2 ms·
This is not consistent with an NIH study previously discussed here in: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23006202 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23006
by giardini 7y ago
This is not consistent with an NIH study previously discussed here in:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23006202 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23006202
In that study
"Covid-19 Coagulopathy in Caucasian Patients":
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32330308/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32330308/
Covid-19 was shown to kill/wound preferably African-Americans, then Caucasians and lastly Chinese:
"Critically however, ethnicity has major effects on thrombotic risk, with a 3-4 fold lower risk in Chinese compared to Caucasians and a significantly higher risk in African-Americans."
Sound like an effective ethnic bioweapon. And, since most Chinese American citizens are Republicans and most African-Americans are Democrats, there may be just enough lethality to change the outcome of a USA Presidential election.
P.S. Curiously Africa shows low numbers of Covid-19 (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23010276 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23010276), the above article seems to indicate that African-Americans do less well than Caucasians or Chinese, so isn't this another part of the puzzle?
- tlb 7y agoIn UK terminology, "Asian" includes people from India and the rest of South Asia. South Asians are probably the majority of "Asians" in the UK study. In the US, South Asians are usually grouped separately from East Asians. In any case the US study refers specifically to Chinese. (All these labels are only very loosely related to genetics.) So the results of both studies are consistent with risk levels: Chinese < European < South Asian.