Search

This paper uses the vocabulary of 'medical populism' to identify and analyse the political constructions of (and responses to) the COVID-19 pandemic in Brazil, the Philippines, and the United States from January to mid-July 2020, particularly by the countries' heads of state: Jair Bolsonaro, Rodrigo Duterte, and Donald Trump. In all three countries, the leaders' responses to the outbreak can be characterised by the following features: simplifying the pandemic by downplaying its impacts or touting easy solutions or treatments, spectacularizing their responses to crisis, forging divisions between the 'people' and dangerous 'others', and making medical knowledge claims to support the above. Taken together, the case studies illuminate the role of individual political actors in defining public health crises, suggesting that medical populism is not an exceptional, but a familiar response to them. This paper concludes by offering recommendations for global health in anticipating and responding to pandemics and infectious disease outbreaks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This Special Issue of Global Public Health on Politics & Pandemics brings together 26 articles and commentaries that address diverse aspects of the politics of COVID-19 and related issues. These papers are grouped together in six topical areas: theories and politics of global health, health systems and policies, country responses, social inequalities, social responses, and the politics of science and technology. The goal of the Special Issue is to give readers a sense of the range of topics that have been a focus for research in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic and to provide diverse examples of how research and analysis on the political dimensions of the pandemic can contribute to confronting the COVID-19 crisis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

While the COVID-19 pandemic now affects the entire world, countries have had diverse responses. Some responded faster than others, with considerable variations in strategy. After securing border control, primary health care approaches (public health and primary care) attempt to mitigate spread through public education to reduce person-to-person contact (hygiene and physical distancing measures, lockdown procedures), triaging of cases by severity, COVID-19 testing, and contact-tracing. An international survey of primary care experts' perspectives about their country's national responseswas conducted April to early May 2020. This mixed method paper reports on whether they perceived that their country's decision-making and pandemic response was primarily driven by medical facts, economic models, or political ideals; initially intended to develop herd immunity or flatten the curve, and the level of decision-making authority (federal, state, regional). Correlations with country-level death rates and implications of political forces and processes in shaping a country's pandemic response are presented and discussed, informed by our data and by the literature. The intersection of political decision-making, public health/primary care policies and economic strategies is analysed to explore implications of COVID-19's impact on countries with different levels of social and economic development. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]