It was disappointing to read the Editorial1 about Brazil's response to COVID-19, criticising the Brazilian president who “discourag[ed] the sensible measures of physical distancing and lockdown”. Yes, he insisted that lockdown is ineffective and terrible for the economy.
Evidence suggests that he was right. A European study concluded that lockdown might not have saved lives.2 A Brazilian study found that a 1·0% increase in unemployment rate was associated with a 0·5% increase in all-cause mortality.3 The expected rate of unemployment (23%) would cause 120 000 deaths in Brazil, according to the authors' projections.3 Therefore, the Brazilian Government implemented protective measures; distributed US$5·6 billion to the cities, states, and directly to the population through an emergency salvage salary; created intensive care unit beds; and delivered protective equipment and ventilators. Does this response show a “vacuum of political actions”?1
The the time of writing, Brazil is doing better than the UK in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Population-adjusted COVID-19 cases, deaths, and case-fatality rates are much higher in the UK than in Brazil. The Lancet should criticise their own country, before criticising ours.
We feel that bias has abounded during Richard Horton's editorship, including the MMR vaccine imbroglio4 (putting children's lives at risk) and the incendiary Correspondence about the situation in Gaza.5 The Lancet praised the Chinese response to the COVID-19 pandemic, even after China was accused of covering up the initial spread and human-to-human transmission of COVID-19. The Lancet was harsher with Brazil, suggesting that we should eject the president from his chair.
We have disregarded your misinforming Editorial,1 which we feel is clearly biased against our right-wing government. Unfortunately, The Lancet has published nothing against the Brazilian left-wing government, which prioritised football stadiums over hospitals.
As Brazilian physicians, we give you a clear answer: the Editor of The Lancet must abandon political bias, retract the Editorial,1 and focus on science, or else he “must be the next to go”.1
Acknowledgments
We declare no competing interests. Signatories of this Correspondence are listed in the appendix.
Supplementary Material
References
- 1.The Lancet COVID-19 in Brazil: “So what?”. Lancet. 2020;395 doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31095-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Meunier T. Full lockdown policies in western Europe countries have no evident impacts on the COVID-19 epidemic. MedRxiv. 2020 doi: 10.1101/2020.04.24.20078717. published online May 1. (preprint) [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Hone T, Mirelman AJ, Rasella D. Effect of economic recession and impact of health and social protection expenditures on adult mortality: a longitudinal analysis of 5565 Brazilian municipalities. Lancet Glob Health. 2019;7:e1575–e1583. doi: 10.1016/S2214-109X(19)30409-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Eggertson L. Lancet retracts 12-year-old article linking autism to MMR vaccines. CMAJ. 2010;182:E199–E200. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.109-3179. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Manduca P, Chalmers I, Summerfield D, Gilbert M, Ang S. An open letter for the people in Gaza. Lancet. 2014;384:397–398. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(14)61044-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.