Are low income, racialized people really the hardest hit?

Vincent J. Curtis

16 Oct 20

The Hamilton Spectator of today's date ran a front page article whose headlined claimed that low income and racialized people were the "hardest hit" by COVID-19.  The story made reference to the "Social Determinants of Health," and that gave the propaganda game away.  That theory was dealt with previously on this pages.  Above that story was one announcing that the police were finally breaking up the homeless that had lain on Ferguson Ave. N. for months.

A satire of a New York Times headline ran: World Ending Tomorrow; Women, Minorities hardest hit.  The Spectator ran satire as a real headline!

Never mind that what “hardest hit” means is unclear.  Asymptomatic cases aren’t hit in any practical sense.  So, it is measured in hospitalizations and deaths?  Maybe, except that Province of Ontario doesn’t publish records of hospitalizations and deaths by race, income, housing, or employment.  It publishes data based on demographic, sex, and health care region.

If you look at that data, the hardest hit in terms of cases is the 20-29 demographic, while in terms of deaths, it is the 80-89 demographic.  Toronto region has by far the most cases and deaths.  There is no breakdown by race and income on the page.

Then we read of the “Social Determinants of Health” (SDOH), and all becomes clearer.  SDOH is a bit of Marxian analysis that purports to show disparities in suffering based on class.  SDOH theory was refuted here before, and the homeless camps story gives a practical demonstration of its falsity.  If any group was to be hard hit by Covid, it would be those in the homeless camps.  But in Hamilton, and miraculously everywhere else, Covid seems to have passed these camps by.  It was the Ladies of Spinco who gave us an example of what a statistical anomaly looks like.

The data alleged in the article is sourced mysteriously.  I say it’s made up by self-interested researchers or, at best, is anecdotal.

-30-