Sie sind auf Seite 1von 2

“War on Zika”

Societal factors, such as poverty and gender, which ultimately shape the emergence and
development of these kinds of infectious diseases, were ignored. The politics of Zika was left out
of the discussion.

In January 2016, after 18 of the country’s 27 states had reported cases of Zika infection, Brazil
made its declaration of war on the disease. A month later, after it spread to neighbouring
countries, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared Zika a “public health emergency of
international concern”.

But by the end of 2016, when WHO had said it would no longer be treating the disease as
an international medical emergency, responses to Zika were still being described by the
media using the language of war.

That language of war targeted two main “enemies”.


The first was a collective war focused on eradicating the mosquito.
With that came a second, gender-based war against microcephaly, a birth defect associated with
the Zika virus.
In this battle, the burden of responsibility was put on women, who were expected to
adopt preventive measures and avoid pregnancy.

GLOBAL NORTH

GLOBAL SOUTH: Woman holding above her head the mosquito with the zika virus

The geography of where Zika spread clearly overlaps with the geography of poverty
and inequality in Brazil. The average family income in these four states is 180% lower
than parts of the wealthier southern regions.
As for the gender dimension, in Brazil, as elsewhere in South America, women have limited
access to contraception, abortion is illegal and rates of sexual violence are high.
In the poorer north-eastern states there are also much higher levels of young pregnancy, much
lower levels of education and far fewer women with jobs than in the rest of the country. The so-
called “war on Zika” completely fails to address these social factors.

The way in which Zika is framed in the media shapes public opinion in Brazilian society about
who is to blame for the outbreak and who is responsible for fixing it. Unfortunately, this
approach continues to focus on the cure rather than prevention – and fails to think critically
about the politics of the disease.

WOMAN IN BARS SURROUNDED BY ZIKA MOSQUITO, OUTSIDE IS THE SERVICES

The vulnerable groups who suffer Zika’s impact the most have been historically excluded from
fair wages and decent living conditions. They are not free to make their own decisions about
sexual health. They do not have access to good quality public education or health services. They
do not enjoy freedom from violence.

DRONE: mosquito zika virus


Limiting and controlling the Zika virus is important. But dealing with disease control
should not distract from alternative views of Zika which connect it to broader social and political
trends. These are currently much more peripheral in the public debate.

As a result, the mainstream view serves to distract from the real politics of Zika. The Brazilian
and international community should urgently turn their attention to the fundamental socio-
economic and gender issues related to the disease – and seek to answer some uncomfortable
questions about responsibility and social justice.

Fear of a disease, which oftentimes can prove more infectious than the disease itself, can and
does have real negative economic and social effects.

In the most extreme cases, fear of disease can paralyze a country’s economy and overwhelm
its social structure to the point of crisis

The real danger emerges when efforts to avoid a panic stand in the way of good public health
policy. Implementing infection screenings and travel bans may create a false sense of security,
leading people in areas perceived as safe to falsely believe that they aren’t at risk, thereby
encouraging riskier behavior and increasing the odds of infection. Simple steps such as
governments encouraging citizens to practice good hygiene, to avoid potentially sick individuals,
and to report symptoms of disease can go a long way in terms of slowing the spread of an
epidemic without necessarily causing an outright panic.

Unfortunately, Zika is likely poised to exacerbate existing inequalities between rich and
poor regions internationally as well as on a domestic scale. When the costs of a disease are not
distributed across a national population, vulnerable groups are forced to contend with not only
the disease itself, but also the consequent socioeconomic fallout.

To be as effective as possible, any plan to reduce the total human costs of Zika must take into
account Zika’s origins as a disease of poverty. The developed world is not immune from diseases
that emerge in poor countries. As long as living conditions in communities like Brazil’s favelas
allow diseases and vector species like mosquitos to thrive, new pandemics will continue to be
spawned. The enduring struggle between man and microbe pivots on each side’s ability to adapt.
With this in mind, even modest upgrades to local health and sanitation systems in vulnerable
areas would be immensely impactful in terms of reducing the human cost of future diseases.

https://norkinvirology.wordpress.com/2016/02/04/zika-virus-background-politics-and-
prospects/

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen