Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorBroadbent, Alexander
dc.contributor.authorWalker, Damian
dc.contributor.authorChalkidou, Kalipso
dc.contributor.authorSullivan, Richard
dc.contributor.authorGlassman, Amanda
dc.date.accessioned2020-07-31T00:16:32Z
dc.date.available2020-07-31T00:16:32Z
dc.date.issued2020
dc.identifier.issn1474-547X
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31422-7
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10072/395972
dc.description.abstractWe support Richard Horton's call for a post-COVID-19 health recovery programme,1 but his lack of attention to so-called lockdown victims is disappointing. Evidence of avoidable non-COVID-19 deaths (eg, cancer deaths,2 child deaths from measles,3 women dying in labour4) is mounting. We are disappointed by the false dichotomy implicit in the assertion that there “should be no trade-off between health and wealth”. The wealthy might profit from the economy, but the poor live by it. • View related content for this article: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31422-7/fulltext#coronavirus-linkback-header Like UNICEF5 and others, we believe that lockdowns kill people through disruption of health services and deprivation of livelihoods. At the bottom of the global pile, recession is not just a matter of having less: it is a matter of life and death. When we lockdown, we cause deaths in the developing world to prolong lives in the developed world. Too poor to weather the storm, and lucky to make it to adulthood (according to UNICEF, over 5 million children under age 5 years die annually, and according to UN World Population Prospects 2019 data, the median age in Africa is 19·7 years), those near or below the poverty line stand to benefit little from lockdown, but they bear the lion's share of the cost. Children are especially vulnerable to malnutrition and diseases of poverty—and especially not vulnerable to COVID-19. It is unhelpful to characterise lockdown scepticism as a neoliberal political stance. Lockdown is demonstrably not egalitarian in either its costs or its benefits. We must assess lockdowns and other measures holistically,6 remembering that the costs will mostly fall, as ever, on the global poor.
dc.languageEnglish
dc.language.isoeng
dc.publisherElsevier
dc.relation.ispartofpagefrom21
dc.relation.ispartofpageto22
dc.relation.ispartofissue10243
dc.relation.ispartofjournalLancet
dc.relation.ispartofvolume396
dc.subject.fieldofresearchBiomedical and clinical sciences
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode32
dc.titleLockdown is not egalitarian: the costs fall on the global poor
dc.typeJournal article
dc.type.descriptionC3 - Articles (Letter/ Note)
dcterms.bibliographicCitationBroadbent, A; Walker, D; Chalkidou, K; Sullivan, R; Glassman, A, Lockdown is not egalitarian: the costs fall on the global poor., Lancet, 2020, 396 (10243), pp. 21-22
dcterms.dateAccepted2020-06-15
dc.date.updated2020-07-28T00:02:25Z
gro.hasfulltextNo Full Text
gro.griffith.authorChalkidou, Kalipso


Files in this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

  • Journal articles
    Contains articles published by Griffith authors in scholarly journals.

Show simple item record