Crimes against humanity in Brazil’s covid-19 response—a lesson to us allBMJ 2021; 375 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n2625 (Published 27 October 2021) Cite this as: BMJ 2021;375:n2625
All rapid responses
Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed. Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles. The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not including references and author details. We will no longer post responses that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
I commend the Brazilian senate inquiry and the authors of this piece for publicising the many failures of Brazil’s federal government in its response to the COVID-19 pandemic. I share their view that the national president’s behaviour constitutes crimes against humanity, which could not go unpunished.
Nevertheless, I feel it is essential to draw attention to one aspect of Brazil’s pandemic response that is not specifically dealt with in the article. Whilst it is true that the federal government’s initial procurement of COVID-19 vaccines was unjustifiably delayed, the country’s subsequent vaccination campaign has been a considerable success. This can be seen both in terms of overall levels of coverage achieved and more specific rates for the most vulnerable groups. Currently, around 65 per cent of Brazilians have received two doses of vaccine (https://graphics.reuters.com/world-coronavirus-tracker-and-maps/countrie...) Roll-out was particularly fast for people at older ages and for indigenous groups: by early July over 85 per cent of indigenous people and people aged 70 or more were fully vaccinated (https://veja.abril.com.br/saude/mais-de-86-dos-idosos-acima-de-70-anos-e... ; https://www.correiobraziliense.com.br/brasil/2021/06/4931494-populacao-i...). In comparison, most other middle-income countries, including India, Mexico, Thailand and South Africa, have achieved far lower rates of overall coverage and have done less to prioritise the most vulnerable. For example, In Bulgaria, as of 26 October 2021, only 21.0 per cent of people aged 80 or more had been fully vaccinated, compared to 31 per cent of people aged between 60 and 69 and 19.7 per cent of those aged 25 to 49 (https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/covid-fully-vaccinated-by-age?tab=tab...).
Of course, none of the credit for Brazil’s relative success in vaccinating its population should go to President Bolsonaro. Instead, it is a testament to the dedication and hard work of the county’s public health agencies, both at the national and local government levels.
Had Brazil’s vaccination campaign taken the same approach as these other countries, the numbers of confirmed COVID-19 deaths is likely to have been closer to a million than to the actual level of around 600,000.
Yes, Bolsonaro deserves to be put on trial for his criminal actions. But what about those responsible for the calamitous vaccination campaigns of other countries, which are responsible for millions of avoidable deaths? The international community has had almost nothing to say about that.
Competing interests: No competing interests