Covid-19 also known as coronavirus, is spread by a severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Covid-19 is an ongoing global pandemic that has wreaked havoc in the whole world, first identified in Wuhan, China, in December 2019. A lockdown was imposed in Wuhan and other cities, but it failed to contain the outbreak, spreading in many parts of the world. A recent policy enforced after the manifestation of this Covid-19 was the health equity consideration in masking/personal protective equipment (PPE) policies to contain Covid-19. The procedures must have been induced to curb the spread of the virus and stop unnecessary deaths.

As much as this policy cannot be underestimated, responsive systems took action to curb the spread of this virus through the Right to Health Capacity Fund (R2HCF). Still, they realized that inequity played a great role in devastating the move. For this policies to be successful, the implementers had to ensure that universal health coverage would encompass even the marginalized populations. However, it was not easy since there could never be inclusive participation, equality and accountability, especially in third world countries (Chhibber, Kharat, Kneale, Welch, Bangpan & Chaiyakunapruk, 2021). Many populations were locked down, and many people died, leading to adverse social and economic effects on many countries worldwide. There was a great need to primarily implement global health programs that would focus on training and educating the masses to help curb this menace.

The introduction of PPEs to contain Covid-19 revealed the true magnitude of health inequity across the globe. Many countries suffered dearly from the invasion of this deadly virus. Policies and guidance have been successful nonetheless, but the extent to which these inequity factors were considered is relatively unknown (Blais & Hayes, 2016). The global policy landscape around wearing masks and PPE was a success only in some countries, but some governments instead became cartels in implementing these policies. Senior health officials mismanaged funds and grants, leaving the poor individuals with no choice but to suffer despite the dire situation demanding that everyone has a fair and just opportunity to be healthy. Health inequity led to deaths in many marginalized countries. For example, in the United States, African Americans had higher rates of Covid-19 cases than their Caucasian counterparts.

Worry about your grades?

See how we can help you with our essay writing service.

LEARN MORE

National, regional and organizational policies reflect equity considerations by focusing specifically on masks and PPE. It depicts how heath workers who are not usually the target risks have a greater chance of acquiring the virus than the target population. Health systems have been overstretched, and many health workers have died due to this virus. Inequity played a significant role in devastating these policies since not all households had an adequate and constant supply of masks and sanitizers (Chhibber, Kharat, Kneale, Welch, Bangpan & Chaiyakunapruk, 2021). The great problem with the lockdown was that people could offer to stay home. At the same time, they die of hunger, so many opted to violate the rules of their governments and step out to fend for their families without fearing the virus and its repercussion of violating safety protocols. It is recommended to identify the importance of equity and carefully design population-wide policies that benefit society by leveraging new technologies to train and educate next-generation scientists and researchers. This will make the minorities and disadvantaged groups feel engaged and protected, hence limiting this pandemic’s spread.

References

Blais, K. K., & Hayes, J. S. (2016). Global Health. Professional nursing practice: Concepts and perspectives (7th ed., pp. 307-310). Pearson.

Chhibber, A., Kharat, A., Kneale, D., Welch, V., Bangpan, M., & Chaiyakunapruk, N. (2021). Assessment of health equity consideration in masking/PPE policies to contain COVID-19 using PROGRESS-plus framework: a systematic review. BMC Public Health, 21(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-021-11688-7