Why should correlations with ethnicity be dismissed?
Epidemiological studies tell us some diseases disproportionally affect certain groups. Should doctors dismiss this knowledge as racist and refrain from screening patients in the affected groups because they might come off as racist?
Yes. We know, more specifically, that genes are to blame for diseases like hemochromatosis [0], sickle cell anemia [1], or Tay-Sachs [2]. We also know, from pedigree collapse [3], that humans broadly form one single race.
Therefore we know that correlations with any definition of ethnicity or race are spurious, because those definitions must be socially constructed, because the gene pool simply does not have the shape that race realists claim that it does.
Think in terms of contraposition. Sure, if race were real, then maybe it might make sense to talk about racial demographics. However, since race clearly is not real, any demographic correlations must be bogus. There is a much simpler explanation for why some skin colors seem socioeconomically advantaged: Because our society itself has bigoted opinions about skin colors, and has practices like redlining [4] which systematically oppress folks.
Because at some point you have to be human about it and realize it’s not fair to evaluate and treat people based on things they can’t control, regardless of statistics.
Epidemiological studies tell us some diseases disproportionally affect certain groups. Should doctors dismiss this knowledge as racist and refrain from screening patients in the affected groups because they might come off as racist?