Contested leadership and the governance of COVID-19 in Brazil: The role of local government and community activism

The role of primary healthcare amid the COVID-19 pandemic: Evidence from the Family Health Strategy in Brazil

This paper investigates the role of primary healthcare in mitigating the consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic, focusing on the Brazilian Family Health Strategy (ESF) as a case study. ESF is Brazil's major primary care initiative, with prior evidence indicating its effectiveness in improving various health outcomes. The COVID-19 pandemic submitted the Brazilian healthcare system to a rigorous and unprecedented stress test, whose repercussions are still under study. Using comprehensive administrative microdata from 2016 to 2022 encompassing dimensions related to mortality, healthcare service, supply of family health teams, and vaccination coverage, our empirical strategy accounts for heterogeneous effects based on program intensity and pandemic evolution of the 5570 Brazilian municipalities. Our findings reveal that municipalities with high-intensity of ESF coverage (i.e. stronger primary care) experienced 347.93 (95% CI: 289.04, 406.81) fewer COVID-19 and cardiorespiratory deaths per million inhabitants throughout the pandemic period, compared to those in low-intensity ESF areas, despite sharing similar profiles of deaths from respiratory and cardiovascular causes. Among the channels contributing to this relative performance, high-intensity ESF municipalities were found to engage in more home-based primary care visits and health promotion activities while maintaining a similar supply of community health workers. Additionally, they achieved higher vaccination coverage, and these effects were more pronounced in areas with greater ESF presence, emphasising the importance of primary care coverage. In conclusion, our findings underscore the relevance of strong primary care in mitigating the consequences of the pandemic and addressing post-pandemic health challenges.

Stepping into the Void: Lessons Learned from Civil Society Organizations during COVID-19 in Rio de Janeiro

Brazil experienced some of the highest rates of COVID-19 globally. This was complicated by the fact that 35 million of its citizens have limited access to water, a primary resource necessary to stem the spread of infectious diseases. In many cases, civil society organizations (CSOs) stepped into this void left by responsible authorities. This paper explores how CSOs in Rio de Janeiro helped populations struggling with access to water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) during the pandemic, and what coping strategies are transferable to similar contexts. In-depth interviews (n = 15) were conducted with CSO representatives in the metropolitan region of Rio de Janeiro. Thematic analysis of the interviews revealed that COVID-19 exacerbated pre-existing social inequities among vulnerable populations, undermining their ability to protect their health. CSOs provided emergency relief aid but faced the counterproductive actions of public authorities who promoted a narrative that diminished the risks of COVID-19 and the importance of non-pharmacological interventions. CSOs fought this narrative by promoting sensitization among vulnerable populations and partnering with other stakeholders in networks of solidarity, playing a vital role in the distribution of health-promoting services. These strategies are transferrable to other contexts where state narratives oppose public health understandings, particularly for extremely vulnerable populations.

Relationships are everything: The underpinnings of grassroots community action in the COVID-19 pandemic in Toronto

Most government emergency/pandemic response plans feature top-down decision making and communication strategies and a focus on 'hard' (physical) infrastructure. There is nothing about the importance of the ideas and communications originating from communities, the social infrastructure that supports their impact locally and their contribution to the central administration. In this study, we found that the 'soft' (social) infrastructure within communities and between communities and formal institutions is key to an inclusive and more equitable response to large-scale crises like the COVID-19 pandemic. Grassroots leaders in six Toronto neighbourhoods were interviewed between the first and second waves of the COVID-19 pandemic in Toronto about what helped or hindered community action. Three themes emerged: (1) Grassroots leaders and community organizations were able to act as key connection points in a two-way flow of information and resources with residents and service providers; (2) Grassroots leaders and groups were challenged to engage in this work in a sustained capacity without adequate resourcing; and (3) there was a disconnect between community-centred grassroots approaches and the City's emergency response. We conclude that there needs to be pre-disaster investment in community level planning and preparation that fosters two-way connections between all municipal emergency/disaster and pandemic preparedness plans and community-centred organizations and grassroots leaders working in marginalized communities.

Perceptions of institutional performance and compliance to non-pharmaceutical interventions: How performance perceptions and policy compliance affect public health in a decentralized health system

Trust in institutions is a key driver to shape population attitudes and behavior, such as compliance of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPI). During the COVID-19 pandemic, this was fundamental and its compliance was supported by governmental and non-governmental institutions. Nevertheless, the situation of political polarization in some countries with decentralized health systems increased the difficulty of such interventions. This study analyzes the association between non-pharmaceutical interventions' compliance and individual perception regarding institutions' performance during the COVID-19 pandemic in Brazil. A web survey was conducted in Brazil between November 2020 and February 2021. Bivariate analysis and ordered logit regressions were performed to assess the association between NPIs compliance and perceived institutions' performance. Results suggest a negative association between NPIs' compliance and Federal Government and Ministry of health perceived performance, which may reflect the political positioning of the respondents. Moreover, we find a positive association between NPI compliance and the perceived performance of the remaining institutions (state government, federal supreme court, national congress, WHO, media and SUS). Our contribution goes beyond the study of a relationship between non-pharmaceutical interventions' compliance and institutions' performance, by pointing out the importance of subnational and local governmental spheres in a decentralized health system, as well as highlighting the importance of social communication based on health organizations' information and scientific institutions.

(Re)imagining research, activism, and rights at the intersections of sexuality, health, and social justice

The Covid-19 pandemic inaugurated a new global order of public life and health marked by death, despair and alienation. As a crisis of a global scale, it made the task of (re)imagination simultaneously necessary and extremely difficult. It is this double bind of the difficulty and imminence of imagination that motivates the curation of this special issue. In this introduction, we map the connections between the theme of this volume and the key ideas that constitute its varied contributions, which we organised under three broad mobilising ideas: Rights and Resilience; Sexuality, Health and Justice; and Politics of Knowledge Production and Collaborations. Contributions cover myriad issues, engage in methodological innovations and play with diverse genres. Alongside more traditional academic writings, there are community-based research papers, activist conversations, visual essays, reflective pieces and interviews. The geographical span of the contributions brings insights from around the world and the number of topics covered in this issue are equally vast including, among others, mental health, disability, environment, sex work, violence, queerness, LGBTQ+ experiences, love and anger. The aim of this special issue, then, is to challenge the Manichean distinctions that are often drawn between research and activism, and by extension, between theory and practice.

‘Live with the Virus’ Narrative and Pandemic Amnesia in the Governance of COVID-19

Political leaders have commonly used the phrase ‘learn to live with the virus’ to explain to citizens how they should respond to the COVID-19 pandemic. I consider how the ‘live with the virus’ narrative perpetrates pandemic amnesia by refusing what is known about pandemic-related inequities and the strategies that can be used to overcome these effects. Advice to ‘live with the virus’ helps to further austerity public policy and therefore individualises the social and health burdens of post pandemic life. ‘Live with the virus’ asks citizens to look only to their own futures, which are political strategies that might work for privileged individuals who have the capacity to protect their health, but less well for those with limited personal resources. I draw on Esposito’s framing of affirmative biopolitics and scholarship on how excluded communities have built for themselves health-sustaining commons in responses to pandemic threats to health. I argue that creating opportunities for a ‘COVID-19 commons’ that can enlarge capacity for citizenly deliberation on how they have been governed and other pandemic related matters is vital for the development of more ethical and equitable post-pandemic politics.