If you think it’s possible that scientists will never politicize a global fitness emergency, the well-known and reputable medical journal The Lancet once again replaced your opinion.
In a May 9 opinion piece, published through the editorial team, The Lancet said that Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro’s raw and spontaneous reaction to the deaths of others from the coronavirus, along with his administration’s haphazard strategy to flattening the infection curve, meant it had to go.
“Brazil, as a country, will have to come together to give a transparent answer to the question ‘so what?’of its president,” says the editorial in The Lancet. He has to drastically change his course or he will be the next to go. “
The ‘next to go’ was in reference to Bolsonaro’s sacking of health minister Luiz Mandetta last month.
The editorial comes at a time when opposition figures in Brazil are mulling over the idea of impeaching Bolsonaro. The Lancet editorial, deliberately or unintentionally, contributes to the argument that Bolsonaro has compatibility to lead the country through this crisis.
Brazil is one of the worst affected by the coronavirus. It has over 170,000 cases and over 11,700 dead due to complications caused by the new SARS.
The editorial, however, will pay ridiculous tribute to the “artists, intellectuals and celebrities” who warned, along with the also politicized scientists, that the Brazilian government’s reaction to the coronavirus will lead to “genocide. “The Lancet’s supply in Brazil is made up of an organization of soap opera singers and actresses. Yes, science!
(Sidebar: Actors, administrators and singers also sounded the alarm and raised fears of genocide against the Xingu and other tribes when the Workers’ Party was busy preparing the Belo Monte hydroelectric dam. They are all still alive, as far as I know. )
While Bolsonaro’s pandemic strategy was widely regarded as one of the worst in the world, states took it upon themselves to close schools and abide by Chinese and Western-style lockdowns for about two months. Many Brazilians in Sao Paulo and Rio, the epicenters of the outbreak, wear masks in public. Locals have also taken matters into their own hands, taking mandatory precautions and practicing social distancing.
Moreover, the editorial fails to compare Brazil to other emerging markets with similar landmass and population.
Russia is the most productive example of this. It banned flights to China before the U. S. and adopted a more complicated strategy to prevent the spread. This week, Russia surpassed the United States in the number of people who have the virus and has reported 232,243 cases so far, according to Johns Hopkins data. Russia has only 2,116 deaths, which means its death rate is much higher than Brazil’s.
Brazil’s mortality rate is lately 6. 8%, which is higher than France’s mortality rate of around 14%; Italy, 13. 7%; 15. 03% for the United Kingdom and 11. 6% for Spain, according to figures from Johns Hopkins University. It is also higher than Mexico’s 9. 8%.
The Lancet noted that the Brazilian Academy of Sciences opposed Bolsonaro over severe cuts to the science budget and a more general “demolition” of social security and public services.
Since the pandemic hit Brazil in late February, the government strengthened the social safety net through supplemental income payments. TS Lombard called them “surprisingly efficient” in its analysis to investor clients last week.
Since Bolsonaro approved the monthly payment of 600 reais (about $110) to workers in the informal economy early last month, more than 50 million people have signed up and are in the process of receiving the payment, despite the usual associated shocks. with such a gigantic amount and a new aid subsidy.
Brazil used a mobile phone app developed through the government in collaboration with savings and loan bank Caixa Econômica Federal to distribute cash to those in need. This program is arguably the largest monetary inclusion program ever implemented in Brazil, with up to 30 million more people. People who open a new bank account for the first time through it. The program lasts only 3 months.
Bolsonaro is not a saint. It’s easy to pick on him. But despite not having the same, coordinated action as Russia, their infection numbers are lower. Is that because of testing? Yes. But even with testing no one in any country knows for sure how many people have contracted the virus. And if no one knows that, then is Brazil any worse? The only measure, then, can be the actual mortality rate. Brazil: worse than Russia, better than the U.S. and U.K.
Brazil’s new health minister, Nelson Teich, said the lockdown was necessary. Despite everything, he convinced Bolsonaro to settle for them, even if it would send his country back into recession. The alpha male Bolsonaro can even be seen dressed in masks, whatever the president does. Trump doesn’t dare use it.
The weakness of the Brazilian economy is also a cause for concern. Economic downturns have been to blame for the rise in violent crime in recent years. At one point in 2018, more than 50,000 people were killed.
Of course, if Brazil follows the U. S. in cases and death rates, it could easily achieve 50,000 COVID-19 deaths. According to Johns Hopkins University data on total reported coronavirus cases, Brazil appears to have peaked. If so, death rates will most likely rise over the next two weeks and then slow by the end of May.
The Lancet serves to dig deeper into political pundits from time to time.
Last August, The Lancet lambasted Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi over his policy on Kashmir. Its one-line editorial said the removal of Kashmir’s autonomous prestige raised concerns about physical fitness. They never specified what those fitness disorders were, even though the British newspaper has noted in the past how political crises can lead to fitness crises.
In 2014, its editors did the same with the Gaza Strip, claiming that Israeli academics, along with those in the United States and Europe, were “complicit” in an Israeli army attack that killed civilians.
Highlighting the political effects on the health of the population is part of its mission. But is there a better way to talk about it without being overtly political, making it seem to some readers that there might be some kind of political axis to defend?
Indian news and current affairs research site OpIndia criticized The Lancet for the battles they decided to fight on August 27, 2019. One in particular involved the treatment of Tibetans through China or the human rights violations that have led to health crises in Central America.
Being overtly political leads to instant distrust – just take a look at what’s being given to the mainstream media today. In the U. S. , it’s in the gutter, according to Gallup. Even Trump gets better marks than the press for the way he treats the coronavirus response. .
In other words, distrusting clinical journals calling for the removal of elected officials at this time is not a smart idea.