The study conducted in 77 countries indicates that social security is important in Kovid-19.
All the countries that have succeeded in dealing with the epidemic have done the same, those that have failed, they make mistakes, each in their own way. The conclusion is “Coronavirus policy: comparative policy and policy of COVID-19 ”, A book published Thursday (22) by the University of Michigan Press that compares the effects of public policies and government decisions to counter Kovid-19 in 77 countries.
When defining the opening sentence of the literary work Anna Karucina by Liv Tolstoi – “All happy families are alike, each unhappy family mourns in its own way” – a study by Alice Massard da Fonseca (Fundação Getúlio Vargas) Members of, Scott Greer and Elizabeth King (University of Michigan School of Public Health in the United States) indicate that social security initiatives – such as emergency aid, lines of credit for businesses and reduced taxes and fees for the vulnerable – when implemented in a timely manner. Coordination with health measures is crucial to prevent the spread of the virus, prevent deaths and prevent economic instability.
These measures were even more critical than factors related to health system capacity or income levels. per person each country.
“The big finding of our study was that countries that were successful in adding nonmedicinal health measures – such as social distancing, contact tracing and the use of epidemics – at the start of the epidemic – to policies social programs that allowed people to stay in has given a good response to the epidemic. Fonseca says this has been observed in high, middle and low income countries.
This book examines the first ten months of the spread of Sars-CoV-2 around the world (until September 2020), when vaccines were not yet available. The analysis was followed by 66 researchers, located in 77 countries on five continents. There are chapters that deal with and compare more than one country or region.
In addition to the book, a trio of researchers also published an article in the magazine on April 20. Global public health On the lessons of the fight against Kovid-19 in Brazil, Germany, India and the United States.
The measures necessary to reduce or prevent the spread of the virus were already known as of the announcement of the epidemic by the World Health Organization (WHO) in March 2020. “We all learn very quickly the risks, the means of spreading Kovid-19, How to Avoid Deaths and Collapse of Health Systems. Especially, if we compare it to the AIDS epidemic, for example, which took years to complete the genetic sequencing of the virus and even understood that it was an STD, ”reports the researcher.
Fonseca explains that with Kovid-19, universities, research centers and the WHO itself quickly established guidelines for dealing with the outbreak. “Well, it wasn’t until later that the importance of using two masks was discovered, for example, but it was known that it was a disease caused by a respiratory virus and that the countries had answers to the problem. And there was enough information to implement the measures, ”he said.
However, the answers vary considerably from country to country. While the United States, Brazil, India and Spain have seen tragic results with death and hospital records, various cases such as Vietnam, Mongolia, Germany, New Zealand , South Korea, Taiwan and Norway have been successful. As a long marathon, 2020 ended with more consistent and better results than Canada and Germany, both hampered by recurrence. Confinement And restrictive measures.
Thus, the lack of coordination between social health measures has been a determining factor for poor outcomes not only in Brazil, but in many countries. “Here, the ministries of health and the economy have not spoken, which means that these combat measures were designed in an unethical manner. While emergency aid has lifted many people out of poverty, it unfortunately did not allow people to feel at home. This is a problem when quarantine and restrictive measures are needed. Communication campaigns are also needed so that as many people as possible actually live in their homes. “
The reliance on liberal social policies, thwarted by public health interventions, has also been disastrous for the United States, the world’s largest economic power, according to Fonseca.
Another unsuccessful response led to the downfall of India. In the Asian country, while stricter public health measures have been implemented, no social policy support has been put in place. In contrast, Germany, which has implemented liberal social protection initiatives based on social distance, compromises and good communication with society, has successfully completed the first phase of tackling the epidemic.
Harvest your lehenga and distribute doshas
In Brazil, one can also notice another type of coordination problem. “We had very strong social policies, but health measures were not at all coordinated within the federal government and between states. In a large country like ours, we need coordinated actions to fight infectious and infectious diseases, not just between neighboring countries, which do not respect borders ”.
For the researcher, the cuts in this relationship between health and social protection have only created palliative effects in Brazil and in almost all countries, this has allowed presidents and prime ministers to withdraw from the rewards and share the blame they had. No, it worked.
The book states that the president of Brazil claimed the credit for social policies (emergency aid) offered by Congress and shifted the blame for the unpopular social distancing measures to states and municipalities. In the United States, Donald Trump has done the same. The author also states that populist leaders around the world have held China responsible for the problem and sought credit for responding to the epidemic with xenophobic rhetoric and policy.
“In Brazil, each state measured social distance, sometimes even Confinement, But all in a very asymmetric way. In early 2021, with an increase in cases and deaths, it appears the bottleneck has started to fall and a discussion has started about which states are trying to take more explicit action. In Brazil, the Ministry of Health is responsible for this coordination, but, for several reasons, has not itself declared this responsibility, ”he assesses.
Another result of the study is to indicate the political variables that have helped and hindered the fight against the epidemic, leading to such heterogeneous reactions between countries. According to the researchers, these political variables meant that the institutional structure of public health, such as health professionals and hospitals, had limited effect in tackling the epidemic.
“The question of presidentialism is important. The president has the constitutional power to act or not to act. In Brazil, [Jair] Bolsonaro has used constitutional powers to appoint ministers closest to his ideas for tackling the epidemic and disseminate this highly controversial and even cynical agenda. He said the Ministry of Health had never intervened in democratic times, in the presentation of data, in clinical protocols, and even in the definition of the list of essential activities, according to the decrees.
Other leaders have also shown controversial behavior using constitutional powers, although some are less eccentric. It was in Chile with Sebastian Piñera, in Mexico with Donald Trump, with López Obredor, and with Boris Johnson in the UK – in the latter case, until the strategy completely changes in the first half of 2020. place for the construction of hospitals in the region, open intensive care units. Presidents have used the constitutional powers at their disposal to implement their own agendas, not necessarily to deal with epidemics, ”he said.
In the United States, Donald Trump downplayed the risk and effects of the virus and was a staunch critic of Anthony Fauci, head of the White House Coronovirus Task Force. “He has also put aside his statehood capabilities to the detriment of a controversial political agenda.”
A new wave of vaccination and analysis
The book analyzed the response of countries to an epidemic period when vaccines were not yet authorized and were the only non-pharmacological measures to prevent the virus. “In this first book, we deal with the dynamics of response to an epidemic requiring non-pharmacological measures. When the vaccines started to come out, the political dynamics of the epidemic changed dramatically. The new political economy has entered a variable. In October, there was no approved vaccine, it was only in December 2020, ”he says.
The group of researchers now plans to launch a new series of analyzes and plan the launch of a second book at the end of 2021 focusing on the approval of vaccines and their implementation through vaccination campaigns.
The digital version of the book can be downloaded for free: www.fulcrum.org/concern/monographs/jq085n03q.