Impact of Covid19 on those with protected characteristics

[Kit19]

Call for evidence

twitter.com/ukparl_research/status/1245288759668736000?s=21

We all as human beings have protected characteristics.. so presumably they are saying interested in some of these than others.

They say:

The Inquiry:

The Committee has been concerned to hear that people with protected characteristics are disproportionately affected by Covid-19 and the Government’s response, including the emergency Coronavirus Bill. We are particularly interested to hear about what impact these measures have had, and will continue to have, and whether the Government’s aim to support workers and people more widely have considered all relevant equality impacts. The Committee is calling for written submissions about:

Your experiences. We want to know:

How people have been affected by the illness or the response to it
If there have been specific impacts on people due to them having a protected characteristic
Whether there may be unforeseen consequences to measures brought in to ease the burden on frontline staff, for example relaxing the measures under the Mental Health Act and Care Act)

I’m tempted to write in and say that everyone’s lives are at risk from poor data collection based on ‘what is your gender’ type of data collection when we know COVID 19 is affecting men worse because of their sex. Also to ask why public health campaigns are not directed at men as an apparently less compliant group to such advice and also known to have poorer personal hygiene eg less hand washing adherence.

I can’t seem to find the thread about impacts of COVID on women but there was one and it has lots of good points on it. I can think of pregnant women not being able to have a birthing partner with them as a significant impact that is causing a lot of anxiety as due to lower staffing levels or even routine staffing levels in an overstretched service. women fear being left labouring alone for long periods of time.
Women who needed an earlier abortion only recently being able to get the medication to use at home without clinic visits which added to risk- and not at all in Northern Ireland as far as I know. Clinics for fertility patients have been closed. Women’s non-essential health services of all kind closed. School closures and the disproportionate effects on women (more likely to be single parents) also in relation to caring for elderly relatives and shielding/ isolation also issues. There are so many issues.

Anyway if women do have time to respond with their issues and concerns it will be worth it to get these things thought about. Plus because it reminds Parliamentarians that all protected characteristics are important and there isn’t actually any hierarchy to that.

I’m tempted to write in and say that everyone’s lives are at risk from poor data collection based on ‘what is your gender’ type of data collection when we know COVID 19 is affecting men worse because of their sex.

I have signed up to the COVID Symptom Tracker, which is a research app run by several research groups including King's College London, Guy's and St Thomas' Biomedical Research Centre and Wellcome. Quite a few of my colleagues have also signed up and it seems to be particularly aimed at healthcare staff with regular questions about contact with patients and PPE.

How disappointing to be asked about "Sex assigned at birth" followed by "what gender do you most identify with". My complaint hasn't been acknowledged yet.

A large number of women complained about it some time ago now Fanny. They stopped responding to our emails and ignored us on social media.
Thread here:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3865149-Zoe-has-gone-woke?pg=1

The 'assigned at birth' nonsense appeared shortly after this happened:

Is age a protected characteristic? That appears to be the main one (obesity/ high BMI too but that's not protected).

Is living in poverty a protected characteristic?
People in poverty seem to be higher risk of dying from Covid-29.

The virus doesn't give a shit about identity politics.

Funnily enough, if you're born female, not elderly, not living in poverty, you don't have underlying health conditions, you don't work in a hospital coming in close contact with people with the virus,
Newsflash:
You're fine!

Likewise, of you're an undergrad BMA trans person who works from home studying/ being a SJW, you're fine too!

"Protected characteristics" look pretty superficial in the face of a killer pandemic.

Stop making it about YOU.

Thanks MrsSnippyPants I missed that thread.

found the thread:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3846761-effects-of-corona-virus-on-women

why public health campaigns are not directed at men as an apparently less compliant group to such advice and also known to have poorer personal hygiene eg less hand washing adherence.

I posted about this upthread. Government have had this pointed out by psychologists but don’t appear to want to change anything about their existing messaging to reflect evidenced male noncompliance; I do wonder why they are holding back on addressing men specifically?
BBC news: *Coronavirus: Young men 'more likely to ignore lockdown'
www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52587368

‘ Young men are more likely than young women to break lockdown rules, psychologists suggest.
A team from the University of Sheffield and Ulster University questioned just under 2,000 13-24 year olds.
Half of the men aged 19-24 had met friends or family members they did not live with during lockdown, compared to 25% of women.
The researchers called on the government to better target messages for young people.
Non-compliance 'linked to anxiety'
Just under half of all those questioned - 917 young people - said they were feeling significantly more anxious during the lockdown - particularly if they had a parent who was a key worker.
Those with depression were more likely to flout lockdown rules by meeting up with friends and leaving the house unnecessarily; while those with anxiety were more likely to practise social distancing and regularly wash their hands.
Dr Liat Levita from the University of Sheffield says mental health is no justification for not following the rules, but it might help us understand why it's difficult for certain people to comply.
"The more someone is depressed, the less compliant and de-motivated they are.
"So if you need to hand-wash more often and need to make an effort in following the guidelines, it's not something that you're actually going to be able to do very well."
Dr Levita says it's important to understanding how young people are feeling throughout the coronavirus crisis and not wait to help them.
"If you have a broken leg, you don't wait two months before you go to the hospital to get it fixed."
Young men 'take more risks'
This research found 150 out of 281 men aged 19-24 had met with a group of friends during lockdown, while a fifth had been reprimanded by police - either dispersed, fined or arrested as a result of breaking the rules
This male group was also more likely to think they weren't at risk of catching Covid-19 or spreading it to others, and that following the government's guidelines was not worthwhile.
Dr Levita says "we know that males in general take more risks and evolutionary psychologists have always explained that in terms of males trying to show off.
"They will take more risks and their decision-making processes are shaped by that so their behaviour actually makes sense to them."
The findings come after recent statistics from the National Police Chief's Council which found a third of those fined by police for breaking lockdown rules were aged 18-24 and eight out of ten were men.
Across all ages, the study showed the majority were not complying with basic hygiene recommendations such as washing hands regularly, but most said they intended to follow the guidelines in future weeks.
The psychologists say the government must do more to explain the reasons for ongoing physical distancing to help young people understand lockdown rules.
The Department of Health has highlighted the government's campaign urging people to stay at home and the advice ministers give at the daily press briefing.’

(that was my bolding at the end there)