Abstract
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.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Article number | 100074 |
| Journal | Global Epidemiology |
| Volume | 4 |
| DOIs |
|
| Publication status | Published - Dec 2022 |
UN SDGs
This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
-
SDG 1 No Poverty
-
SDG 3 Good Health and Well-being
-
SDG 10 Reduced Inequalities
Keywords
- Covid-19
- Epidemiology
- Inequalities
- Philosophy of epidemiology
- Poverty
- Public health
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Epidemiology
- Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
- Infectious Diseases
Fingerprint
Dive into the research topics of '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'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.Press/Media
Cite this
- APA
- Author
- BIBTEX
- Harvard
- Standard
- RIS
- Vancouver