Search

The SARS‐CoV‐2 virus causes COVID‐19, an infection capable of causing severe disease and death but which can also be asymptomatic or oligosymptomatic. We investigated whether ABO blood group or secretor status was associated with COVID‐19 severity. We investigated secretor status because expression of ABO glycans on secreted proteins and non‐erythroid cells are controlled by a fucosyltransferase (FUT2), and inactivating FUT2 mutations result in a non‐secretor phenotype which protects against some viral infections. Data combined from healthcare records and our own laboratory tests (n = 275) of hospitalized SARS‐CoV‐2 polymerase chain reaction positive patients confirmed higher than expected numbers of blood group A individuals compared to O (RR = 1.24, CI 95% [1.05, 1.47], p = 0.0111). There was also a significant association between group A and COVID‐19‐related cardiovascular complications (RR = 2.56, CI 95% [1.43, 4.55], p = 0.0011) which is independent of gender. Molecular analysis revealed that group A non‐secretors are significantly less likely to be hospitalized than secretors. Testing of convalescent plasma donors, among whom the majority displayed COVID‐19 symptoms and only a small minority required hospitalization, group A non‐secretors were slightly over‐represented. Our findings showed that group A non‐secretors are not resistant to infection by SARS‐CoV‐2, but are more likely to experience a less severe form of associated disease.

This paper provides a series of critical reflections on the tensions involved in researching the lives of military veterans. In particular, tensions arising when civilian researchers attempt to speak on behalf of veterans, combined with problematic attempts to achieve an academic ‘understanding’ of veterans’ lives generate concerns regarding the potential misrepresentation of their unique experiences. Following recent examples in critical military studies, these issues are brought to the fore through dialogue and critical debate with colleagues and research participants. The paper first introduces a theoretical backdrop to the tensions being debated. Following Gadamer, the concept of ‘horizons of understanding’ is then introduced to suggest how we might usefully consider and addresses these tensions. Horizons comprise that which we are able to understand based on prior knowing. It is argued that ‘dialogical’ research constitutes one possible means of expanding our horizons in work with veterans. Challenges to dialogical research are discussed in light of prevailing conditions within and beyond neoliberal academia, before concluding with practical suggestions of how dialogical research might generate more productive and responsible research with military veterans.

In this article, we employ the theoretical framework and concepts of Pierre Bourdieu to examine the notion of “transition” from military to civilian life for U.K. Armed Forces personnel. We put Bourdieu’s concepts of habitus, capital, and field to work in highlighting key differences between military and civilian life. The use of social theory allows us to describe the cultural legacy of military life and how this may influence the posttransition course of veterans’ lives. There may be positive and negative transition outcomes for service personnel when moving into civilian life, and by applying Bourdieu’s theoretical concepts, we explain how such outcomes can be understood. We suggest that the “rules” are different in military environments compared to civilian ones and that service personnel must navigate a complex cultural transition when moving between environments. There are numerous and significant implications—including policy applications—from understanding transition through a Bourdieusian lens, and these are highlighted throughout.