> Try telling that to sufferers of sickle cell anaemia.
And do you believe that the persons who in various cultures would be called “black” but are actually genetically 95+% “white” would be more likely to suffer from that? or conversely that the persons who are genetically 95% “black” but would in various cultures be called “white” are not?
Such risk factors do not of course care about arbitrary cultural racial classifications which are often noted to be asymmetrically contagious in various cultures.
> They’re not making a general statement about race, they’re relating it to a specific thing. “Race” may be an overloaded, and often misused term - certainly a misnomer - but it still can be used as a shorthand that is useful especially in medical contexts. Here, it’s probably to warn against generalising beyond whites, though the meaningfulness will be borne out by research with regards to this specific virus, not through your feelings or inferences about possible inferences.
If that be their intent, they firstly communicate it poorly and should have simply said so, and secondly it's useless.
Again, in various countries with a majority nonwhite population, a person who might genetically be 5% white, and 95% local population could conceivably be termed “white”: — is it their intention and your contention that the results of this research may then be applied to such a person that is effectively genetically close to local population?
> And do you believe that the persons who in various cultures would be called “black” but are actually genetically 95+% “white” would be more likely to suffer from that?
Individuals and populations are different.
> Such risk factors do not of course care about arbitrary cultural racial classifications which are often noted to be asymmetrically contagious in various cultures.
Risk factors may not care but individuals in at-risk populations are likely care that knowledge of different risks to them, based on their race or not, is available.
> If that be their intent, they firstly communicate it poorly and should have simply said so, and secondly it's useless.
That's your contention, I'm yet to see a cogent argument or any evidence for this.
> Again, in various countries with a majority nonwhite population, a person who might genetically be 5% white, and 95% local population could conceivably be termed “white”: — is it their intention and your contention that the results of this research may then be applied to such a person that is effectively genetically close to local population?
Reading this, it is my belief that you have missed the point of the authors intent, the reasons for using race as a category in medicine, and all of the arguments put forth to you.
And do you believe that the persons who in various cultures would be called “black” but are actually genetically 95+% “white” would be more likely to suffer from that? or conversely that the persons who are genetically 95% “black” but would in various cultures be called “white” are not?
Such risk factors do not of course care about arbitrary cultural racial classifications which are often noted to be asymmetrically contagious in various cultures.
> They’re not making a general statement about race, they’re relating it to a specific thing. “Race” may be an overloaded, and often misused term - certainly a misnomer - but it still can be used as a shorthand that is useful especially in medical contexts. Here, it’s probably to warn against generalising beyond whites, though the meaningfulness will be borne out by research with regards to this specific virus, not through your feelings or inferences about possible inferences.
If that be their intent, they firstly communicate it poorly and should have simply said so, and secondly it's useless.
Again, in various countries with a majority nonwhite population, a person who might genetically be 5% white, and 95% local population could conceivably be termed “white”: — is it their intention and your contention that the results of this research may then be applied to such a person that is effectively genetically close to local population?