Manderson Lenore, Chavarro Diego, Kaunda-Khangamwa Blessings, Kagaha Alexander, Zakumumpa Henry
School of Public Health, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.
School of Social Sciences, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC Australia.
Humanit Soc Sci Commun. 2022;9(1):347. doi: 10.1057/s41599-022-01357-4. Epub 2022 Oct 3.
Multiple social interventions were introduced to contain the COVID-19 pandemic across Africa, limiting social engagement, school and workplace attendance, and travel. In anticipation of negative economic consequences and social impact, many governments introduced cash transfers, social pensions, food aid, and utility and tax waivers. However, people living precariously and/or under conditions of structural vulnerability were often unable to access to this support. A rapid review was undertaken on COVID-19 and the effects of interventions on human rights in African countries, examining primary studies, editorial notes, opinion papers, and literature reviews, with focus on qualitative approaches and discussions. In examining the links between health, human rights and non-pharmaceutical interventions on vulnerable populations, the review identified that: (1) people who were vulnerable were excluded from or not adequately represented in policy responses to COVID-19; (2) the precarious socio-economic conditions of these populations were not adequately addressed by dominant policy responses; and (3) only partial support was offered to those whose relationship with the state was ambiguous or conditional, so compromising human rights. Interactions between health, human rights, and underlying social and economic conditions amplified poor health and impoverishment of those who were already vulnerable. The challenge is to find a balance between stopping the spread of COVID-19 and the protection of human rights; to implement population-specific responses to supplement uniform public health responses; and to address causes (structural vulnerability) rather than symptoms. There is a need to plan rather than react to pandemics, and to co-construct interventions with rather than delivering instructions to populations. These recommendations serve as instruments to be considered when designing new policies, to incorporate a human rights perspective in responses to current and future pandemics.
非洲各地采取了多项社会干预措施来遏制新冠疫情，限制社交活动、学校和工作场所的出勤以及出行。鉴于可能产生的负面经济后果和社会影响，许多政府推出了现金转移支付、社会养老金、食品援助以及水电费和税收减免政策。然而，生活不稳定和/或处于结构性脆弱状况的人群往往无法获得这种支持。针对新冠疫情以及非洲国家干预措施对人权的影响进行了一项快速审查，研究了原始研究、编者按、意见书和文献综述，重点关注定性方法和讨论。在审视健康、人权与针对弱势群体的非药物干预措施之间的联系时，该审查发现：（1）弱势群体在新冠疫情应对政策中被排除在外或未得到充分代表；（2）这些人群不稳定的社会经济状况未得到主流应对政策的充分解决；（3）对于那些与国家关系不明确或有条件的人群，仅提供了部分支持，从而损害了人权。健康、人权与潜在的社会经济状况之间的相互作用加剧了弱势群体的健康问题和贫困状况。挑战在于在阻止新冠病毒传播与人权保护之间找到平衡；实施针对特定人群的应对措施以补充统一的公共卫生应对措施；并解决问题根源（结构性脆弱性）而非症状。有必要对疫情进行规划而非应对，与民众共同构建干预措施而非向民众发布指令。这些建议可作为设计新政策时考虑的工具，以便在应对当前和未来疫情时纳入人权视角。
