The spread of COVID-19 caused immense death and significantly impacted the fields of healthcare, social, and economic stance. Panic, fear, and frustration describe people’s reactions to the global pandemic, since humanity has not faced similar phenomena for decades. This paper aims to review how the U.S. and Brazil, countries that suffered the most, responded to the first virus outbreaks to trace how different their measures were.
The first wave of the pandemic in the United States occurred in 2020 and lasted from March to July. It was a tough time for the country since it bore massive losses in society, healthcare, the economy, and other fields. The country started developing measures to mitigate the consequences of an almost complete freeze in economic activity. In addition to the states, the Federal Government was actively engaged in capacity-building in the health sphere. On March 18, Donald Trump announced that he was using the Defense Production Act of 1950, which allowed the president to set mandatory priorities for private companies in producing goods necessary to ensure the state’s security (Okonkwo et al., 2021). First of all, such priority products included medical masks, protective suits, and screens, as well as artificial lung ventilation devices.
The state’s economy had to undergo drastic changes due to the rapid development of unemployment. The applications for unemployment benefits increased 12 times compared to the average (The Lancet, 2020). The president signed the first law in this area on March 6, which was relatively limited (The Lancet, 2020). It included additional funding from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Food and Drug Administration, the National Institutes of Health, the State Department, and the Small Business Administration. Approximately half of the allocated funds (out of $8.3 billion) were to be used to ensure the availability of coronavirus tests (The Lancet, 2020). $1 billion was allocated to provide loans to small businesses (Okonkwo et al., 2021). However, such investments did not help to stabilize the economy, and the state is still struggling to restore its previous conditions.
Trying to stretch out the influx of patients in time, the state authorities were simultaneously taking measures to increase the capabilities of medical institutions. On the other hand, the governments proclaimed a zero coronavirus policy (Okonkwo et al., 2021). It implied that people were allowed to go out and attend public places without many restrictions, which has only boosted the spread of the virus. After the failures at the first stage, the United States focused on the fight against the disease and is trying to conclude the future.
Brazil has become one of the countries most affected by the pandemic. The first outbreak wave occurred in February 2020 and ended in November of the same year. The fight against COVID-19 in Brazil was more difficult than in most countries, and it’s not just the number of infected (Ferigato et al., 2020). President Bolsonaro called the coronavirus a “mild flu,” pranced at rallies on horseback without a mask, and when he got sick, he did not follow doctors’ recommendations (Ferigato et al., 2020). For example, at a press conference, he took off his mask in front of journalists. In June, a wave of protests by both supporters and opponents of the president swept through the country (Pontes & Lima, 2020). Hence, the denial of the real threat posed by the virus led the government to massive losses.
The coronavirus epidemic has primarily led the republic to internal political conflict and disputes over the vaccine. There were debates on the type of vaccination to import (Ferigato et al., 2020). The population was reluctant to vaccinate since the authorities did not do it. Later, the governor of the state of Sao Paulo, Joao Doria, united all the other governors around him and suggested that all previous presidents from all parties be vaccinated so that people would look and not be afraid (Ferigato et al., 2020). For those who treated COVID-19 irresponsibly, the point of view began to change a little.
To make people stay at home, the authorities limited traffic: cars with even license plate numbers drove on even days of the week. In the state of Espiritu Santo, so as not to tempt pensioners, benches were dismantled (Pontes & Lima, 2020). In Rio de Janeiro’s favelas, even local drug dealers’ leaders have imposed their curfew (Pontes & Lima, 2020). Ultimately, residents were forced to obey the law to stop the pandemic.
As in the whole world, in Brazil, small and medium-sized businesses, individual entrepreneurs, street vendors, and those engaged in daily work were the first to feel the pandemic’s impact. To avoid an increase in unemployment and support entrepreneurship, the authorities announced a large-scale program of socio-economic measures. The total volume of which the country’s Economy Minister Paulo Guedes estimated at more than $150 billion (Pontes & Lima, 2020). Fiscal stimulus measures included widespread deferrals of taxes and social contributions, easing the requirements of labor legislation to maintain employment.
In conclusion, the U.S. and Brazil have become the centers of the pandemic rapid spread due to the irresponsible attitude concerning restriction measures. The inability to isolate people by making them stay at home the states had to struggle with issues in healthcare and the economy. Both countries are still working to boost their economic position and regulate social problems that have arisen since the beginning of the epidemic.
References
Ferigato, S., Fernandez, M., Amorim, M., Ambrogi, I., Fernandes, L., & Pacheco, R. (2020). The Brazilian Government’s mistakes in responding to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Lancet, 396(10263), P1636. Web.
Okonkwo, N., Aguwa, U., Jang, M., Barre, I., Page, K., Sullivan, P., Bayer, C., & Baral, S. (2021). COVID-19 and the US response: Accelerating health inequities. BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine, 26, 176-179. Web.
Pontes, M., & Lima, J. (2020). Brazil’s COVID-19 response. The Lancet, 396(10254), E34. Web.
The Lancet. (2020). COVID-19 in the USA: A question of time. Lancet (London, England), 395(10232), 1229. Web.