MS Risk Blog

Will Cyber Surveillance Continue Post-COVID-19?

Recently, historian Yuval Noah Harari said that people “could look back in 100 years and identify the coronavirus epidemic as the moment when a new regime of surveillance took over…”. Eastern European countries are currently moving towards unprecedented surveillance methods to enable tracking of suspected COVID-19 cases and to enforce lockdowns. Slovenia said it would not compromise the right to privacy in order to use technological tools that enable contact tracing. Meanwhile most other countries in the region have made such compromises.

Poland launched an app which uses a mobile location service and facial recognition, and sends random requests for users to take pictures as evidence that they’re home. Bulgarian police were authorised to request data from mobile and internet communications to monitor citizens under mandatory quarantine. Ukraine, Slovakia and Lithuania enacted laws enabling location tracking systems. Estonia instructed its statistics office to use mobile geolocation data from phone companies to study citizens’ movement. Serbia tracked Italian telephone numbers to check whether people returning from Italy were self-isolating. Albania and Croatia used drones to monitor compliance with lockdowns. Hungary issued a decree relaxing the obligation of authorities to notify individuals when collecting personal data when done for COVID-19 purposes. Moscow introduced an automatic permit checking system for public transport. If citizens don’t have permission to be outside they will be fined. In addition, Moscow’s 170,000 street cameras and facial recognition software now target possible coronavirus carriers who violate COVID-19 restrictions.

Opposition activists in Moscow say this will lead to unprecedented government intrusion, dubbing it a “digital concentration camp”. Meanwhile Moscow mayor Sobyanin said: “When we talk about the health and lives of an enormous amount of people, there’s no choice.” The right to private life is protected by international law under Art 8 ECHR and Art 17 ICCPR, but can be restricted under certain circumstances. It must serve to protect a legitimate aim, one of which are the protection of public health, and the measures adopted must be temporary; proportionate; and necessary. In many States, privacy rights have now given way to public health. States were warned in a joint statement by 107 organisations, including Amnesty International, to respect human rights when employing cyber surveillance to fight the COVID-19 pandemic. In its Statement on the processing of personal data in the context of COVID-19, the European Data Protection Board said that when it is not possible to only process anonymous mobile location data Member States should introduce legislative measures to safeguard public security when processing non-anonymized location data.

The system used in Moscow stores user data which Sobyanin said will be deleted after self-isolation ends. It is however not guaranteed that this user data will simply disappear. In this digital age, security leaks are a very real possibility. Sarkis Darbinyan, lawyer for NGO Roskomsvoboda which monitors online freedom, said there “is a high probability that once the epidemic ends this data will start leaking to the [black] market, which happens to so many other data bases”. This information could also be misused by employees in the government or be stolen by other countries. The data collected during a health crisis could be particularly vulnerable as it is collected and used in a rush. According to Richard Searle, senior security architect, this raises the risk that sufficient diligence and information risk management is not applied to these types of apps and initiatives. Mikhail Klimarev, a technology expert, said: “Personal data will leak out. You don’t have to ask a fortune-teller to see that because the system is being made in a hurry.”

There is also fear that governments will be reluctant to relinquish these tools after the crisis has passed. When speaking about the Russian government, Leonid Volkov, chief strategist to the opposition leader, said: “If they have created it, they will never allow themselves to turn it off. It’s too tempting.” In addition, Artem Kozlyuk of Roskomsvoboda warned that “…in Russia, it’s always done behind closed doors. There’s a danger that after all this is over, the authorities won’t want to put these tools away.” The country has already seen a decline in online freedom in the name of security. The concern that Russia will continue using these surveillance technologies is therefore not surprising.

On the positive side, some governments are openly acknowledging the privacy issues raised by implementing such measures. Many of the surveillance measures adopted are more overt. For instance, the app introduced in Poland is an open-source, voluntary app that uses encryption and is trying to meet privacy requirements. After passing a law allowing collection of phone data, Slovakian Justice Minister Maria Kolikova said that they “realize that this is an infringement of fundamental rights and freedoms, let’s not pretend it is not.” It is recognised that crisis management sometimes require exceptional measures that undermine human rights. Undermining privacy rights can be justified as location tracking could mitigate the spread. It gives governments a better overview of the infected population. Apps can also help health care systems notify people who might have been infected.

Meanwhile human rights group Privacy International has questioned the effectiveness of some of these tools. For instance, there is limited evidence that location data proved useful in handling and predicting the spread of Ebola. Bernadett Szel, opposition politician in Hungary, said that restricting data rights “is unnecessary and disproportionate, and furthermore does not help, even hinders the fight against the epidemic.” People might mistakenly be identified as exposed to the virus or, even more concerning, people exposed mistakenly not identified. Location surveillance systems can also have a disproportionate effect on vulnerable groups in society. UN special rapporteur Fionnuala Ni Aolain said that the “danger is that states, particularly non-democratic or less open societies, would use the opportunity given by the health emergency to crack down on particular minority groups, or individuals or groups that they see as highly problematic.”

History shows that, in emergencies, governments fast-track measures without sufficient scrutiny. Such measures have sometimes outlasted the emergencies they were meant to address. Aolain points to 9/11 and the fact that emergency powers introduced after this event was still in place after 20 years. Taylor Monahan, CEO of MyCrypto, said that COVID-19 has raised fear and irrationality similar to post-9/11, only “now we fear our neighbors.” The pandemic has given governments a new momentum to introduce and enforce these tools. In addition, new technology has made it even easier for States to monitor their citizens.

It must be recognised that government surveillance can be a useful tool in mitigating the spread of the coronavirus. The question is what happens after. Scholars and rights groups are concerned that cybersurveillance may become normalised during this period. “The data access allowed and the infrastructure built today will not necessarily disappear once the current pandemic is over, but may be expanded and used for other purposes,” said Cohen, head of policy at enterprise software company Privitar. Not only might some governments retain their newly developed surveillance tools, but the data collected during the pandemic could be stolen by hackers. While the COVID-19 pandemic might justify prioritising public health over privacy for the moment, there is a danger that some of these surveillance measures will stay in place.

Sweden’s Refusal to Implement Strict Lockdown

Sweden has conducted an unusual approach towards the global coronavirus pandemic. The nation has rejected copying the measures implemented by other countries in Western Europe, which includes a complete nationwide lockdown. Instead, the country has been heavily relying on trusting public’s behaviour to follow the government’s request of social distancing. Some restrictions are implemented, such as banning public gatherings of more than 50 participants and visits to nursing homes. Some universities have also been closed and have instead implemented online learning. Other than that, everything is staying the same as there is no pandemic going. Primary schools, shops, restaurants, hair salons, and other public places have been kept open. The measure implemented is in stark contrast to the neighbouring Nordic countries which share similar cultural, geographical, and sociological traits such as Norway, Denmark, and Finland. The three neighbouring countries have implemented strict nationwide lockdowns, closing all schools, restaurants, and other public places. Sweden’s government however stated that lockdown in Sweden will be pointless because Swedes could be trusted to conduct social distancing. Around 75% of Sweden’s population agreed with the measures taken by the government. However, many of Sweden’s scientists have been accusing the government of experimenting with people’s lives. The international community has also condemned Sweden’s lack of action and accused the government of trying to reach ‘herd immunity’. The accusations have been denied by Swedish Minister of Health and Social Affairs, Lena Hallengren, stating that Sweden has no plan to create herd immunity and shares the same goals as other countries, which is to save people’s lives. Still, the World Health Organization (WHO) has called on Sweden to take more measures in regards to controlling the spread of the virus.  Other than that, data has shown several indications that Sweden’s refusal on implementing strict lockdown might be a failure and should be evaluated.

As of 30 April 2020, the confirmed cases of coronavirus in Sweden have reached 21,092 cases with 2,586 deaths. This statistic is significantly higher compared to the neighbouring Nordic countries. In Denmark, the confirmed cases of coronavirus have only reached 9,158 cases with 452 deaths. In Finland, the confirmed cases of coronavirus have only reached 4,995 cases with 211 deaths while in Norway, the confirmed cases of coronavirus have only reached 7,738 cases with 210 deaths. The confirmed cases in Sweden are more than double the numbers in Denmark, more than four times the numbers in Finland, and almost three times the numbers in Norway. In regards to the number of deaths, the statistics of Sweden’s fatalities related to the coronavirus shows that the number of deaths in Sweden is more than five times the numbers in Denmark and more than ten times the numbers in Finland and Norway. Sweden might have a bigger population than the other three Nordic countries, with around 10 million people while compared to some 5 million living in Denmark, Finland, and Norway respectively. However, the spread of coronavirus in Sweden will still be significantly higher and dangerous even if Sweden has the same population as Denmark, Finland, and Norway. For instance, one of the factors that affect this judgment is the death rate within each country.  According to the figures from John Hopkins University, the death rate in Sweden has reached more than 22 per 100,000 people, which is significantly higher than the three other Nordic countries. By contrast, the death rate in Denmark is only 7 per 100,000 people, while in Finland and Norway is only 4 per 100,000 people.

The statistics of confirmed cases, total deaths, and death rate in Sweden may not be as high as countries like Spain and Italy. However there are various complex differences between Sweden and these countries that make direct comparisons harder. For example, Italy has a higher aging population and a higher number of smokers within the country than Sweden. Also, the statistics in Sweden should be more similar to the neighbouring Nordic countries such as Denmark, Finland, and Norway, which share many similar traits with Sweden. There must be a reason why Sweden’s statistics are significantly higher than the neighbouring Nordic countries and the most obvious one is Sweden’s refusal on implementing strict nationwide lockdown. Even the Swedish Health Agency has predicted that 26% of the Stockholm population will have been infected by May 1 if the country does not make its measure on fighting coronavirus stricter. Therefore, it is believed that Sweden should implement more restrictions as other countries in order to achieve a better situation due to the global coronavirus pandemic.

ISIS’s Resurgence in Syria Amid the Coronavirus Outbreak

On April 9^th 2020 reports emerged that the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) managed to take control of As-Sukhna, a town situated in the northern countryside of Homs governorate in Syria. The capture follows the release of propaganda videos by the group showcasing ISIS operations against the Syrian Army filmed in Syria’s Badia desert. As-Sukhna is the second largest city in the Badia after Palmyra and was first seized by ISIS in 2015 only to be retaken by Syrian government forces in 2017. ISIS’s capture of the town follows two other incidents relating to the group this month alone. On the 7^th of April ISIS killed two members of the National Defence Force, an Iran established regime auxiliary force in eastern Deir al-Zor province. On the 6^thof April ISIS executed a woman whom the group claimed was working with the Syrian regime. Such incidents shed light on ISIS’s capability to inflict costs and capture territory in Syria amid the COVID-19 pandemic. Syria has experienced an outbreak of the virus beginning in March 2020. As of April 30^th 2020, the infection toll stands at 43 while the death toll is at three.

Measures have been taken in an attempt to contain the virus. For instance, the Kurdish-led autonomous administration of North and East Syria imposed a curfew starting March 23^rd prohibiting movement among the subregions of northeast Syria. The Syrian ministry of interior declared a 12-hour curfew for the rest of Syria on the 25^th of March and the Syrian government declared that the commuting of citizens between province centres and all other urban and rural areas is disallowed at all times save those with clearance. The United States, which leads the international coalition to defeat ISIS and deny it a safe haven, has expressed concerns that the Islamic State may rebound amid an unfolding humanitarian crisis particularly in the north east of the country under the control of the predominantly Kurdish Syrian Democratic Forces as local officials sound the alarm about a lack of resources to deal with the outbreak. The US has sent some supplies such as basic medical equipment to the Syrian Democratic Forces guarding roughly 10,000 imprisoned ISIS fighters. The concern is that worsening conditions could spark riots in the detention centres providing ISIS with the opportunity to recruit additional members to its cause and take back territories it lost.

The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) or the Islamic State of Iraq and Levant (ISIL) also known as the Islamic State (IS) and by its Arabic acronym Da’esh is a Salafi Jihadist group following a radical and fundamentalist doctrine of Sunni Islam. ISIS is designated a terrorist group by the United Nations. As a splinter group of Al-Qaida, ISIS gained the world’s attention by seizing territory in Iraq when it drove out the Iraqi army from major cities including Mosul in 2014. The group furthered their territorial gains in Syria where it captured vast swaths of land to create an unrecognised proto state regarded by ISIS as a Caliphate including a significant number of wilayats or provinces with their leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi considered Caliph of the Caliphate. In the height of their power ISIS controlled 88,000 square kilometres or 34,000 square miles of land in both Iraq and Syria. In addition to gaining territory and establishing a proto state the group also incorporated a number of other groups around the world into their Caliphate recognising them as provinces.

ISIS became present in the Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Somalia, Libya, Afghanistan Pakistan, Nigeria and the northern caucuses. Some, such as Boko Haram in Nigeria who pledged allegiance to Baghdadi in March 2015, were already in possession of territory. ISIS possessed a two-tier systematized vertical command structure managing the territory and its inhabitants and had thousands of foreign fighters swelling the ranks, by 2015 ISIS was reported to have at least 30,000 dedicated foreign fighters according to a UN report. The group gained such a following through effective propaganda campaigns spread over social media. ISIS had the capacity to generate 200,000 tweets and could disseminate as much as 38 unique propaganda events daily successfully spreading their ideology around the world inspiring terrorist acts. By 2016, 1200 people around the world had been killed in ISIS terrorist attacks both coordinated and inspired. This figure excludes attacks in Iraq and Syria. Despite the quick and successful gains since 2014 the group began losing territory from 2015 onward mainly due to the international coalition to defeat ISIS. By 2019 the group lost virtually all of its territory in Iraq and Syria and had lost its leader, al-Baghdadi, following a US military operation which led to his death.

Although suffering major defeat ISIS is still present in both Iraq and Syria and has managed to maintain the cohesion and integrity of its organizational structure as well as its leadership control system. Moreover, the group’s branches or provinces are still active in a number of countries maintaining some of the reach they previously had when the group was at its strongest. To some degree, the group enjoys relative freedom of movement through mobile groups that can launch attacks in fragile security areas in both Syria and Iraq. ISIS also managed to replace al-Baghdadi with Muhammad Said Abdal Rahman al-Mawla commonly known as Abu Ibrahim Al-Hashimi Al-Quraishi though it has been reported that Al-Quraishi may be a temporary Emir or leader given his alleged Turkmen, as opposed to Arab, ethnicity. According to ISIS’s interpretation of Islamic law the Caliph must be a descendent of the Quraish-Hashemite tribe.

The implications of ISIS resurging amid a covid-19 outbreak in Syria could be significant. The Syrian government, already concerned with maintaining a fragile ceasefire with Turkish forces, now has to contain an outbreak of the coronavirus which proves to be a herculean task for developed countries. The coronavirus outbreak in Syria could lead to a new humanitarian crisis. Such a crisis in Syria could further destabilize the war-torn country. It is likely that ISIS will attempt to take advantage of the conditions in Syria and attempt to take further villages and towns. Considering ISIS’s proven capability to take territory quickly and in large swaths, the threat is all that greater. But the coronavirus can also hinder ISIS’s resurgence as  members and potential recruits may be infected with the virus and are liable to spread it to other members. Yet this does not diminish the threat of a high-level attack during a period where security in Syria is further weakened due to the coronavirus pandemic.

Evaluating President Moon’s electoral “success” in South Korea

South Korea’s President Moon Jae-in, and his left-of-centre Democratic Party, in tandem with an affiliate Party created for the elections, gave the Conservative opposition United Future Party – a shellacking in the April 15^thParliamentary Elections, winning three-fifths of the 300 House of Assembly seats. The stellar performance of the Progressives gained it 51 seats, and a super-majority to potentially grant President Moon’s reform agenda an easier ride through legislature. This was the largest legislative election victory by any party since South Korea’s Democratic dispensation in 1987.

The new reality for leaders and governments across the globe, seems that Citizenry judge them writ large through the lens of Public Health Policy – in the face of the scourge and terror that Covid-19 has unleashed. The question was how President Moon’s government and Health officials were dealing with the Virus? The Election results seems to have justified his handling of the Health crisis.

“The challenge for us has been how to protect the suffrage of the people and at the same time install safeguards to minimize the danger of infection that could happen during the election,” said Kim Gang-lip, a vice health minister and senior coordinator for the government’s war against the coronavirus.

Mr Gang-lip’s comments puts matters into some perspective. Luminaries in the practice of Democracy like Britain and France postponed elections; and America is in the grip of a political feud over mail-in voting versus in-person voting during the up coming Presidential elections in November. It sounds like Democracy is in perilous times – at risk as the Coronavirus lets reap.

In February, South Korea was second to China in the number of Covid-19 infections recorded. But through the policy of widespread testing, isolation, and treatment, managed to significantly flatten its curve. It turns out President Moon’s government’s handling of the pandemic imbued the electorate with confidence in his leadership, and rewarded his Democratic Party, and its affiliate. The elections against this backdrop, took on added significance – to preserve Democracy, and to keep the public safe.

Strict safety measures were put in place to forestall any potential spread of the Virus. Voting officials screened Voters for high temperature, and requested them to stand at three-foot distance from one another, wear face masks, use hand sanitizer and wear disposable gloves before casting their ballots. The New York Times reported that more than 13,000 South Koreans serving the mandatory 14-day quarantine who wanted to cast their ballots were escorted by officials to do so after polling stations closed officially at 6pm, and many others with mild symptoms used mail voting. Voter turn-out was 66.2 percent – the highest it’s been since 1992.

Observers of Politics in the Korean peninsula would concur that President Moon’s Legislative election victory, and the laudatory assessment his public health policies have both received – is the easier part of the equation.

The next set of hurdles ostensibly are steeper, and the question is how President Moon Jae-in would parlay his increased political capital from the election towards improving security and economic ties with North Korea. President Moon has been an unwavering crusader and instigator of diplomatic rapprochement between Washington and Pyongyang. The dichotomy in South Korea over relations with North Korea runs along party lines, and was at play in the elections. Mr Moon’s liberal party favouring a détente, while the Conservatives prefer the status quo – with South Korea’s security enmeshed in its bilateral security cooperation with Washington.

President Moon’s hand is strengthened by this crushing electoral victory of the Conservative alliance. His hankering for North Korea’s leader Kim Jung-un and President Trump to reach a denuclearization deal feeds into his vision for a Joint Inter-Korean economic venture – believing that South Korea’s security is best served under the aegis of a bilateral economic cooperation between both sides of the peninsula.

“South Korean conservatives will intensify their criticism of President Moon’s engagement policies for going too far, too fast with North Korea,” said Leif-Eric Easley, a professor of international studies at Ewha Womans University in Seoul.

To make matters fraught for President Moon, his détente strategy is substantially dependent on President Trump and Kim Jung-un of North Korea reaching an agreement – two leaders with capricious characteristics. Commentators see that as walking on eggshells.

The economy is expected to face critical head winds from Covid-19 induced global recession. Bloomberg reports a 1.4% contraction of GDP on last Quarter, and there is more bad news to come from the Labour market.  How does the President address the misstep of a controversial close cabinet member Cho Kuk, who was dogged by ethical and financial malfeasance that sparked rallies demanding the resignation of the Justice Minister late in 2019?

Former Governor of New York State, Mario Cuomo once said: “We campaign in Poetry, and govern in prose”. That aphorism well applies in the aftermath of President Moon’s electoral success. Despite a sequence of wins in Presidential, Local, and Legislative elections, failure to take a pragmatic approach governing domestic and International affairs, throw-in the mix a potential for the resurgence of Covid-19 infections, and a perfect storm emerges. That could come at a heavy political price. South Korea’s political climate can be that volatile.

Latin America Ignorance and Fear Spread as they Face the COVID-19 Pandemic

Origins of Covid-19

On December 31^st Chinese authorities informed the World Health Organisation (WHO) of pneumonia cases in the city of Wuhan, China. On January 3, China reported that 44 suspected patients have this unknown illness. On January 7, it was identified that the cause of the outbreak was a form of coronavirus which eventually became known as COVID-19. This virus soon began to spread rapidly with the number of confirmed cases in China growing drastically with the country reporting 44 cases at the beginning of January and having 11,791 confirmed cases by January 31^st with people dying from the virus. Cases of COVID-19 begin to crop up across countries in Asia with Thailand, Japan and South Korea all reporting confirmed cases. Before the end of January, America, Australia and Germany also reported confirmed cases and by January 31, there were 11 confirmed cases in the United States. By February 24, the WHO announced that the world must stay focused on containment and prepare for a potential pandemic. However by late February, countries from across the globe were all reporting confirmed cases of the COVID-19 virus, with a February 27 report of 3,474 cases globally and 54 deaths, outside of China across 44 countries. On March 9, the WHO declared the COVID-19 outbreak a pandemic, with the number of cases and deaths increasing every day and with some of the hardest hit countries being in Europe, notably Italy and Spain.

Outbreak in Latin America

The first case of COVID-19 in Latin America occurred in Brazil, on 26^th February 2020. As of April 1, Latin America reported 20,081 cases and 537 deaths across the region. The response to the COVID-19 outbreak in Latin America has overall been in line with global health recommendations with exceptions in Brazil and Mexico.

Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, has come under fire since the first confirmed cases of COVID-19 in his country due to his attitude towards the pandemic. He has continuously stated that the virus is no worse than the flu and has continued to go against social distancing measures due to the effect it could have on the country’s economy. He has become the centre of an argument for spreading misinformation regarding the COVID-19 outbreak and underplaying the severity of the virus and pandemic which has killed thousands of people across the globe.

Similarly in Mexico President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador had a very blasé attitude towards the pandemic. The first two cases of COVID-19 in Mexico were confirmed on February 28, with the numbers steadily growing over the next few weeks. In the early stages of the virus in Mexico, the health ministry expressed hesitancy to closing the boarders as they had few cases and closing the borders with the US would greatly affect the economy. However, by March 17, Mexican authorities were seen to be dragging their feet towards stricter measures. with the President himself attending meet and greets, hugging surging crowds of supporters and kissing babies. On March 24, President Obrador, whilst attending a rally, stopped to pull out two religious amulets and stated that they were protective shields which were protecting him from the disease. Mexico temporarily closed its border with the United States for 30 days on March 20. The number of confirmed cases in Mexico by the end of March was at 475 with six deaths however by April 15 the number of confirmed cases had risen to 5,399 and 406 deaths.

Along the same lines as Mexico and Brazil however, reported in more extremity is the reaction to the pandemic by Nicaragua with President Daniel Ortega going into isolation from March 12, leaving his wife Vice President Rosario Murillo to contain the pandemic. However, the response from Nicaragua has gone against all global health regulations, with no lockdown or social distancing being in place. Even to the point where they are not reporting any cases the current figures that are available show the number of cases at nine with one death.

However, the majority of countries in Latin America have taken the advised steps of social distancing and followed suit with the widespread lockdowns as seen across Europe and the United States. As of March 26 almost all countries in Latin America have closed their borders and instructed residents to go into lock down in a measure to prevent the spread of COVID-19. Chile was one of the first countries to enact closures of schools and begin a total lockdown, along with Bolivia, Colombia and Honduras. All have been using their police and armies to maintain the pandemic and to help provide resources of water, food and medicine to their residents in lockdown.

Indigenous communities across South America have also gone into lockdown as the pandemic could wipe out a whole tribe if it was to enter the community. Tribes have closed their reserves to visitors and have also ordered the suspension of schools and community meetings. They have also instructed their people to practice social distancing to help prevent the spread of COVID-19 and potentially wipe out large numbers of their population.

Struggling due to COVID-19

Despite the early actions of most Latin American countries, they have seen a gradual increase of the virus however, it is likely that the figures could have been worse if these actions were not taken to prevent the further spread of COVID-19. The health care systems across Latin America are facing the pressure.  Some countries, whose health care systems prior to the outbreak of COVID-19 were already struggling, have seen these systems worsen. Mexico’s health care system was severally damaged prior to the outbreak and was rebuilding when the pandemic hit. There was a lack of medical staff and equipment across the board.

Ecuador has also been highly affected by the COVID-19 outbreak with hospitals and cemeteries collapsing under the numbers of ill and dead. The system is struggling to the point where authorities are having difficulty in removing the bodies of those who have died from their homes, leaving families living with their dead love ones and even bodies being left abandoned on the streets.

Venezuela, which continues to be impacted by its political crisis – with two presidents Juan Guaido who is self-proclaimed and supported globally and another President Nicolas Maduro who was elected and inaugurated in January 2019 – has been hit as well by the outbreak. At the end of March, in a bid to curb the growing outbreak, Venezuelan authorities ordered a national quarantine. However, figures are unclear as they have not reported data regarding epidemics for years. The latest COVID-19 figures put the total number of cases in Venezuela at 204 as of April 15.

As of April 15 across Latin America there have been over 72,000 confirmed cases with the number continuing to grow. At least 3,241 fatalities have been recorded, with a large percentage of this being reported in Brazil,s Peru, Chile and Ecuador.

Health Care Workers Targeted

With the growing number of cases and deaths across Latin America, fear has begun to spread and has caused people to react to the pandemic with ignorance. Medical staff across Latin America have begun to face hostility and aggression from the local populations and have even been accused of spreading COVID-19. There have been reports of nurses being attacked, with some being shoved to the ground, incidents of medical staff having bleach thrown on them in order to disinfect them, as well as aggression towards them on public transport and even not being able to use public transport.

A nurse reported she was attacked by a group of children who squirted fruit juice and soda on to her white nurses’ uniform, shouting at her “it’s COVID! Stay away from us.” She was then hit in the face by a mother of one of the children, knocking her to the ground. All in the process of her defending herself for wearing a uniform of a nurse, she broke two fingers in the altercation and is no longer able to do her job. She also reported that at the time of the incident she had not treated any COVID-19 patients. This however is not the first case of hostility towards health care providers. Others have reported that despite being praised as heroes by officials and media outlets for fighting the virus with limited resources they are facing increasing hostility.

Nurses make up 80% of the health care workers across Latin America and play a crucial role in treating COVID-19. These people are not only trying to help but in the process are also putting their own health at risk by working with infected patients. However with now facing the threat of being attacked when they are commuting to and from work, health staff are being advised to travel in plain clothes in a bid to prevent such attack. Due to the rising hostility medical staff and health care workers in Mexico City are being transported to and from work on private hire coaches to prevent attacks. Elsewhere in the region, notably in Panama and Colombia, there have been incidents of drivers banning nurses from public transport while those that have allowed nurses on board have seen reports of these individuals stating that they were given dirty looks by other passengers.  Another, health care professional reported that his building administration have banned him from using the elevator and the common areas of his apartment building because he might give other residents COVID-19. As a result, he has to climb six flight of stairs to get to his home every day. With every case of aggression that is reported there is room to believe that a lot of cases are going unreported over fear of retaliation for reporting these attacks.

It is not just medical workers who are facing such aggression, normal residents and television presenters are also facing such acts. Television producer Rodrigo Fragoso in Mexico City reported that when he had tested positive for COVID-19, he faced hostility from his neighbours with them throwing bleach at his front door to disinfect it and them preventing his friends and family from delivering food, or water. It got to the point where he reported the neighbour’s actions to the authorities, resulting in an apology from his neighbours.

Ignorance, worry and collective panic is spreading just as quickly as COVID-19 cases are across Latin America. The actions of these people are most often due to them wanting to protect their families however, it is being carried out in wrong way. The populations need to be educated on COVID-19 and that health care workers need to be respected and protected by the authorities whether that be in tighter controls or providing private travel. Every day, health care workers are trying to protect the populations in Latin America and prevent the further spread of COVID-19, while at the same time putting themselves at risk, which could cost them their health and life.