Metapopulation dynamics of SARS-CoV-2 transmission in a small-scale Amazonian society.

The severity of infectious disease outbreaks is governed by patterns of human contact, which vary by geography, social organization, mobility, access to technology and healthcare, economic development, and culture. Whereas globalized societies and urban centers exhibit characteristics that can heighten vulnerability to pandemics, small-scale subsistence societies occupying remote, rural areas may be buffered. Accordingly, voluntary collective isolation has been proposed as one strategy to mitigate the impacts of COVID-19 and other pandemics on small-scale Indigenous populations with minimal access to healthcare infrastructure. To assess the vulnerability of such populations and the viability of interventions such as voluntary collective isolation, we simulate and analyze the dynamics of SARS-CoV-2 infection among Amazonian forager-horticulturalists in Bolivia using a stochastic network metapopulation model parameterized with high-resolution empirical data on population structure, mobility, and contact networks. Our model suggests that relative isolation offers little protection at the population level (expected approximately 80% cumulative incidence), and more remote communities are not conferred protection via greater distance from outside sources of infection, due to common features of small-scale societies that promote rapid disease transmission such as high rates of travel and dense social networks. Neighborhood density, central household location in villages, and household size greatly increase the individual risk of infection. Simulated interventions further demonstrate that without implausibly high levels of centralized control, collective isolation is unlikely to be effective, especially if it is difficult to restrict visitation between communities as well as travel to outside areas. Finally, comparison of model results to empirical COVID-19 outcomes measured via seroassay suggest that our theoretical model is successful at predicting outbreak severity at both the population and community levels. Taken together, these findings suggest that the social organization and relative isolation from urban centers of many rural Indigenous communities offer little protection from pandemics and that standard control measures, including vaccination, are required to counteract effects of tight-knit social structures characteristic of small-scale populations.

Do wealth and inequality associate with health in a small-scale subsistence society?

In high-income countries, one's relative socio-economic position and economic inequality may affect health and well-being, arguably via psychosocial stress. We tested this in a small-scale subsistence society, the Tsimane, by associating relative household wealth (n = 871) and community-level wealth inequality (n = 40, Gini = 0.15-0.53) with a range of psychological variables, stressors, and health outcomes (depressive symptoms [n = 670], social conflicts [n = 401], non-social problems [n = 398], social support [n = 399], cortisol [n = 811], body mass index [n = 9,926], blood pressure [n = 3,195], self-rated health [n = 2523], morbidities [n = 1542]) controlling for community-average wealth, age, sex, household size, community size, and distance to markets. Wealthier people largely had better outcomes while inequality associated with more respiratory disease, a leading cause of mortality. Greater inequality and lower wealth were associated with higher blood pressure. Psychosocial factors did not mediate wealth-health associations. Thus, relative socio-economic position and inequality may affect health across diverse societies, though this is likely exacerbated in high-income countries.

Poverty is bad for health. People living in poverty are more likely to struggle to afford nutritious food, lack access to health care, or be overworked or stressed. This may make them susceptible to chronic diseases, contribute to faster aging, and shorten their lifespans. In high-income countries, there is growing evidence to suggest that a person's 'rank' in society also impacts their health. For example, individuals who have a lower position in the social hierarchy report worse health outcomes, regardless of their incomes. But it is unclear why living in an unequal society or having a lower social status contributes to poorer health. One possibility is that inequalities in society are creating a stressful environment that leads to worse physical and mental outcomes. It is thought that this stress largely comes from how humans evolved to prioritize reaching a higher social status over having a long and healthy life. If this is the case, this would mean that the link between social status and health would also be present in non-industrialized communities where social hierarchies tend to be less pronounced. To test this, Jaeggi, Blackwell et al. studied the Indigenous Tsimane population in Bolivia who live in small communities and forage and farm their own food. The income and relative wealth of 870 households from 40 Tsimane communities were compared against various outcomes, including symptoms associated with depression, stress hormone levels, blood pressure, self-rated health and several diseases. Jaeggi, Blackwell et al. found poverty and inequality did not negatively impact all of the health outcomes measured as has been previously reported for industrialized societies. However, blood pressure was higher among people with lower incomes or those who lived in more unequal communities. But because the Tsimane people generally have low blood pressure, the differences were too small to have much effect on their health. People who lived in more unequal communities were also three times more likely to have respiratory infections, but the reason for this was unclear. This shows that social determinants such as a person's wealth or inequality can affect health, even in communities with less rigid social hierarchies. In industrial societies the effect may be worse in part because they are compounded by lifestyle factors, such as diets rich in fat and sugar, and physical inactivity which can also increase blood pressure. This information may help policy makers reduce health disparities by addressing some of the social determinants of health and the lifestyle factors that cause them.

Mother's social status is associated with child health in a horticulturalist population.

High social status is often associated with greater mating opportunities and fertility for men, but do women also obtain fitness benefits of high status? Greater resource access and child survivorship may be principal pathways through which social status increases women's fitness. Here, we examine whether peer-rankings of women's social status (indicated by political influence, project leadership, and respect) positively covaries with child nutritional status and health in a community of Amazonian horticulturalists. We find that maternal political influence is associated with improved child health outcomes in models adjusting for maternal age, parental height and weight, level of schooling, household income, family size, and number of kin in the community. Children of politically influential women have higher weight-for-age (B = 0.33; 95% CI = 0.12-0.54), height-for-age (B = 0.32; 95% CI = 0.10-0.54), and weight-for-height (B = 0.24; 95% CI = 0.04-0.44), and they are less likely to be diagnosed with common illnesses (OR = 0.48; 95% CI = 0.31-0.76). These results are consistent with women leveraging their social status to enhance reproductive success through improvements in child health. We discuss these results in light of parental investment theory and the implications for the evolution of female social status in humans.