Support 100 years of independent journalism.

  1. Politics
  2. The Staggers
1 April 2021updated 23 Jul 2021 1:33pm

The Race Commission left out “inconvenient evidence” on Covid-19 deaths, claims insider

A Sage paper on ethnic minority coronavirus deaths was omitted from the report, despite being submitted as evidence by the Department of Health and Social Care.

By Ailbhe Rea

It is “impossible to square” some of the conclusions of the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities report with the evidence it considered, a source with close knowledge of the Commission tells the New Statesman, claiming the Commission made “selective use” of evidence in its findings.   

The source, who wishes to remain anonymous, expresses concern that “a huge amount of motivated reasoning was going on as this evidence was being heard and interpreted” and that “inconvenient evidence” was dismissed. 

The Department of Health and Social Care’s (DHSC) submission to the review, seen by the New Statesman, prominently features a September 2020 report by the ethnicity sub-group of the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (Sage) that investigated what was driving higher coronavirus rates and deaths among ethnic minorities, and cites it in the conclusions of its submission to the race report.

The Sage paper is a comprehensive review of coronavirus health data, “the strongest evidence of unexplained racial and ethnic differences in health outcomes due to the detailed control variables used in the studies”, according to the DHSC submission.

[See also: The government has made sure its new racism report is of no use whatsoever]

Sign up for The New Statesman’s newsletters Tick the boxes of the newsletters you would like to receive. Quick and essential guide to domestic and global politics from the New Statesman's politics team. The New Statesman’s global affairs newsletter, every Monday and Friday. The best of the New Statesman, delivered to your inbox every weekday morning. The New Statesman’s weekly environment email on the politics, business and culture of the climate and nature crises - in your inbox every Thursday. A handy, three-minute glance at the week ahead in companies, markets, regulation and investment, landing in your inbox every Monday morning. Our weekly culture newsletter – from books and art to pop culture and memes – sent every Friday. A weekly round-up of some of the best articles featured in the most recent issue of the New Statesman, sent each Saturday. A newsletter showcasing the finest writing from the ideas section and the NS archive, covering political ideas, philosophy, criticism and intellectual history - sent every Wednesday. Sign up to receive information regarding NS events, subscription offers & product updates.

But the paper is not cited as formal evidence in the Commission’s final report.

The Sage paper notes that disparities in “social determinants of health are likely to be driven by broader issues of structural racism”. The Commission, while declining to cite the Sage research, instead talks about “overly pessimistic narratives” about race and health and states that the increased risk of coronavirus death among black people in the UK is “mainly due to increased risk of exposure to infection”. 

Content from our partners
How do we secure the hybrid office?
How materials innovation can help achieve net zero and level-up the UK
Fantastic mental well-being strategies and where to find them

The Commission’s report does not include the growing body of evidence on the direct role that racism can have on health outcomes, both in terms of bias in treatment and the health impact of exposure to racism, even though it received evidence highlighting these areas of research.

The DHSC submission to the Commission cites “growing evidence from the USA, the UK and other countries that exposure to racism can affect health”, and research – which is referenced in the Sage sub-group paper  on how racism and psychosocial stress can have direct biological effects.

This area is not mentioned in the Commission’s findings, nor does the Commission consider evidence of the direct role of racial bias in contributing to lower standards of care for ethnic minorities, despite hearing evidence from David Williams, a Harvard professor of public health and world expert in the direct role of racial bias in health outcomes.

[See also: Ten previous inquiries expose the real problem with the Race Commission’s findings]

“Anyone who reads this who has spent even a small amount of time with academic literature on these topics will laugh at how simplistic this is. It’s just not a serious analysis,” the source with close knowledge of the work of the Commission tells the New Statesman.

They express concern that some Commissioners began the review “fighting against this idea that all ethnic disparities are explained by white discrimination”, believing that racism amounts only to “shouting taboo words on the streets”. 

That’s not what structural racism is. If that’s what you think racism is, then racism has nothing to do with it. But if you think structural racism is patterns of advantage and disadvantage, then it has extremely high explanatory power.”

The government has been contacted for a response.

[See also: A lifetime of inequality: how black Britons face discrimination at every age]