Public preferences for allocating absolute scarce critical healthcare resources during the COVID-19 pandemic.

PURPOSE: This paper aims to investigate the Portuguese general public views regarding the criteria that should guide critical COVID-19 patients to receive medical devices (ventilators and IUC beds) during the current pandemic context. Based on rationing principles and protocols proposed in ethical and medical literature the authors explore how Portuguese general public evaluates the fairness of five allocation principles: "prognosis", "severity of health condition", "patients age", "instrumental value" (frontline healthcare professionals should be prioritized during the pandemic) and "lottery". DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: An online questionnaire was used to collect data from a sample of 586 Portuguese citizens. Descriptive statistics and non-parametric tests were used to define a hierarchy of prioritization criteria and to test for the association between respondents support to them and their socio-demographic and health characteristics. FINDINGS: Respondents gave top priority to prognosis when faced with absolute scarcity, followed closely by the severity of health condition, patient's age with instrumental value receiving lowest support, on average. However, when the age of the patients was confronted with survival, younger-first principle prevailed over recovery. In a pandemic context, lottery was considered the least fair allocation method. The findings suggest that respondents' opinions are aligned with those of ethicists but are partially in disagreement with the protocol suggested for Portugal. ORIGINALITY/VALUE: This study represents the first attempt to elicit public attitudes towards distributive criteria during a pandemic and, therefore, in a real context where the perception is that life and death decisions have to be made.

Clinical and Economic Effects of Widespread Rapid Testing to Decrease SARS-CoV-2 Transmission.

BACKGROUND: The value of frequent, rapid testing to reduce community transmission of SARS-CoV-2 is poorly understood. OBJECTIVE: To define performance standards and predict the clinical, epidemiologic, and economic outcomes of nationwide, home-based antigen testing. DESIGN: A simple compartmental epidemic model that estimated viral transmission, portrayed disease progression, and forecast resource use, with and without testing. DATA SOURCES: Parameter values and ranges as informed by Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidance and published literature. TARGET POPULATION: U.S. population. TIME HORIZON: 60 days. PERSPECTIVE: Societal; costs included testing, inpatient care, and lost workdays. INTERVENTION: Home-based SARS-CoV-2 antigen testing. OUTCOME MEASURES: Cumulative infections and deaths, number of persons isolated and hospitalized, and total costs. RESULTS OF BASE-CASE ANALYSIS: Without a testing intervention, the model anticipates 11.6 million infections, 119 000 deaths, and $10.1 billion in costs ($6.5 billion in inpatient care and $3.5 billion in lost productivity) over a 60-day horizon. Weekly availability of testing would avert 2.8 million infections and 15 700 deaths, increasing costs by $22.3 billion. Lower inpatient outlays ($5.9 billion) would partially offset additional testing expenditures ($12.5 billion) and workdays lost ($14.0 billion), yielding incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of $7890 per infection averted and $1 430 000 per death averted. RESULTS OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS: Outcome estimates vary widely under different behavioral assumptions and testing frequencies. However, key findings persist across all scenarios, with large reductions in infections, mortality, and hospitalizations. Costs per death averted are roughly an order of magnitude lower than commonly accepted willingness-to-pay values per statistical life saved ($5 to $17 million). LIMITATIONS: Analysis was restricted to at-home testing. There are uncertainties concerning test performance. CONCLUSION: High-frequency home testing for SARS-CoV-2 with an inexpensive, imperfect test could contribute to pandemic control at justifiable cost and warrants consideration as part of a national containment strategy. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institutes of Health.

COVID-19 et Supplémentation en vitamine D / COVID-19 and Supplementation vitamin D

CONTEXTE: Le présent document ainsi que les constats qu'il énonce ont été rédigés dans le contexte de la crise sanitaire liée à la maladie à coronavirus (COVID-19) au Québec. L'objectif est de réaliser une recension des données publiées et de mobiliser les savoirs clés afin d'informer les décideurs publics et les professionnels de la santé et des services sociaux. Bien que les constats reposent sur un repérage exhaustif des données scientifiques publiées, l'évaluation de la qualité méthodologique des études et une appréciation du niveau de preuve scientifique par paramètre clinique d'intérêt, le processus ne repose pas sur une méthode systématique ni une validation externe selon les normes habituelles à l'INESSS. Par ailleurs, les positions ne découlent pas d'un processus de consultation élaboré. Dans les circonstances d'une telle crise de santé publique, l'INESSS reste à l'affût de toutes nouvelles données, qu'elles soient de nature scientifique ou contextuelle, susceptibles de lui faire modifier cette réponse. MÉTHODOLOGIE: Questions d'évaluation Comparativement aux standards de soins, est-ce qu'un supplément de vitamine D, chez les personnes ayant ou non une déficience ou une insuffisance, est efficace et sécuritaire pour, prévenir l'infection et les manifestations cliniques de la COVID-19? Traiter les patients (adulte, enfant, femme enceinte) COVID-19 confirmés dont l'état à l'amorce n'exige pas une hospitalisation? Traiter les patients (adulte, enfant, femme enceinte) COVID-19 confirmés dont l'état à l'amorce exige o une hospitalisation sans le recours à une oxygénothérapie; o une hospitalisation avec le recours à une oxygénothérapie non invasive (oxygène à faible débit, à haut débit, ventilation mécanique non invasive); o une hospitalisation avec le recours à une oxygénothérapie invasive (ventilation mécanique invasive, ECMO)? Quelle est la position des sociétés savantes, des agences règlementaires, des agences de santé publique et des agences d'évaluation des technologies en santé sur l'usage d'un supplément de vitamine D dans la prévention et le traitement de la COVID-19? Type de revue de littérature: Revue rapide. RÉSULTATS: ÉTAT ACTUEL DES CONNAISSANCES SCIENTIFIQUES. Données cliniques sur l'efficacité de la supplémentation en vitamine D dans le contexte de la COVID-19. Depuis l'instauration en mars 2020 de la recherche systématique en continu de la littérature scientifique sur les médicaments à visée thérapeutique, 42 027 notices ont été recensées dont 113 études cliniques où l'intervention étudiée portait sur la vitamine D. De ce nombre, 3 ECRA [Murai et al., 2021; Castillo et al., 2020; Rastogi et al., 2020] ont été retenus. Ces études sont décrites ci-dessous en fonction du type de prise en charge, soit la prophylaxie pré/post-exposition, ou le traitement de patient dont l'état de santé requiert ou non une hospitalisation. Seuls les paramètres d'intérêts sur l'évolution de la charge virale, l'amélioration ou la résolution des symptômes ou d'évolution clinique, le pronostic, l'innocuité ou la mortalité sont présentés. Supplémentation en vitamine D en prophylaxie: En date du 24 février 2021, aucun ECRA ni aucune étude observationnelle publiés n'ont été retracés par la recherche de la littérature scientifique sur les bénéfices cliniques associés à l'usage de vitamine D en prophylaxie pré- ou post- exposition au SARS-CoV-2. Par contre, il y a quelques essais cliniques actuellement enregistrés sur le site de ClinicalTrials, dont un essai comparatif à répartition aléatoire multicentrique à triple insu (PROTECT6 ) en cours de réalisation au sein de deux hôpitaux du Québec. Le principal objectif de cet essai est d'étudier les effets prophylactiques d'une supplémentation à hautes doses de vitamine D3 per os (bolus 100 000 UI suivi de 10 000 UI par semaine pendant 16 semaines) chez les travailleurs de la santé exposés à la COVID-19. Il est prévu que l'essai se termine en juin 2021. DISCUSSION: Au terme des travaux, il ressort qu'aucun ECRA ni aucune étude observationnelle publiés dans la littérature ne permettent d'évaluer l'effet d'une supplémentation en vitamine D utilisée en prophylaxie pré- ou post- exposition au SRAS-CoV-2 ni dans le traitement des sujets COVID-19 confirmés dont l'état n'exige pas une hospitalisation. Toutefois, en ce qui concerne les personnes atteintes de la COVID-19 dont l'état de santé requiert une hospitalisation, l'état actuel des connaissances scientifiques suggère qu'une supplémentation en vitamine D3 ne permet pas de réduire la durée d'hospitalisation et le nombre de nouveaux sujets ayant besoin de ventilation mécanique invasive et ne permet pas d'établir un lien en une supplémentation en vitamine D et les admissions aux soins intensifs ou la mortalité. Un supplément en vitamine D3 à raison de 60 000 UI par jour pendant 8 ou 14 jours, chez des personnes ayant une déficience en vitamine D, pourrait cependant permettre d'augmenter la proportion de sujets avec une négativation de la RTPCR sans toutefois avoir d'impact sur la durée moyenne avant la négativation de celle-ci. Il est toutefois important de souligner que les trois ECRA ont été réalisés sur des populations distinctes, hospitalisées pour une COVID-19 de sévérité variable, et avec différentes posologies et formes de vitamine D3 (calcifédiol ou cholécalciférol). Les profils d'innocuité et d'interactions médicamenteuses de la vitamine D sont aujourd'hui bien connus dans plusieurs contextes extérieurs à la COVID-19 [Euro-Pharm International Canada, 2018; Vifor Pharma, 2018]. Fondé sur 2 ECRA à double insu conduits au Brésil et en Inde dans le contexte de la COVID-19, la supplémentation de vitamine D3 à haute dose semble sécuritaire lorsque cette dernière est administrée en prise unique ou de manière quotidienne pendant une durée maximale de 14 jours chez des sujets adultes atteints de la COVID-19 et hospitalisés. Dans tous les documents consultés présentant des positions ou des recommandations cliniques, aucune organisation ne se prononce en faveur de l'usage de la vitamine D en prévention d'une infection par le SARS-CoV-2 ou comme traitement d'une telle infection en dehors d'un essai clinique, en raison d'une insuffisance de preuves. Compte tenu des risques potentiels d'effets indésirables, un suivi régulier des personnes recevant des doses de vitamine D supérieures à 4 000 UI par jour est également recommandé. Cette réponse rapide de l'INESSS comporte certaines limites qui méritent d'être soulignées. D'abord, l'analyse du niveau de preuve scientifique est basée sur 3 études primaires de type ECRA, elles aussi, empreintes de biais et de limites méthodologiques (y compris des déséquilibres dans les caractéristiques des sujets, dans la puissance statistique et dans les posologies et formes de vitamine D3 utilisées) affectant la confiance envers les résultats actuellement disponibles. Par ailleurs, le manque de résultats ne permet pas de conclure quant à d'éventuelles différences d'efficacité entre des sujets à différents stades de la maladie ou avec des niveaux de vitamine D différents au début des études (taux normal, insuffisance, déficience). Enfin, les constats ne découlent pas d'un processus de consultation élaboré. À la suite de l'analyse effectuée, la tendance pointe vers une absence de bénéfice de la supplémentation en vitamine D ayant 2021-03-08 15:16 22 un réel impact sur l'évolution clinique ou la mortalité liée à la COVID-19. Il faudra toutefois attendre les résultats d'ECRA supplémentaires dont la qualité méthodologique sera jugée acceptable avant d'infirmer ou confirmer une absence de bénéfices. L'efficacité et l'innocuité d'une supplémentation en vitamine D sont présentement évaluées dans plusieurs études cliniques en cours, soit en prophylaxie, chez des patients non hospitalisés ou chez des patients hospitalisés9 . En demeurant à l'affût de nouvelles données scientifiques, cette réponse rapide permet d'informer les professionnels de la santé et de les soutenir dans leur prise de décision clinique dans le contexte de la pandémie actuelle.

Comunicación de riesgos y participación comunitaria para la localización de contactos en el contexto de la COVID-19 / Risk communication and community engagement for COVID-19 contact tracing: interim guidance

La localización de contactos es un elemento clave del enfoque recomendado por la OMS para controlar la propagación de la COVID-19 e interrumpir las cadenas de transmisión de persona a persona. Si los principios de la comunicación de riesgos y participación comunitaria (CRPC) se incorporan de manera eficaz en las actividades de localización de contactos en el contexto de la COVID-19, se salvaguarda el cumplimiento de las actividades de localización de contactos y se frena o detiene la transmisión de dicha enfermedad, lo cual en última instancia reduce la mortalidad y la enfermedad y mitiga su incidencia negativa en los sistemas de atención de salud y las economías. En este documento se ofrecen orientaciones a las autoridades de salud en todos los niveles para que mejoren la tasa de éxito de la localización de contactos al asegurarse de que las actividades correspondientes se sustenten en los principios, la evidencia y las actividades de CRPC, y se suministran herramientas a los profesionales que participan en dicha localización a fin de asentar sus prácticas en los principios de la CRPC y mejorar igualmente su tasa de éxito.

The unintended consequences of COVID-19 mitigation measures matter: practical guidance for investigating them.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has led to the adoption of unprecedented mitigation measures which could trigger many unintended consequences. These unintended consequences can be far-reaching and just as important as the intended ones. The World Health Organization identified the assessment of unintended consequences of COVID-19 mitigation measures as a top priority. Thus far, however, their systematic assessment has been neglected due to the inattention of researchers as well as the lack of training and practical tools. MAIN TEXT: Over six years our team has gained extensive experience conducting research on the unintended consequences of complex health interventions. Through a reflexive process, we developed insights that can be useful for researchers in this area. Our analysis is based on key literature and lessons learned reflexively in conducting multi-site and multi-method studies on unintended consequences. Here we present practical guidance for researchers wishing to assess the unintended consequences of COVID-19 mitigation measures. To ensure resource allocation, protocols should include research questions regarding unintended consequences at the outset. Social science theories and frameworks are available to help assess unintended consequences. To determine which changes are unintended, researchers must first understand the intervention theory. To facilitate data collection, researchers can begin by forecasting potential unintended consequences through literature reviews and discussions with stakeholders. Including desirable and neutral unintended consequences in the scope of study can help minimize the negative bias reported in the literature. Exploratory methods can be powerful tools to capture data on the unintended consequences that were unforeseen by researchers. We recommend researchers cast a wide net by inquiring about different aspects of the mitigation measures. Some unintended consequences may only be observable in subsequent years, so longitudinal approaches may be useful. An equity lens is necessary to assess how mitigation measures may unintentionally increase disparities. Finally, stakeholders can help validate the classification of consequences as intended or unintended. CONCLUSION: Studying the unintended consequences of COVID-19 mitigation measures is not only possible but also necessary to assess their overall value. The practical guidance presented will help program planners and evaluators gain a more comprehensive understanding of unintended consequences to refine mitigation measures.

Liderazgo del sector salud de Paraguay para enfrentar la pandemia en el 2020 y una coyuntura para agilizar la reforma del sector con la cooperación técnica de la OPS/OMS / Leadership of the Paraguayan health sector to face the pandemic in 2020 and a situation to speed up the reform of the sector with the technical cooperation of PAHO / WHO

La Región de las Américas, con altos niveles de pobreza e inequidades; registra aproximadamente la mitad de los casos COVID-19 y de los fallecidos a escala mundial. Ubicado en Sudamérica, Paraguay, con un sistema de salud segmentado y fragmentado que recibe una de las menores inversiones en la Región, ofrecía un panorama complejo para enfrentar esta crisis. La preparación de la respuesta ante la pandemia que se enfrentó a las fragilidades de todo el sistema público de prestación de servicios, catalizó los esfuerzos que estaban siendo impulsados por el país apoyado por la cooperación técnica de la OPS/OMS para avanzar hacia una reforma del sector salud, posicionando a la salud como un derecho humano.

College Campuses and COVID-19 Mitigation: Clinical and Economic Value.

BACKGROUND: Colleges in the United States are determining how to operate safely amid the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. OBJECTIVE: To examine the clinical outcomes, cost, and cost-effectiveness of COVID-19 mitigation strategies on college campuses. DESIGN: The Clinical and Economic Analysis of COVID-19 interventions (CEACOV) model, a dynamic microsimulation model, was used to examine alternative mitigation strategies. The CEACOV model tracks infections accrued by students and faculty, accounting for community transmissions. DATA SOURCES: Data from published literature were used to obtain parameters related to COVID-19 and contact-hours. TARGET POPULATION: Undergraduate students and faculty at U.S. colleges. TIME HORIZON: One semester (105 days). PERSPECTIVE: Modified societal. INTERVENTION: COVID-19 mitigation strategies, including social distancing, masks, and routine laboratory screening. OUTCOME MEASURES: Infections among students and faculty per 5000 students and per 1000 faculty, isolation days, tests, costs, cost per infection prevented, and cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). RESULTS OF BASE-CASE ANALYSIS: Among students, mitigation strategies reduced COVID-19 cases from 3746 with no mitigation to 493 with extensive social distancing and masks, and further to 151 when laboratory testing was added among asymptomatic persons every 3 days. Among faculty, these values were 164, 28, and 25 cases, respectively. Costs ranged from about $0.4 million for minimal social distancing to about $0.9 million to $2.1 million for strategies involving laboratory testing ($10 per test), depending on testing frequency. Extensive social distancing with masks cost $170 per infection prevented ($49 200 per QALY) compared with masks alone. Adding routine laboratory testing increased cost per infection prevented to between $2010 and $17 210 (cost per QALY gained, $811 400 to $2 804 600). RESULTS OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS: Results were most sensitive to test costs. LIMITATION: Data are from multiple sources. CONCLUSION: Extensive social distancing with a mandatory mask-wearing policy can prevent most COVID-19 cases on college campuses and is very cost-effective. Routine laboratory testing would prevent 96% of infections and require low-cost tests to be economically attractive. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institutes of Health.

COVID-19: Need for Equitable and Inclusive Pandemic Response Framework.

When a new infectious disease emerges as an epidemic or pandemic, strict and appropriate mitigation strategies are critical. Appropriate steps that facilitate defining of cases, carrying out accurate clinical diagnoses, and forming a powerful health surveillance that addresses public health policies and procedures are necessary. Tracking the number of COVID-19 cases over time and flattening the curve is another important element to establish research settings and identify therapeutic components to expedite and develop effective interventions. Addressing the various sections of the society in a philanthropic way is crucial to acquiring the public cooperation that is essential to controlling a disease like COVID-19. In this study, we discuss various strategies and measures adopted by Kerala, an Indian state, to combat the COVID-19 outbreak. Regular and timely updates by government public relations and health departments were used in many of the adopted strategies. The engagement of health information systems, together with the application of decentralized governance and community engagement, has contributed to effective population health management and surveillance of the pandemic.

Acesso e cuidados especializados / Coleção COVID-19 / Access and specialized care / COVID-19 Collection

A Coleção COVID-19 apresenta em seus livros diferentes temas e debates. O Volume 5 ­ Acesso e Cuidados Especializados traz reflexões sobre a saúde pública e privada nos tempos da pandemia e suas respectivas interações, no âmbito dos cuidados especializados. Avança para os conteúdos relacionados à atuação da atenção especializada durante a pandemia, a abordagem clínica do paciente com a COVID-19, a atenção hospitalar em suas diferentes configurações: nas filantrópicas, nos hospitais universitários, nos hospitais de campanha e com a telemedicina. Os textos que seguem se preocupam com as comissões de controle de infecção e o cuidado seguro com os pacientes da COVID-19. Alcançam os cuidados paliativos e as diretivas antecipadas de vontade. Ultrapassados os conteúdos mais gerais, os textos passam a revelar sobre os cuidados com os pacientes com doença renal e oncológicos, até adentrarem na temática da assistência farmacêutica. Nesse campo, os debates comtemplam a escassez, o uso seguro, os casos do kit intubação e da Cloroquina/Hidroxicloroquina que ocuparam fortemente os noticiários brasileiros e que se revelaram problemas ímpares para a gestão em saúde. Por fim, o livro contempla os debates relacionados à pesquisa clínica, o registro sanitário de vacinas para a COVID-19 e a necessária sustentabilidade do SUS, pelo olhar de quem defende

Risk communication and community engagement for COVID-19 contact tracing: interim guidance

Contact tracing is a key element of WHO's recommended approach to control the spread of COVID-19 by breaking the chains of human-to-human transmission. By effectively embedding risk communication and community engagement ( RCCE) principles in contact-tracing efforts in the context of COVID-19, compliance with contact-tracing efforts is safeguarded and transmission of COVID-19 is slowed or halted, ultimately reducing death and disease due to COVID-19 and mitigating the negative impact on health-care systems and economies. This document provides guidance to health authorities at all levels to improve the success rate of contact tracing by informing efforts with RCCE principles, evidence and activities, and provides ready-to-use tools for professionals involved in contact-tracing efforts to inform their practices with RCCE principles and likewise improve their success rate.

Covid-19: a catástrofe latino-americana, entre a caça e a imaginação / Covid-19: the Latin American catastrophe between the hunting and the imagination / Covid-19: la catástrofe latinoamericana, entre la caza y la imaginación

Esta nota expõe um breve balanço da história da pandemia de Covid após sete meses de crise. Com esse objetivo, apreendemos três grandes tendências: o impacto letal do negacionismo em países como os Estados Unidos e o Brasil; a chegada da segunda onda na Europa e, enfim, a catástrofe nos países latinoamericanos onde os indicadores pioram em todos eles independentemente das políticas de contenção que foram implementadas desde o mês de março de 2020. Para a discussão dessas três tendências, elaboramos três momentos de reflexão de maior fôlego: a clivagem que separa os modelos de gestão da pandemia na Ásia no Ocidente; a necessidade de uma política social (como o auxílio emergencial) para tornar viáveis as políticas sanitárias na América Latina; e, enfim, uma reflexão mais geral sobre a relação entre as catástrofes e a imaginação.

This paper presents a brief analysis of the history concerning Covid pandemic after its beginning seven months ago. In pursuing this purpose we realised three major trends: the lethal impact of denialism in countries such as United States and Brazil; the arrival of the second wave of coronavirus in Europe; and finally, the Latin American catastrophe where the indicators of people affected by disease worsen in all their countries regardless of the policies to restrain it implemented since March 2020. To discuss these three trends, we have deepened three reflections: the cleavage between the management model of the pandemic in Asia and the Western management model; the need for a social policy (such as an emergency financial aid) to make health policies viable in Latin America; and at last a general reflection on the relationship between the catastrophes and the imagination.

Esta nota expone un breve análisis de la historia de la pandemia de Covid después de siete meses de crisis. Intentando alcanzar este propósito, hemos distinguido tres grandes tendencias: el impacto letal del negacionismo en países como Estados Unidos y Brasil; la llegada de la segunda ola a Europa; y finalmente la catástrofe latinoamericana donde los indicadores del contagio empeoraron en todos los países independiente de las políticas de contención implementadas desde marzo de 2020. Para discutir estas tres tendencias, hemos profundizado tres reflexiones: la diferencia entre el modelo de gestión de la pandemia en Asia y el modelo implementado en Occidente; la necesidad de una política social (como lo auxilio financiero de emergencia) para hacer viables las políticas de salud en Latinoamérica; y por último una reflexión de forma más general sobre la relación entre las catástrofes y la imaginación.

Diplomacia da saúde e COVID-19: reflexões a meio caminho / Health diplomacy and COVID-19: reflections halfway

Organizada por Paulo Marchiori Buss e Luiz Eduardo Fonseca, coordenadores do Centro de Relações Internacionais em Saúde da Fiocruz, esta obra reúne as análises produzidas sobre as respostas do multilateralismo ao novo coronavírus. Dividida em três partes, a coletânea viabiliza o acesso do público a um panorama de ações internacionais promovidas para o enfrentamento da crise sanitária. A publicação engloba renomados pesquisadores das mais diversas áreas de saúde, diplomacia e relações internacionais, examinando as ações de órgãos e agências, como OMS, ONU e OCDE, além de iniciativas multilaterais, como G20 e países do BRICS. Os capítulos abordam ainda as respostas de diferentes países e regiões do mundo, incluindo Brasil, China, Estados Unidos, África, Oriente Médio, Europa, América Latina e Caribe, além de instituições financeiras internacionais,como FMI e Banco Mundial. Primeiro livro da série "Informação para Ação na Covid-19", que tem como objetivo reunir o conjunto de respostas, pesquisas e ações técnicas produzidas pela Fiocruz durante a pandemia causada pelo novo coronavírus. Publicada em coedição por Observatório Covid-19 Fiocruz e Editora Fiocruz, com apoio da Rede SciELO Livros, a série estará disponível exclusivamente em formato digital e acesso aberto.

[Essay on Pandementia: when the characters and microbes of science fiction jump off the screen and invade the planet]. / Ensayo sobre la pandemencia: cuando los personajes y microbios de la ciencia ficción salen de la película.

This essay intends to carry out an ethical and philosophical reflection on the effects of the emergency contingencies of the COVID-19 pandemic. With a focus on Brazil, it seeks to understand, critique, and attribute meaning to references to the pandemic, in particularly dramatic moments brought about by the synergy produced between the serious disease affecting the country and the world and a government that stands out for its remarkable unwillingness and inability to deal with this calamity. This text was written during the Brazilian "quarantine," which lasted from mid-March to late April, 2020. During this period, we were bombarded by facts that never ceased to haunt us, and lived each day under the terrible dominion of the pandemic. Therefore, this text was written in the midst of a social context marked by control efforts, with great attention directed at the health of those affected, despite the complex political framework and serious economic difficulties facing the country.

Este ensayo crítico acerca de las declaraciones sobre la técnica y la vida en el planeta COVID-19 propone una reflexión ético-filosófica de los efectos de la pandemia. Trata de entender, atribuir significados y criticar las referencias a la pandemia, especialmente en Brasil, en momentos especialmente dramáticos, debido a la sinergia entre la grave enfermedad que afecta al país y al planeta, y un gobierno que se destaca por su gigantesca incapacidad para hacer frente a la calamidad. Este texto fue escrito en el periodo de "cuarentena" brasileña, desde mediados de marzo hasta fines de abril de 2020. Es un momento en el que los hechos nos golpean y no dejan de atormentarnos, y se vive a diario bajo el terrible dominio de esta pandemia. Así, este texto se caracteriza por estar elaborado en medio de un contexto social marcado por los esfuerzos de control y atención de la salud de los afectados, a pesar del complejo marco político actual y de las profundas dificultades económicas del país.