Search

Copyright of Disasters is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Journal of Analytical Psychology is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The Covid‐19 pandemic has been a massive disaster in Brazil, causing more than 350,000 deaths as of April 2021. Moreover, President Jair Bolsonaro suggested that already marginalised groups should take what came to them, as if they were an expendable surplus in his necropolitical perspective. However, civil society initiatives are emerging to tackle the impacts of this crisis. This paper adds to current literature on the forms and levels of resistance to disasters, using primary and secondary data pertaining to three key Brazilian groups: domestic workers; the urban poor in favelas; and indigenous Amazonians. The analysis indicates that their historical, political resistance has been a foundation upon which to develop disaster mitigation and their actions have built on and gone beyond previous modes of organising. More specifically, their responses have replaced a 'present–absent' federal government, entailed local, innovative adaptations, led to new public–private sector relations, and may offer the prospect of consolidation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To evaluate the magnitude of under‐reporting the number of deaths due to COVID‐19 in Brazil in 2020, previously shown to occur due to low rate of laboratory testing for SARS‐CoV‐2, reporting delay, inadequate access to medical care, and its poor quality, leading to the low sensitivity of epidemiological surveillance and poor outcomes, often without laboratory confirmation of the cause of death. Methods: Excess mortality due to COVID‐19 was estimated directly based on various data sources, and indirectly, based on the difference between the observed and expected number of deaths from serious acute respiratory infection (SARI) and all‐natural causes in 2020 had there been no COVID‐19. The absence of laboratory testing for SARS‐CoV‐2 was adjusted based on the proportion of those who tested positive among the tested individuals whose death was attributed to COVID‐19. Least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (lasso) were used to improve prediction of likely mortality without COVID‐19 in 2020. Results: Under‐reporting of COVID‐19 deaths was 22.62%, with a corresponding mortality rate per 100 000 inhabitants of 115 by the direct method, 71–76 by the indirect methods based on the excess SARI mortality and 95–104 by excess mortality due to natural causes. COVID‐19 was the third cause of mortality that contributed directly with 18%, and indirectly with additional 10–11% to all deaths in Brazil in 2020. Conclusions: Underestimation of COVID‐19 mortality between 1:5 and 1:4 is likely its lower bound. Timely and accurate surveillance of death causes is of the essence to evaluate the COVID‐19 burden. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To investigate the occurrence of Trichosporon asahii fungemia among critically ill COVID‐19 patients. Methods: From 1 July to 30 September 2020, cases of T asahii fungemia (TAF) in a Brazilian COVID‐19 referral centre were investigated. The epidemiology and clinical courses were detailed, along with a mycological investigation that included molecular species identification, haplotype diversity analysis and antifungal susceptibility testing. Results: Five critically ill COVID‐19 patients developed TAF in the period. All five patients had common risk conditions for TAF: central venous catheter at fungemia, previous exposure to broad‐spectrum antibiotics, prior echinocandin therapy and previous prolonged corticosteroid therapy. The average time of intensive care unit hospitalisation previous to the TAF episode was 23 days. All but one patient had voriconazole therapy, and TAF 30‐day mortality was 80%. The five T asahii strains from the COVID‐19 patients belonged to 4 different haplotypes, mitigating the possibility of skin origin and cross‐transmission linking the 5 reported episodes. The antifungal susceptibility testing revealed low minimal inhibitory concentrations for azole derivatives. Conclusions: Judicious prescription of antibiotics, corticosteroids and antifungals needs to be discussed in critically ill COVID‐19 patients to prevent infections by hard‐to‐treat fungi like T asahii. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article discusses one of the great governmental challenges of the last centuries—universalization of access to potable water and sanitation services (WSS)—in view of the geographical difficulties for the provision of services in certain regions, and differences in ability to pay for water and sanitation services. It is necessary to reinforce the various links between social and environmental conditions. A review of the literature finds that countries work differently on the approach to universal access to water and sanitation services (Marques, 2010), addressing the problem according to their laws with variable results in how these services are defined. In order to achieve the desired universalization of water and sanitation services in Brazil, in addition to the investment of significant amounts of money, coordinated administration is necessary to leverage these investments. In addition to this challenging scenario, the present moment is worrying! At the beginning of the 21st century, a new pandemic is causing deaths at an alarming rate. Most countries around the world are combating the new coronavirus that has disrupted economies, caused panic, and raised hypotheses about political hegemonies. On January 30, 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared the outbreak of the disease caused by the new coronavirus (COVID‐19) to be a Public Health Emergency of International Importance—the highest alert level of the Organization, as provided for in the International Health Regulations. This study discusses the alignment of these dual challenges in Brazil and what can be done toward improved water and sanitation in this difficult context. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]