Abstract
ABSTRACT During the Covid-19 pandemic, rich countries employed lockdown and physical distancing policies for transmission control. However, the question still remains whether these measures are also suitable in countries with a fragile economy, which rests mainly on the informal sector. The impacts of lockdown measures in disadvantaged population strata in six low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) were reviewed using i) 93 media reports and ii) 17 published scientific papers. This review showed that those who suffered the most from the lockdown were migrants, workers in the large informal sector, small businesses, slum dwellers, women and elderly, revealing the social, cultural and economic inequalities of societies. Financial and food support for the poor was inadequate and sometimes mismanaged. In the better organized societies, the resilience was stronger (South Korea, Kerala/India) but here also the poor had to suffer the most. It is strongly recommended that outbreak response strategies should particularly focus on the poor and vulnerable population.
Highlights
After the start of the Covid-19 (SARS-CoV-2) outbreak in early December 2019, a visit by a WHOexpert team to China documented the lockdown strategy of the government.1 At the same time a mathematical model suggested that the expected high epidemic wave in an uncontrolled situation should be converted into a long-lasting but low epidemic curve through strict transmission control.2 These were major contributions to the decision of governments to drastically restrict peoplesmovements by closing businesses, schools, universities, public events and others in order to enable the health services to cope with the large number of severe cases
What does lockdown mean for lowand middle-income countries (LMICs) where societies and health services are less well organized and the public sector is less able to economically support the extended informal sector and the mass of impoverished people? The concern of massive collateral damage has already been voiced by authors even in the richer countries criticizing that “this diffuse form of warfare, aimed at “flattening” the epidemic curve generally rather than protecting the especially vulnerable” cannot be the solution
What does the “flattening of the curve” through lockdown and “social distancing” mean for LMICs where the informal sector is predominant, and the poverty levels are high? To document the social and economic consequences of the lockdown strategy, the here presented study was undertaken in six countries with different socio-economic levels: South Korea, Mexico, Colombia, India, Nigeria and Nepal
Summary
After the start of the Covid-19 (SARS-CoV-2) outbreak in early December 2019, a visit by a WHOexpert team to China documented the lockdown strategy of the government. At the same time a mathematical model suggested that the expected high epidemic wave in an uncontrolled situation should be converted into a long-lasting but low epidemic curve through strict transmission control. These were major contributions to the decision of governments to drastically restrict peoplesmovements by closing businesses, schools, universities, public events and others (lock down strategy) in order to enable the health services to cope with the large number of severe cases. At the same time a mathematical model suggested that the expected high epidemic wave in an uncontrolled situation should be converted into a long-lasting but low epidemic curve through strict transmission control.. At the same time a mathematical model suggested that the expected high epidemic wave in an uncontrolled situation should be converted into a long-lasting but low epidemic curve through strict transmission control.2 These were major contributions to the decision of governments to drastically restrict peoplesmovements by closing businesses, schools, universities, public events and others (lock down strategy) in order to enable the health services to cope with the large number of severe cases. What does lockdown mean for lowand middle-income countries (LMICs) where societies and health services are less well organized and the public sector is less able to economically support the extended informal sector and the mass of impoverished people? The concern of massive collateral damage has already been voiced by authors even in the richer countries criticizing that “this diffuse form of warfare, aimed at “flattening” the epidemic curve generally rather than protecting the especially vulnerable” cannot be the solution. What does the “flattening of the curve” through lockdown and “social distancing” mean for LMICs where the informal sector is predominant, and the poverty levels are high? To document the social and economic consequences of the lockdown strategy, the here presented study was undertaken in six countries with different socio-economic levels: South Korea, Mexico, Colombia, India, Nigeria and Nepal
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
