你能把贫民窟锁住吗?如果你尝试了,谁会受益?关于流行病学在2019冠状病毒病期间应对全球卫生不平等问题的难题

Alex Broadbent PhD , Pieter Streicher PhD
{"title":"你能把贫民窟锁住吗?如果你尝试了,谁会受益?关于流行病学在2019冠状病毒病期间应对全球卫生不平等问题的难题","authors":"Alex Broadbent PhD ,&nbsp;Pieter Streicher PhD","doi":"10.1016/j.gloepi.2022.100074","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The initial response to the Covid-19 pandemic was characterised by swift “lockdowns,” a cluster of measures defined by a shared goal of suppressing Covid-19 and a shared character of restricting departure from the home except for specific purposes. By mid-April 2020, most countries were implementing stringent measures of this kind. This essay contends that (1) some epidemiologists played a central role in formulating and promulgating lockdown as a policy and (2) lockdowns were foreseeably harmful to the Global Poor, and foreseeably offered them little benefit, relative to less stringent measures. In view of the widespread commitment to reducing global health inequalities within the profession, this should prompt reflection within the epidemiological community and further work on pandemic response measures more appropriate for the Global Poor.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":36311,"journal":{"name":"Global Epidemiology","volume":"4 ","pages":"Article 100074"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/05/06/main.PMC9125993.pdf","citationCount":"8","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Can you lock down in a slum? And who would benefit if you tried? Difficult questions about epidemiology's commitment to global health inequalities during Covid-19\",\"authors\":\"Alex Broadbent PhD ,&nbsp;Pieter Streicher PhD\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.gloepi.2022.100074\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>The initial response to the Covid-19 pandemic was characterised by swift “lockdowns,” a cluster of measures defined by a shared goal of suppressing Covid-19 and a shared character of restricting departure from the home except for specific purposes. By mid-April 2020, most countries were implementing stringent measures of this kind. This essay contends that (1) some epidemiologists played a central role in formulating and promulgating lockdown as a policy and (2) lockdowns were foreseeably harmful to the Global Poor, and foreseeably offered them little benefit, relative to less stringent measures. In view of the widespread commitment to reducing global health inequalities within the profession, this should prompt reflection within the epidemiological community and further work on pandemic response measures more appropriate for the Global Poor.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":36311,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Global Epidemiology\",\"volume\":\"4 \",\"pages\":\"Article 100074\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/05/06/main.PMC9125993.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"8\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Global Epidemiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590113322000049\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Global Epidemiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590113322000049","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8

摘要

对Covid-19大流行的最初反应的特点是迅速的“封锁”,这是一系列措施,其共同目标是抑制Covid-19,并具有限制外出的共同特征,除非有特定目的。到2020年4月中旬,大多数国家都在实施这类严格措施。本文认为:(1)一些流行病学家在制定和颁布封锁政策方面发挥了核心作用;(2)可以预见,封锁对全球穷人有害,相对于不那么严格的措施,可以预见,封锁给他们带来的好处很少。鉴于业内普遍承诺减少全球保健不平等现象,这应促使流行病学界进行反思,并进一步制定更适合全球穷人的大流行病应对措施。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Can you lock down in a slum? And who would benefit if you tried? Difficult questions about epidemiology's commitment to global health inequalities during Covid-19

The initial response to the Covid-19 pandemic was characterised by swift “lockdowns,” a cluster of measures defined by a shared goal of suppressing Covid-19 and a shared character of restricting departure from the home except for specific purposes. By mid-April 2020, most countries were implementing stringent measures of this kind. This essay contends that (1) some epidemiologists played a central role in formulating and promulgating lockdown as a policy and (2) lockdowns were foreseeably harmful to the Global Poor, and foreseeably offered them little benefit, relative to less stringent measures. In view of the widespread commitment to reducing global health inequalities within the profession, this should prompt reflection within the epidemiological community and further work on pandemic response measures more appropriate for the Global Poor.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Global Epidemiology
Global Epidemiology Medicine-Infectious Diseases
CiteScore
5.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
22
审稿时长
39 days
期刊最新文献
Academic performance and associated factors among female university students Exploring diseases burden in HIV population: Results from the CHAO (Comorbidities in HIV/AIDS outpatients) cross-sectional study in Kenya What constitutes valid evidence of causation? Gas stoves and childhood asthma revisited Letter to the editor regarding: “Challenging unverified assumptions in causal claims: Do gas stoves increase risk of pediatric asthma?” Identification of population multimorbidity patterns in 3.9 million patients from Bogota in 2018
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1