Covid-19 in Latin America countries: Course of the pandemic and the different responses towards control

Abstract

Background: The emergence of COVID-19 in Latin America occurred within a troubled political, economic and social context, with growing trends of poverty and social inequality challenging already overburdened and underfinanced local healthcare systems. In the absence of a vaccine or of any treatment for COVID-19, public health measures such as social distancing had to be adopted. The objective of this paper is to describe the course of the COVID-19 pandemic in Latin American countries and to summarize the social distancing measures implemented in each one of these countries, discussing the changes that took place in the social mobility of the populations and their potential effects on the course of the epidemic up to June 2020. Results: Brazil has the highest cumulative number of cases and deaths; however, cumulative incidence rates are higher in Peru and Chile, while the highest cumulative mortality rates are in Ecuador, Peru and Brazil. Some countries implemented social distancing measures before the first case was registered, culminating in lockdown in eight countries before detection of the 100th case. The measures that appear to have had the greatest impact in reducing mobility include, in addition to lockdown, the closure of schools and prohibition of events. In general, the countries that implemented social distancing measures earlier and where the reduction in social mobility was greatest also recorded lower incidence and mortality rates. Brazil and Mexico failed to adopt lockdown and the number of cases of the disease continues to grow. Conclusions: As occurred in other continents, control of the COVID-19 pandemic was better in countries that were faster in adopting more restrictive measures. Nevertheless, this equation does not appear to guarantee a positive outcome in all settings, possibly due to the considerable social inequalities and chronic deficiencies of the healthcare systems, with the scenario being even more complex in view of the recurring political crises and the negationist view of some national leaders. The COVID-19 pandemic continues to spread in Latin America and exposes these contradictions. Further studies are required to gain a greater understanding and generate lessons on how to manage such a complex crisis.

A year of living distantly: global trends in the use of stay-at-home orders over the first 12 months of the COVID-19 pandemic

“…During their most stringent lockdowns, Panama, Colombia and Peru introduced a gender-based rotation system whereby only women were allowed out on certain days of the week and only men on the other days. In Bolivia and Honduras, exemptions to leave the house were granted on different days of the week based on identity card numbers, whereas in Ecuador, Costa Rica and Paraguay, it was based on vehicle licence plate numbers [ 31 – 33 ]. These types of policies are not entirely new: cities such as Ulaanbaatar, Paris, Beijing and many Latin American cities have addressed air pollution by only allowing certain licence plate numbers to drive on certain days [ 34 , 35 ].…”

Resilience mediates the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on mental health in a sample of adults in Panama

“…Despite being one of the most affluent and developed countries in the Central American region, Panama had high rates of disease transmission and a high number of deaths per million inhabitants due to health complications from the virus ( Pearson et al, 2021 ). Panama simultaneously implemented one of the strictest lockdowns in the world ( Pescarini et al, 2020 ), which included curfews, severe mobility and travel restrictions, and suspension of most in-person activities, including compulsory education. These lockdown measures remained in effect until late 2021, with many restrictions continuing well into 2022.…”

Compliance to Community Infection Control Standards during the COVID-19 Pandemic: An Integrative Review

“…There is a loosening of prevention measures by the population, a denial of reality and the impossibility of enforcing restrictions. The non-compliance and, to some extent the disinterest of certain human groups in relation to these regulations is alarming [7].…”