[–] doompie 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago (edited ago)
tl;dr race is not ancestry. Duh.
But, there are differences in disease prevalence between different races. Race as taxonomically and politically and sociologically defined. There's no way of getting around it; and even though race is a poor proxy for ancestry, and has no genetic basis, it's a damn good epidemiological predictor. I think the authors are wrong to shy away from this use. Heart disease has a higher prevalence among african americans; it's unclear how to couch this fact in other terms.
[–] [deleted] 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago (edited ago)
[–] doompie 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
showing just how bad of a predictor race actually is.
of genetic effects. An epidemiologist would have to ignore their many years of training to believe that different prevalences among different races are driven by pure genetics -- especially as heritability doesn't also change between the populations.
But because race is tied to cultural, environmental, and social factors; it's great at summarizing these at a group level. Myocardial infarction is twice as frequent among black men than among white women (source).
I'm all for eliminating race from genetic interpretation, where it is misused in place of ancestry. Epidemiologically, however, the social construct of race tags many non-genetic factors relevant to disease. There's no way around it.
[–] mig2k ago (edited ago)
TIL, Homo dindu is real.