Men are more likely than women to die of COVID-19<\/h5>\n

Share of COVID-19 patients who died, by gender<\/p>\n<\/header>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

<\/th>\n	Deaths among confirmed cases<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n
Country<\/th>\n	male<\/th>\n	female<\/th>\n	ratio<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
Dominican Republic<\/td>\n	6.5%<\/td>\n	2.1%<\/td>\n	3.0<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Thailand<\/td>\n	2.5<\/td>\n	0.9<\/td>\n	2.7<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Greece<\/td>\n	7.8<\/td>\n	3.1<\/td>\n	2.5<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Romania<\/td>\n	7.9<\/td>\n	3.5<\/td>\n	2.3<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
The Netherlands<\/td>\n	18.1<\/td>\n	8.1<\/td>\n	2.2<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Italy<\/td>\n	17.1<\/td>\n	9.3<\/td>\n	1.8<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Belgium<\/td>\n	15.3<\/td>\n	8.6<\/td>\n	1.8<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Northern Ireland<\/td>\n	10.4<\/td>\n	5.6<\/td>\n	1.8<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Spain<\/td>\n	10.2<\/td>\n	5.8<\/td>\n	1.8<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Ecuador<\/td>\n	6.9<\/td>\n	3.9<\/td>\n	1.8<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Denmark<\/td>\n	6.6<\/td>\n	3.6<\/td>\n	1.8<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Argentina<\/td>\n	6.3<\/td>\n	3.5<\/td>\n	1.8<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Philippines<\/td>\n	8.2<\/td>\n	4.9<\/td>\n	1.7<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
China<\/td>\n	4.7<\/td>\n	2.8<\/td>\n	1.7<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Sweden<\/td>\n	15.1<\/td>\n	9.4<\/td>\n	1.6<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Mexico<\/td>\n	10.9<\/td>\n	6.9<\/td>\n	1.6<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Switzerland<\/td>\n	6.1<\/td>\n	3.7<\/td>\n	1.6<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Ukraine<\/td>\n	3.2<\/td>\n	2.0<\/td>\n	1.6<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
South Korea<\/td>\n	2.9<\/td>\n	1.8<\/td>\n	1.6<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Indonesia<\/td>\n	9.3<\/td>\n	6.4<\/td>\n	1.5<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Republic of Ireland<\/td>\n	5.8<\/td>\n	3.7<\/td>\n	1.5<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Colombia<\/td>\n	5.4<\/td>\n	3.5<\/td>\n	1.5<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Peru<\/td>\n	3.1<\/td>\n	2.1<\/td>\n	1.5<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
South Africa<\/td>\n	1.7<\/td>\n	1.1<\/td>\n	1.5<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Australia<\/td>\n	1.5<\/td>\n	1.0<\/td>\n	1.5<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Portugal<\/td>\n	4.7<\/td>\n	3.3<\/td>\n	1.4<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Germany<\/td>\n	4.5<\/td>\n	3.2<\/td>\n	1.4<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Canada<\/td>\n	4.5<\/td>\n	3.6<\/td>\n	1.3<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Austria<\/td>\n	4.1<\/td>\n	3.1<\/td>\n	1.3<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Norway<\/td>\n	2.9<\/td>\n	2.3<\/td>\n	1.3<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Finland<\/td>\n	3.3<\/td>\n	2.8<\/td>\n	1.2<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Luxembourg<\/td>\n	2.6<\/td>\n	2.1<\/td>\n	1.2<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Iran<\/td>\n	5.9<\/td>\n	5.4<\/td>\n	1.1<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
India<\/td>\n	2.6<\/td>\n	3.1<\/td>\n	0.9<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Pakistan<\/td>\n	2.0<\/td>\n	2.8<\/td>\n	0.7<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/section>\n This dynamic isn\u2019t new to medicine<\/a>. \u201cWomen have stronger adaptive immune responses and die less of infectious disease their entire lives, starting from infant mortality<\/a>,\u201d Dowd said. In general, women\u2019s bodies kick out bacterial and viral invaders faster than men\u2019s do, and vaccines work better for women than for men.<\/p>\n To see why, look to hormones and genetics, said Sabra Klein, professor of microbiology and immunology at Johns Hopkins University. Sex hormones appear to play a role determining how well human bodies can fight off disease. In general, estrogens amp up the immune system<\/a>, while androgens (like testosterone) and progesterone suppress it. Hormones have to interact with cells to do their jobs, Klein said, so cells have a \u201clock\u201d and hormones have the \u201ckey\u201d to get in. And, turns out, every immune cell in your body has these kinds of lock-and-key receptors.<\/p>\n Sex chromosomes also play a role. The X chromosome, for example, has 60 genes associated with immune function. Most biological males are born with one X chromosome, but those immune-boosting genes tend to be expressed more frequently in women, who generally have two X chromosomes, Klein said.<\/p>\n But if you\u2019re tempted to think those sex differences boil down to \u201cmen are more likely to die from infectious disease,\u201d Klein cautioned that the generalization is not true across the board. Sex differentiation in influenza has been pretty well studied, she told me, and, in that case, women\u2019s more aggressive immune systems don\u2019t give us an advantage. Having too much of an inflammatory immune response to the flu can actually increase your risk of complications \u2014 including acute respiratory distress syndrome, when the lungs\u2019 tiny air sacs, called alveoli, are damaged and fill with fluid. \u201cReproductive-age women do worse, not better,\u201d Klein said.<\/p>\n What we know we don\u2019t know<\/b><\/h2>\n But while researchers know a decent amount about sex differences in influenza, the novel coronavirus is, yes, novel. Any research on it is a work in progress, proceeding without full data. That starts with basic documentation.<\/p>\n On April 28th, the United States had reported 57,318<\/a> deaths from the novel coronavirus, but only 31,586 of those deaths had been reported in ways that allowed Global Health 50\/50 to break them down by sex. None of the researchers I spoke with knew why<\/i> that data isn\u2019t getting reported. But without it, they\u2019re left to a lot of guesswork and speculation. It\u2019s safe to assume that deaths in the U.S. are probably following the patterns seen in many other countries \u2014 but we don\u2019t know for sure that that\u2019s true.<\/p>\n Then there\u2019s the fact that the variations in how this virus affects people probably isn\u2019t just about what\u2019s in their chromosomes or hormones. It\u2019s also about sociological gender \u2014 the attitudes, stereotypes and norms that shape the ways people behave and the choices they make.<\/p>\n For example, a 2016 meta-analysis<\/a> showed that women are about 50 percent more likely than men to start using non-pharmaceutical protective behaviors during a pandemic \u2014 things like wearing face masks or avoiding public transit. Men, meanwhile, were about 12 percent more likely than women to sign up for vaccines, take antiviral medication, or use other pharmaceutical interventions. Those differences in behavior aren\u2019t determined by biology, but they could help create variations in how a virus affects men and women.<\/p>\n Rosemary Morgan, a scientist at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health who studies how gender and sex interact with public health, thinks these kinds of effects are happening with COVID-19. But how and to what extent \u2014 that\u2019s unknown. It also probably differs from country to country, thanks to the way gender norms also aren\u2019t consistent everywhere you go.<\/p>\n Case in point: When data on sex disparities in COVID-19 deaths first began to come in from China, it wasn\u2019t clear that the differences in death rates there would mean other counties were going to experience the same thing. That\u2019s because China has particularly gendered smoking habits, Dowd told me. In a 2010 study, 54 percent of Chinese men surveyed were current smokers<\/a>. In contrast, the same study found that less than 3 percent of Chinese women currently smoked. Although sex differences in COVID-19 death rates have cropped up again in other countries, it\u2019s likely that this gender disparity in smoking plays a role in why 64 percent of China\u2019s COVID-19 deaths have been among men even though men account for right around half of China\u2019s confirmed cases.<\/p>\n Gender norms may also influence the niches where women are getting the disease more than men, despite men\u2019s higher death rates. When the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention looked at the characteristics of health care workers who have contracted COVID-19, it found that 73 percent were women<\/a>. Why are female health care workers getting infected at much higher rates? Part of it likely has to do with their higher odds of exposure.<\/p>\n Nurses\u2019 jobs put them in close physical contact with patients who have COVID-19 and other infectious diseases<\/a>, and more than 70 percent of nurses are women. Meanwhile, the personal protective equipment meant to help keep medical workers safe often isn\u2019t designed with women in mind<\/a>. Gloves can be too large. Masks don\u2019t always fit women\u2019s faces with a tight seal. Gender dynamics could be putting a largely female workforce in harm\u2019s way.<\/p>\n In the end, regardless of your sex \u2014 or your gender \u2014 the risks you face from COVID-19 are probably somewhat unique to you. But if we want to figure out just what, exactly, those risks are, we\u2019re going to need more data.<\/p>\n How a shortage of sand could delay coronavirus vaccine l FiveThirtyEight<\/h3>\n<\/p><\/div>\n Read More<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The novel coronavirus seems to be killing more men than women. The trend was first noticed in China, experts say, and the higher COVID-19 death rate for men has since been documented in 33 countries, including Germany, Spain and South Korea. But experts don\u2019t know what\u2019s causing the gap. Is it biological, some quirk of…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":25476,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"tdm_status":"","tdm_grid_status":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[24],"tags":[414,2002],"class_list":{"0":"post-25475","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-health","8":"tag-dying","9":"tag-women"},"yoast_head":"\n