Rio COVID Disparities

[Lucky]

The Washington Post has an article comparing two COVID cases in Rio. One patient poor, the other not, and with full insurance. If you think you will be okay going to Rio because you have health insurance, think again. The rich patient is a doctor, and he went to a private hospital. The level of care is below minimal. The poorer guy also went to the hospital. Didn't have great care either. Fortunately, after horrific illness, both survived. Survival is not the issue here, it is the level of care. Read on if this interests you:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2020/08/10/covid-brazil-deaths-inequality/?arc404=true

(Unrelated) Carefree customers and a worried waiter:

[Badboy81]

It also may have more to do with age, existing conditions, the symptoms you exhibit, etc...

Some people get gravely ill OR die where other simply have a bad headache for a day or two or loose sense of smell and taste...

There are too many unknowns regarding this illness but what we do know is that healthcare levels will effect overall outcomes in any place in the world, not just Brazil...

[Lucky]

3 hours ago, Badboy81 said:

It also may have more to do with age, existing conditions, the symptoms you exhibit, etc...

Some people get gravely ill OR die where other simply have a bad headache for a day or two or loose sense of smell and taste...

There are too many unknowns regarding this illness but what we do know is that healthcare levels will effect overall outcomes in any place in the world, not just Brazil...

I was not attempting to do more than post the story of these two cases, one rich, one poor, and with no preexisting conditions. Your comment is irrelevant to my post.

[Riobard]

I read it twice, looking for evidence the physician patient received substandard care in the privately insured setting. The only downside I noted was that the author indicated this more economically advantaged patient reported being very anxious and his wife and doctors tended to not respond to his video calls. IMO if you can make video calls you might be very sick but not on the brink of death. Other than that, all indications were that he received comparatively superior-grade care and was not neglected. In contrast, the favela-origin patient and co-patients were apparently neglected at this early stage of pandemic because the professional caregivers were anxious about infection.

The article seemed to underscore the class divide, that the quality of care predicted greater mortality among the poor, though the patients both survived ... otherwise their stories from their perspectives could not be documented. I think, though, the article seems to be a filler piece, without much point, and some of the ambiguous wording may explain different takeaways from reading it.

Questions for consideration: If you are a visiting foreigner with behaviour leaning towards that of locals most likely to spread CoV due to economic pressures and lack of scientifically grounded information (that do not apply to you), if you yourself acquire the disease along with possibly as a result transmitting it, even in the unlikely event of requiring critical/intensive care that may block a local in queue from access, are you leaving the country in better shape than you found it? If you are inclined, knowing all of the risks to others, to override the clinical justification for confinement knowing full well that the region’s rationale for loosening of enforcement of public health measures scientifically known to mitigate illness and death is not solidly anchored, who are you, other than somebody playing a version of blindfolded roulette?

Edited August 15, 2020 by Riobard

[Lucky]

deleted

Edited August 15, 2020 by Lucky

[SolaceSoul]

13 hours ago, Riobard said:

are you leaving the country in better shape than you found it?

But selfish assholes don’t care about this. And if anything, this pandemic has proven that too many Americans are selfish to the core.

[Riobard]

Here’s a recent selective poll of interest and reassuring for visitors worried about lack of vaccination uptake reducing the mitigation of transmission risk when in Brazil at some point in the future. I am a bit surprised at the differential between Brazil and USA, as well as many in Germany and France being hesitant. The politicization and ROP pressure to expedite a candidate rollout in USA prematurely seems to partly explain the views there and adds to mistrust potential among the generally saner, but Germany? 

I thought leadership problems, distrust, polarization, etc, and access to valid information might yield similar poll results for Americans and Brazilians. Perhaps less affluenza in general is predictive of the true experiential impact of the pandemic crisis in Brazil and overrides vaxx skepticism? 

[Riobard]

PS: On a positive note, if intent and uptake are equivalized even Russia has a good chance of sufficient herd immunity to dwindle CoV transmission. Some of this will depend on adults vaxx-blocking their dependents’ recipient status at these half-and-half population attitude ratios, and whether prior exposure counts as a degree of natural immunity comparable to that conferred by artificial immunity, essentially making up the difference to achieve broad community prevention. 

Edited September 4, 2020 by Riobard

[Riobard]

On 8/16/2020 at 6:03 AM, SolaceSoul said:

But selfish assholes don’t care about this. And if anything, this pandemic has proven that too many Americans are selfish to the core.

I see what you did there

Same basic chapter & verse. Similar page even, though behaviour crosses national boundaries.

Perhaps the vast population difference explains why more Canucks are tossing Yanks out of Dawson City, etc, than vice versa  Canucks run out of Dodge.

Community response not much drawn out of my playbook of subtlety in terms of the vitriol about it up here. But yes, the road to death is paved with bad intentions and unfortunately in the new survival eugenics innocents are dragged along for the collateral damage ride. 

Edited September 5, 2020 by Riobard