though, the G7 countries including the USA and the EU have already purchased one-third of the world’s vaccine supply for their own populations despite accounting for only 13% of the global population.

Earlier in June, Biden promised to donate half a billion Pfizer vaccines to 92 middle and low-income countries including the African Union through COVAX. According to most news outlets, 160 million doses have already been distributed, and the remaining will be supplied in the coming year, as part of Biden’s goal to vaccinate 70% of the global population.

So, why then is the USA suddenly choosing to be more generous?

The answers all lie in the numbers. President Biden has been under scrutiny for encouraging a third vaccine dose for US citizens when fewer than 2% of the populations in developing countries have had their first shot. In some countries, the percentage is even lesser: 0.1% fully vaccinated in Yemen, 0.2% in Haiti, 0.3% in South Sudan, and less than 0.1% in Congo.

Health experts say that a total of 6 to 9 million vaccines are needed to inoculate the developing world. Even if Biden lives up to his promise of 1.1 million vaccines whether out of genuine concern for the developing world or to save face and/ or rival China, they will still be far too little to achieve his goal of vaccinating 70% of the globe.

Sources:

Biden says US donating extra 500 million COVID vaccines. (2021). The Korea Times. https://www.pressreader.com/search?query=biden%20vaccine

Biden pushing rich nations to share vaccine. (2021). Arab News. https://www.pressreader.com/search?query=biden%20vaccine

Holder, J. (2021). Tracking coronavirus vaccinations around the world. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/world/covid-vaccinations-tracker.html

Miller, Z. (2021). Biden announces sharing of vaccinations. Tulsa World. https://www.pressreader.com/search?query=biden%20vaccine

Smith, D. (2021). Biden increases US Covid vaccine donations to 1.1bn. The Guardian. https://www.pressreader.com/search?query=biden%20vaccine

Attaching this graph here which I have directly taken from the 2020 Orange County Hate Crimes Report, to substantiate the remark I made regarding the distinction between hate crimes and hate incidents in my most recent blog.

Racially motivated crimes against the Asian and Asian-American communities have increased worldwide and especially in the USA during the covid pandemic, with some blaming Asians due to the virus’s origins in Wuhan, China. Former US President Trump too added fuel to fire by referring to the pandemic as the “China virus” or “Kung flu”. The hate crimes range from hate-motivated graffiti on private property to physical assault to even murder.

For my second blog, I will be examining an article published by the Los Angeles Times on September 18, 2021. Titled “Orange County hate crimes up 35% in 2020”, the article reports on a study conducted by the nonprofit, Orange County Human Relations Commission, regarding the increase in hate crimes and racial violence during the 2020-2021 fiscal year.

While the article is correct in identifying the significant increase in hate crimes in 2020, motivated by anti-Asian sentiments during the pandemic, as highlighted in the OCHRC report, it’s gotten the numbers all wrong.

The article correctly points out that hate crimes in Orange County have increased by “35%” which is “the largest annual jump in at least a decade”. However, it fails to clarify that this stat refers to the total number of hate crimes. The increase in hate crimes against just the Asian population is 40%.

Another place where the article falls short is in identifying the distinction between hate crimes and hate incidents as understood by the state law in California. Both hate crimes and hate incidents are “motivated by hate or bias toward a person’s actual or perceived disability, gender identity, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation”.

However, while hate crimes are criminal offenses, behaviors classified as “hate incidents” are often protected by the First Amendment right to freedom of expression. If such behaviors escalate or pose a threat of violence, they are then treated as a “hate crime”, and the perpetrator can be prosecuted on these grounds. This distinction between hate crimes and hate incidents is necessary to draw conclusions from the statistics, as the report itself indicates.

In 2020, 112 hate crimes and 263 hate incidents were reported in Orange County. Hence, while the total increase in hate crimes is 35%, the total increase in hate incidents is 69%. Moreover, for the Asian population specifically, the increase in hate incidents is 1800%! By not reporting this astounding stat, the article is downplaying the significantly high threat against Asians following the pandemic.

Although the article has gotten the statistics wrong, even when it only required a simple copy-paste directly from the report, it’s successfully identified the news (increase in hate crimes and hate incidents), the cause (anti-Asian racial prejudice following the pandemic), and the problem even within these astounding numbers (hate attacks remain underreported).

Sources:

2020 Orange County Hate Crime Report. (2021). Orange County Human Relations Comission.  https://www.occommunityservices.org/sites/occs/files/2021-09/Hate%20Crime%20Report%202020.pdf

Do, A., & Fry, H. (2021). O.C hate crimes up 35% in 2020. The Los Angeles Times. https://www.pressreader.com/usa/los-angeles-times/20210918/page/95/textview

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-56218684

Within the first year of the pandemic, 54 million women around the world lost their jobs, widening the gender gap in employment. Out of this 54 million, around 90 percent left the labor force completely compared to about 70% of men. The Washington Post analyzed data from Thailand, Peru, and France to study the impact of the pandemic on the gender gap in employment.

According to estimates by the International Labor Organization, between 2019 and 2020, female employment has declined by 4.2 percent compared to 3 percent for men. The Post’s study identified one reason for this is that in most countries, women were disproportionately represented in service sector jobs such as in hospitality, retail, and foodservice which were devastated by continuous or recurring lockdowns. In Thailand, for example, the collapse of the tourism industry hit women hard – by the second quarter of 2020, 339,000 women had lost their jobs compared to 5,500 male workers as 30% of all women were working in sectors that were the most affected by the pandemic.

Another reason for the unequal distribution of unemployment among men and women is that around the world, more women than men were working informal jobs without job security, regular hours, and benefits.

In addition to the disproportionate share of job losses, data from Peru revealed that women are also recovering from job losses slower than men, and many have been further forced to move from the formal to the informal workforce. Moreover, women’s hours of unpaid labor have also increased as they took on more responsibility within their households for childcare, elder care, and homeschooling.

However, while the gender gap in employment has widened universally, in some countries, the gap has narrowed, such as in the case of France, where in late 2020, the gap narrowed to a record low in the past 10 years. Analysis of data obtained at the early stages of the pandemic from France showed that social welfare programs across the European Union may have cushioned the fall in female employment. While this is news worth celebrating, it is too early to decide how long the country’s social safety net would protect women.

Looking at global trends, data analysts worry that the pandemic has canceled out decades of progress towards gender equality. Saadia Zahidi, managing director of the World economic Fund says, “What the data are telling us is that it could take a generation longer to get to equality.”

Sources:

Rauhala, E., Narayanswamy, A., Sin, Y., & Ledur, J. (2021). How the pandemic set back women’s progress in the global workforce. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/interactive/2021/coronavirus-women-work/?utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=wp_main