[ad_1]
Editor’s Note: Some of our covid-19 coverage is free for The Economist Today, our daily newsletter. For more stories and our pandemic tracker, see our hub
C.OVID-19 IS NOT colour blind. In England, a black man is nearly four times more likely to die from the disease than a white man of a similar age. In New York state, in the early months of the pandemic, black and Hispanic children were more than twice as likely to lose a parent or caregiver to covid-19 than those who were white or Asian. Few countries publish health data filtered by race or ethnicity, but in those that do, the pandemic appears to be killing more people from racial minorities.
This confirms the worst fears of public health officials. Covid-19 has exposed countries’ broad racial health inequalities and exacerbated them (see article). The virus also highlighted the paucity of decent data on ethnicity or race. Most governments don’t know if the pandemic is hitting particular groups hardest, let alone why. As of April, only 7 percent of reports published in major journals on covid-19 deaths recorded ethnicity. In Western Europe, most countries only collect information on people’s “migrant status” (often, where their parents were born), a flawed flaw.
Covid-19 should be a wake-up call. As in the gender inequality debate, awareness of racial gaps has grown. Both suffer from overly intuitive arguments and insufficient data. But while there has been something of a gender data revolution, many remain uncomfortable collecting data on ethnicity and race. Some countries, such as France, prohibit the collection of such data. In Germany, members of the Green Party want to remove the floor race, a term charged with “race”, from the constitution.
Such anxieties should not be ignored. It is no coincidence that countries and communities, including Jews and Roma, most opposed to registration of race or ethnicity have often seen how it can be used to facilitate discrimination, segregation and even genocide. Among the most recent reminders of the damage such information can do in the wrong hands is the war in Ethiopia (see article).
Yet these are arguments for anonymizing data, not for ignoring it. Race itself is not the cause of most health differences, but it is often closely related to policy failures, such as access to education, health care or employment, that cause those inequalities. It is only by understanding the roots of these defects that the gaps can be reduced. Data should be carefully safeguarded and its use strictly regulated. While recognizing the sensitivity of information is key, so is collecting and sharing it.
Inequalities and injustices can only be efficiently addressed when they become statistically visible. It was the fear of inequality that led Britain, Finland and Ireland to ensure that public bodies collected this data regularly. Colombia, New Zealand and America, among the few places that collect indigenous population statistics, use them to distribute federal funding. After Brazil began collecting data in the late 1990s from five different skin colors, the gap in infant mortality between indigenous and white children became apparent. Public outrage has led to serious efforts to begin narrowing the gap. The Brazilian example shows that the data must be granular. General terms like “Bame“(Black, Asian or ethnic minority), used in Britain, are of no help.” Non-Western migrant “or” born abroad “contain even less information.
The data also provides a baseline. This allows you to make comparisons and track progress. Canada makes data on regional ethnicity available, in part, so local employers can see if their workforce is representative.
The relationship between ethnicity and other factors, such as health or academic performance, can change over time. Children of migrants often do better than their parents. And although the health of black Americans is even worse than that of whites, the gap is narrowing. By contrast, the health of poor Americans remains far worse than that of the rich and the gap is widening. So it is essential to have data on other characteristics as well, such as deprivation, education and parental income.
Data collection is just the beginning. Governments must therefore decide to use information to address the underlying causes of inequality in health, education or the labor market. But ignorance shouldn’t be a reason to hold back. ■
This article appeared in the Leaders section of the print edition under the title “Wanted: more data”
Source link
