Join us.

We’re working to create a just society and preserve a healthy environment for future generations. Donate today to help.

Donate

Inequality and the Coronavirus

Originally published on Legal Planet. Reprinted with permission.

It's a truism among disaster experts that people who were disadvantaged before a disaster are also the most vulnerable during the disaster. There are aspects of the coronavirus pandemic that fit this mold. Here are some of the disparities we can expect to see.

Rural v. Urban

Much of our economic growth and job opportunity is in cities, which is why young people continually leave the countryside. Life expectancies also tend to be lower in rural areas. Although it's hard to be sure, people in those areas may also be disadvantaged in terms of the coronavirus. The virus is likely to spread more slowly in rural areas because the web of interpersonal interactions is less dense and because rural areas are further from the airports that initially spread the disease. That's a definite advantage. But when the epidemic does reach rural areas, the toll may be greater. According to USA Today, "18 million people live in counties that have hospitals but no ICU, about a quarter of them 60 or older, the analysis shows. Nearly 11 million more Americans reside in counties with no hospital, some 2.7 million of them seniors."

If the disease does reach these people, their mortality rate may be much higher than that of those who are closer to health care resources. The mortality rates from flu outbreaks give some indication of potential COVID-19 mortality, since the vulnerable populations are somewhat similar. One modeling effort concluded:

"The pattern of flu deaths over the past five years, however, shows that big metro areas are not hot spots for high flu death rates. Most of the deaths are among the large population in big cities, but the risk for any individual person goes up dramatically where homes are sparse.

"Very rural areas have a 60 percent higher death rate from flu than the big metro areas, according to analysis of CDC death records."

Some other modeling indicates, however, that with strong measures to prevent spread, rural areas could be spared much of the impact. However, for political reasons, rural areas may be less likely to impose such measures.

Race and Class

There are likely to be racial disparities in terms of exposure to the virus. For instance, a study during the swine flu outbreak found that Hispanic respondents were much more likely to say that their job could only be done at their workplace or that they would have difficulty taking a week off work. The study also found that blacks and Hispanics were much more likely to have difficulty avoiding public transportation.

There are also possible racial disparities in terms of preexisting conditions that increase vulnerability. The connections between race and chronic disease are complicated. Diabetes rates for blacks and Hispanics are about 50% above those for non-Hispanic whites. High blood pressure is significantly more prevalent among blacks than whites, with an especially pronounced difference between black women and white women. The CDC reports that "hypertension prevalence was higher among non-Hispanic black (40.3%) than non-Hispanic white (27.8%), non-Hispanic Asian (25.0%), or Hispanic (27.8%) adults."

In terms of income level, people under the poverty line are much more likely to suffer from asthma. There's also a striking connection between diabetes and income. People whose income is below $24,000 are three times as likely to be diabetic as people with incomes over $120,000.

Probably the biggest impact of income involves accessibility to health care. Even in states that have expanded Medicaid, people below the poverty line are more likely to be uninsured. In states that have not expanded Medicaid, the difference is dramatic. In those states, affluent individuals with income more than four times the poverty level are about six times more likely to have health insurance than people below the poverty line. Poorer adults are also about 50% more likely to say that they have no "usual source" of health care. Even if the health care system is willing to provide expensive coronavirus treatment to the uninsured poor, their lack of resources and lesser familiarity with the health care system may make them reluctant to seek help or testing.

The upshot

The top priority right now is slowing the spread of the disease while getting the resources we need for the health care system to function. The disparities in disease exposure and prevalence mean that we will have to be careful going forward to ensure that these particularly vulnerable populations are not left behind.

Showing 2,821 results

Daniel Farber | March 30, 2020

Inequality and the Coronavirus

It's a truism among disaster experts that people who were disadvantaged before a disaster are also the most vulnerable during the disaster. There are aspects of the coronavirus pandemic that fit this mold. Here are some of the disparities we can expect to see.

Daniel Farber | March 26, 2020

The Flight from Evidence-Based Regulation

The Trump administration's major deregulatory efforts share a common theme. They assiduously avoid having to rely on scientific or economic evidence. Confronting that evidence is time-consuming and difficult, particularly when it often comes out the other way. Instead, the administration has come up with clever strategies to shut out the evidence.

Liz Fisher, Sidney A. Shapiro | March 25, 2020

Three Steps for an Expert Response to COVID-19

Whatever one's political views, the end goal regarding the coronavirus (COVID-19) is the same – to minimize the number of people dying and suffering from severe disease. As commentators have repeatedly noted, we need genuine expertise for that. Beyond involving scientists and physicians in decision-making, there are three steps in determining what that expertise should look like and how we tap into it most effectively.

Darya Minovi | March 24, 2020

Coronavirus Pandemic Reinforces the Need for Cumulative Impacts Analysis

As the coronavirus (COVID-19) continues to spread around the globe, the inequalities in American society have come into even sharper relief. People with low incomes who are unable to work from home risk being exposed to the virus at work or losing their jobs altogether. Their children may no longer have access to free or reduced-price meals at school. They are also less likely to have health insurance, receive new drugs, or have access to primary or specialty care, putting them at a greater risk of succumbing to the illness. As with any shock to the system – natural disaster, conflict, and now a pandemic – vulnerable populations are hit hardest and have a harder time bouncing back.

Katie Tracy | March 23, 2020

Safeguarding Workers and Our Economy from the Coronavirus — Part II

In a previous post, Katie Tracy explored five essential elements of an effective response to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. They included closure of all nonessential businesses, paid sick leave and family medical leave, health and safety standards for infectious diseases, hazard pay, and workers' compensation. Here are five more things we need to protect workers and our economy from the crisis.

Katie Tracy | March 23, 2020

Safeguarding Workers and Our Economy from the Coronavirus — Part I

As the coronavirus (COVID-19) sweeps the planet, it threatens billions of people and all but promises a global economic recession of uncertain magnitude. As I'm sure you are, I’m deeply concerned about what this means for my family, my neighbors, and my broader community.

James Goodwin | March 19, 2020

CPR, Allies Call on Trump Administration to Hold Open Public Comment Process during COVID-19 Pandemic

Earlier this week, a group of 25 Center for Progressive Reform (CPR) Board Members, Member Scholars, and staff signed a joint letter urging Russell Vought, Acting Director of the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB), to direct federal agencies to hold open active public comment periods for pending rulemakings amid the COVID-19 pandemic. The letter further urges Vought to extend comment periods for at least 30 days beyond the end of the crisis.

K.K. DuVivier | March 19, 2020

Can Political Headwinds Against U.S. Offshore Wind Power Help Policy Change Course?

Offshore wind holds huge promise as a renewable electricity source. Using existing turbine technologies, the U.S. potential is 2,058,000 megawatts (MW), enough to generate double the electricity demand of the entire United States in 2015. About 80 percent of that electricity demand is along the coasts, so getting the power to the public could prove easier than transmitting it from wind-rich midwestern states. Utilities from eight states up and down the East Coast from Maine to Virginia have committed to procuring 22,500 MW of offshore wind so far, and wind power appeared poised to take off when the Department of the Interior awarded 11 commercial offshore leases in 2016.

Alexandra Klass | March 18, 2020

Public Lands and Just Energy Transitions

Our vast public lands and waters are both a major contributor to the global climate crisis and a potential solution to the problem. The extraction and use of oil and gas resources from public lands and waters produce 20 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. If the public lands were its own nation, it would be the fifth largest global emitter of GHGs. The scale of this problem has been exacerbated by the current administration.