Resumo Na pandemia COVID-19, estados e municípios brasileiros adotaram medidas de distanciamento social como estratégia para reduzir o número de casos e o controle da doença. Estas medidas atingem de forma diferenciada estratos populacionais e território. O objetivo deste estudo foi analisar a evolução do distanciamento social adotadas para o controle da pandemia COVID-19 e sua relação com as condições de vida da população do município de Salvador, Bahia. Foi conduzido um estudo ecológico utilizando agregados espaciais. Calculou-se o Índice de Isolamento Social do município e o Índice de Condição de Vida. O Índice de Moran Global e Local foram usados para avaliar o grau de dependência e autocorrelação espacial. Observou-se oscilações nos índices de isolamento social durante o período analisado, com maiores percentuais de isolamento nos bairros com condições de vida mais favoráveis. A análise e a interpretação das medidas de contenção da Covid-19, a exemplo do distanciamento social, deve considerar o perfil de vulnerabilidade de cada território visando a monitorar o correto dimensionamento das estratégias de mitigação da pandemia, na perspectiva de desenvolver ações sociais capazes de possibilitar maior adesão das populações mais desfavorecidas.

The Nurturing Care Framework (NCF) calls for establishing a global monitoring and accountability systems for early childhood development (ECD). Major gaps to build low‐cost and large‐scale ECD monitoring systems at the local level remain. In this manuscript, we describe the process of selecting nurturing care indicators at the municipal level from existing routine information systems to develop the Brazilian Early Childhood Friendly Index (IMAPI). Three methodological steps developed through a participatory decision‐making process were followed. First, a literature review identified potential indicators to translate the NCF domains. Four technical panels composed of stakeholders from federal, state and municipal levels were consulted to identify data sources, their availability at the municipal level and the strengths and weakness of each potential indicator. Second, national and international ECD experts participated in two surveys to score, following a SMART approach, the expected performance of each nurturing care indicator. This information was used to develop analytical weights for each indicator. Third, informed by strengths and weaknesses pointed out in the previous steps, the IMAPI team reached consensus on 31 nurturing care indicators across the five NCF domains (Good health [n = 14], Adequate nutrition [4], Responsive caregiving [1], Opportunities for early learning [7] and Security and safety [4]). IMAPI represents the first attempt to select nurturing care indicators at the municipal level using data from existing routine information systems.

Providing an enabling nurturing care environment for early childhood development (ECD) that cuts across the five domains of the Nurturing Care Framework (i.e., good health, adequate nutrition, opportunities for early learning, security and safety and responsive caregiving) has become a global priority. Brazil is home to approximately 18.5 million children under 5 years of age, of which 13% are at risk of poor development due to socio‐economic inequalities. We explored whether the Early Childhood Friendly Municipal Index (IMAPI) can detect inequities in nurturing care ECD environments across the 5570 Brazilian municipalities. We examined the validity of the IMAPI scores and conducted descriptive analyses for assessing sociodemographic inequities by nurturing care domains and between and within regions. The strong correlations between school achievement (positive) and socially vulnerable children (negative) confirmed the IMAPI as a multidimensional nurturing care indicator. Low IMAPI scores were more frequent in the North (72.7%) and Northeast (63.3%) regions and in small (47.7%) and medium (43.3%) size municipalities. Conversely, high IMAPI scores were more frequent in the more prosperous South (52.9%) and Southeast (41.2%) regions and in metropolitan areas (41.2%). The security and safety domain had the lowest mean differences (MDs) among Brazilian regions (MD = 5) and population size (MD = 3). Between‐region analyses confirmed inequities between the North/Northeast and South/Southeast. The biggest within‐region inequity gaps were found in the Northeast (from −22 to 15) and the North (−21 to 19). The IMAPI distinguished the nurturing care ECD environments across Brazilian municipalities and can inform equitable and intersectoral multilevel decision making.

Background. COVID-19 vaccines have proven highly effective among SARS-CoV-2 naive individuals, but their effectiveness in preventing symptomatic infection and severe outcomes among individuals with prior infection is less clear. Methods. Utilizing national COVID-19 notification, hospitalization, and vaccination datasets from Brazil, we performed a case-control study using a test-negative design to assess the effectiveness of four vaccines (CoronaVac, ChAdOx1, Ad26.COV2.S and BNT162b2) among individuals with laboratory-confirmed prior SARS-CoV-2 infection. We matched RT-PCR positive, symptomatic COVID-19 cases with RT-PCR-negative controls presenting with symptomatic illnesses, restricting both groups to tests performed at least 90 days after an initial infection. We used multivariable conditional logistic regression to compare the odds of test positivity, and the odds of hospitalization or death due to COVID-19, according to vaccination status and time since first or second dose of vaccines. Findings. Among individuals with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, vaccine effectiveness against symptomatic infection ≥ 14 days from vaccine series completion was 39.4% (95% CI 36.1-42.6) for CoronaVac, 56.0% (95% CI 51.4-60.2) for ChAdOx1, 44.0% (95% CI 31.5-54.2) for Ad26.COV2.S, and 64.8% (95% CI 54.9-72.4) for BNT162b2. For the two-dose vaccine series (CoronaVac, ChAdOx1, and BNT162b2), effectiveness against symptomatic infection was significantly greater after the second dose compared with the first dose. Effectiveness against hospitalization or death ≥ 14 days from vaccine series completion was 81.3% (95% CI 75.3-85.8) for CoronaVac, 89.9% (95% CI 83.5-93.8) for ChAdOx1, 57.7% (95% CI -2.6-82.5) for Ad26.COV2.S, and 89.7% (95% CI 54.3-97.7) for BNT162b2.

Background Brazil and Scotland have used mRNA boosters in their respective populations since September 2021, with Omicron’s emergence accelerating their booster program. Despite this, both countries have reported substantial recent increases in Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases. The duration of the protection conferred by the booster dose against symptomatic Omicron cases and severe outcomes is unclear. Methods and findings Using a test-negative design, we analyzed national databases to estimate the vaccine effectiveness (VE) of a primary series (with ChAdOx1 or BNT162b2) plus an mRNA vaccine booster (with BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273) against symptomatic Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and severe COVID-19 outcomes (hospitalization or death) during the period of Omicron dominance in Brazil and Scotland compared to unvaccinated individuals. Additional analyses included stratification by age group (18 to 49, 50 to 64, ≥65). All individuals aged 18 years or older who reported acute respiratory illness symptoms and tested for SARS-CoV-2 infection between January 1, 2022, and April 23, 2022, in Brazil and Scotland were eligible for the study. At 14 to 29 days after the mRNA booster, the VE against symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection of ChAdOx1 plus BNT162b2 booster was 51.6%, (95% confidence interval (CI): [51.0, 52.2], p < 0.001) in Brazil and 67.1% (95% CI [65.5, 68.5], p < 0.001) in Scotland. At ≥4 months, protection against symptomatic infection waned to 4.2% (95% CI [0.7, 7.6], p = 0.02) in Brazil and 37.4% (95% CI [33.8, 40.9], p < 0.001) in Scotland. VE against severe outcomes in Brazil was 93.5% (95% CI [93.0, 94.0], p < 0.001) at 14 to 29 days post-booster, decreasing to 82.3% (95% CI [79.7, 84.7], p < 0.001) and 98.3% (95% CI [87.3, 99.8], p < 0.001) to 77.8% (95% CI [51.4, 89.9], p < 0.001) in Scotland for the same periods. Similar results were obtained with the primary series of BNT162b2 plus homologous booster. Potential limitations of this study were that we assumed that all cases included in the analysis were due to the Omicron variant based on the period of dominance and the limited follow-up time since the booster dose. Conclusions We observed that mRNA boosters after a primary vaccination course with either mRNA or viral-vector vaccines provided modest, short-lived protection against symptomatic infection with Omicron but substantial and more sustained protection against severe COVID-19 outcomes for at least 3 months.