Talk:Blood type distribution by country

Maps and Table Don't Match
I'm not a doctor, but: The "Map of allele O among native populations" image says that anywhere in the world, at least 50% of the population have blood type O, with many regions, e.g. the entirety of South America, having 90% to 100% blood type O populations. The table "ABO and Rh blood type distribution by country & dependency (population averages)", however, says that that percentage ranges from 28% (Pakistan) to 87% (Chile), with the average being 38.67%. Olaf Klischat (talk) 22:37, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The maps indicate the distribution of alleles, of which there are 3 - i, IA and IB. i is a recessive allele - "O blood type" only happens with 2 i alleles. i and IA, or 2 IAs, give the "A blood type", similarly with B, and a combination of the A and B alleles gives AB. I think this could be better explained in the page - I'll have a go. Peace Makes Plenty (talk) 16:04, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Look at South America. In map it is 90% type O (or rather at least one alleles is i). 90% of i allele would give at least 80% of O blood type. This is not the case in the table, not even close. --Hisp (talk) 06:38, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * This concerned me too and I was going to chime in with another example. However, when I looked at the original source of the illustrations (which required finding and updating the link on the wikimedia commons page for the maps), it appears that the important distinction here is that these are maps "among native populations" meaning indigenous peoples of each area, not of the current population at large, which is what is shown in the tables. Still odd given the look of North America or Australia, though. I was hoping for more detail on the methodology of this study in that article, but it was pretty minimal. Also noting that the original map, and the source article, say "Percent of population that has O type blood," NOT "Map of allele i among native populations" which is what the caption on this page said, and was confusing the OP here. I am altering that caption to reflect the map, but more explanation would still be useful. Hammerquill (talk) 05:57, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't really see a need for further explanation: the IA and IB maps make it clear that they're mapping allele frequencies for native populations by region, which is different than type frequencies by country. However, with that being said, it would be nice to have a map of the frequency of the i allele for the sake of consistency, although I suspect such a map would be pretty boring. Clarinetguy097 (talk) 04:08, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Red font in the Ethnic groups table
Perhaps I'm just blind today, but I don't see any explanation of what it signifies. I can make a guess, but I prefer not to.Saintonge235 (talk) 00:15, 26 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Red color was added in, but there was no statement of the intended purpose. Every entry, except for blood type A for "Asian Americans" (red at 28%), was red exactly when the percent was ≥ 50%.  A later  guessed that was the rule, and fixed the exception to match.
 * Can you clarify the purpose of the red highlighting you originally added and maybe add a key to the table to explain? MarkJefferys (talk) 21:36, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Some percentages clearly don't add to 100%
Namely Morocco (~110%), Egypt (109%), India (~106%), and Nepal (~102%) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.125.99.222 (talk) 07:56, 8 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Has no mistakes on "Egypt", but India, Morocco and Nepal still wrong RosaPavlichenko (talk) 15:27, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I tracked the problem with the India data to vandalism (along with Iraq); it's now corrected.
 * Some error is expected due to rounding. For example, 40.6, 29.6, 20.7, and 9.1 sum to 100.0, but rounding off the decimal produces 41, 30, 21, and 9, which sum to 101.  But the maximum error due to rounding is limited.
 * Morocco (110.6%), Nepal (102.0%), China (101.7%), Bhutan (99.84%), Yemen (99.89%), and Gabon (100.10%) are all too far off for rounding errors at the reported accuracy. Poland (104%) is technically possible, but marginal. MarkJefferys (talk) 04:10, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

ABO Negative secrecy.
Stop hiding the data 2601:196:8700:4590:5866:BC3C:1F2:95E6 (talk) 21:58, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Care to elaborate on that? Clarinetguy097 (talk) 17:25, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Rh positive percentage and the table
As others pointed out, the table is a bit confusing. The title says Rh positive is shown, but ... I can not find an entry for it. IF the entry exists, can the label for THAT column say "rh positive"? Right now it seems to only focus on the main AB blood types and 0 (that is the four canonical ones, A, B, AB, and 0). I can not find the Rh entry.

It would be nice if someone could work through the whole page and make the tables more descriptive. I came to try to find out the Rh positive percentage in europe, but I still don't know it after reading the page here. 2A02:8388:1641:5500:8207:8CE:DF2:AB90 (talk) 15:02, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Distribution by country text under charts
I just made a change to the text section immediately following the charts on distribution by country and ethnicity regarding Thailand, as Thailand has the HIGHEST PERCENTAGE of B+ in the world, and the Thai people are sixth highest for B in ethnicities. Yet, the text said that they had some of the lowest in the world.

To be honest, I feel this section is not written correctly, as what it's saying in this first section here is not backed up by almost any of the data, but I'm hesitant to make more changes in case there is something I'm not understanding? Just by examining the data anyone can see that Southeast Asia has one of the HIGHEST RATES OF TYPE B BLOOD, either right alongside the Middle east, or tied with it. Furthermore, the ordering of the regions of the globe seems to imply it is second, but then the third item is listed as being the second, while the second is listed as "one of the lowest" despite having rates upwards of 20%, compared to Europe and the Americas where it's single digits?

Am I not understanding something? If I'm right I'll rewrite it to be worded correctly, but if I'm wrong someone catch me. 2600:4041:7B21:3E00:D5E8:ABDA:9690:656C (talk) 02:46, 8 February 2023 (UTC)