RIO DE JANEIRO, BRAZIL – Why are certain countries severely affected by the coronavirus, while others have thus far been very little affected? Why, for instance, has Paraguay, which is one of the poorest and most underdeveloped countries in Latin America with a precarious healthcare system, had only 25 coronavirus deaths recorded so far, while in the much more modern Chile, the country with the highest per capita income in the region, the virus has already claimed over 7,000 lives? The search for an explanation for this inequality is one of the interesting aspects of this pandemic.
The Latin American countries form a telling group to draw such comparisons, given that, for all their differences, the slightly over twenty countries have much in common. Last but not least, they have a similar cultural and often economic background, due to their common colonial experiences. Moreover, these countries have had very different track records in their efforts to fight the coronavirus pandemic.
If we look at the number of deaths per 100,000 inhabitants among the different countries, the range is very wide, from 0.4 to 39. This means that for the same population size, the most severely affected country would suffer around 100 times as many deaths as the most successful country to date in fighting the virus.
Demography and geography
Back to the comparison between Paraguay and Chile: Obviously demographic and geographical factors are important. The size of the population plays a role – the more populous a country is, the more coronavirus victims are to be expected. But the number of inhabitants in Chile is just over two and a half times as high as in Paraguay. It cannot explain the tremendous difference in infections.
Population density is also likely to play a role. One must assume that low population density helps to slow down the spread of the virus. But again, Chile has only a slightly less favorable situation with its 24 inhabitants-per-square-kilometer, compared to 17 for Paraguay. This difference is not large enough to explain the large spread of the virus in Chile. In addition, Paraguay, with its capital Asunción, also has a densely populated agglomeration with over two million inhabitants, where the virus could have spread rapidly.
A third criterion is geography. Countries with urban centers where there is a significant international population exchange are inherently more exposed to the virus than isolated islands. Chile, with its capital Santiago as an international hub, is in a more exposed position than Paraguay, which is something like an island in the center of the continent.
Despite not being surrounded by water, it is surrounded by jungle and sparsely populated agricultural areas with few modern transportation routes. Nevertheless, it is unlikely that this alone explains the different levels of coronavirus infection – also because most Latin American countries closed their borders to international travelers very early.
Different policies of the three major countries
But what role did the governments’ response play in fighting the coronavirus threat? Can conclusions be drawn from the Latin American cases? The two largest countries, Brazil and Mexico, clearly failed to send a serious and clear message to their populations. The necessary protective measures were implemented too late or limited to certain regions.
There has been an ongoing power struggle, particularly within the Brazilian government, over the appropriate strategies. Brazil’s President Jair Bolsonaro personally downplayed the danger and repeatedly violated the distancing and hygiene rules in public, and even took action against regional governments that had introduced more stringent protective measures.
Without a clear line of action, it is more difficult for a government to persuade its population to accept drastic quarantine measures and the closure of businesses. All the more so, given that many poorer Latin Americans live virtually from hand to mouth, and daily income is thus crucial for survival. The consequences of the lack of determination in the fight against the coronavirus in Brazil and Mexico can be observed in the unabated increase in the number of infections. In absolute figures, Brazil has ranked second behind the USA on the list of the Johns Hopkins University for weeks; Mexico is now ranked seventh.
In contrast, Argentina, the third-largest Latin American country, imposed a strict quarantine at an early stage, and the government of President Alberto Fernández made it clear from the outset that fighting the pandemic was an absolute priority, regardless of its economic cost. The number of infections in Argentina remained very low for a long time. The difference between Argentina and the other two large countries is still striking: Brazil records a total of 39 times as many coronavirus deaths as Argentina, Mexico 19 times as many.
Early winners stray off course
The cases of Chile and Peru, which in recent weeks have also ingloriously joined Brazil and Mexico in the group with the most deaths per 100,000 inhabitants, are different. These two countries originally reacted quickly and decisively to the coronavirus. They were also very successful in a first stage and were regarded as model cases. However, as of May, infections began to rise sharply.
This was due to the fact that part of the population could not or did not want to maintain the quarantine regime any longer, so that governments introduced relaxation measures prematurely. In Peru, a very high share (around 70 percent) of the population works in the informal sector. These people work as street vendors, housemaids or in odd jobs. If they cannot go to work, they have no income, and with no savings they are quickly threatened by hunger. The purchase of food at crowded traditional markets also posed a considerable risk of infection during quarantine.
For similar reasons, there was resistance, in the poor Santiago suburbs, to a further tightening of the quarantine when a second wave was announced in the capital. This illustrates that explicit government orders are not necessarily effective. The population must also have confidence in the government’s course of action if the measures are to be followed. This is not the case in Chile. The country was already enmeshed in an internal power struggle, often violent, over a new constitution, when the virus began to paralyze people’s lives.
According to surveys, fewer than ten percent of Chileans trust their government. There were demonstrations against the new lockdown, some of them violent, in May and June. Given the public opposition to the government measures, the number of infections increased dramatically. Today the country records the highest number of deaths per 100 000 inhabitants in Latin America.
Success due to decisive action
The two most successful countries, Paraguay and Uruguay, can also provide clues to a successful strategy. Both share a swift and unequivocal government response to the virus. This unambiguity helped to persuade the population to adopt the measures. Paraguay relied on one of the strictest lockdowns in the region, while Uruguay successfully promoted the voluntary social distancing of its citizens. The rapid intervention enabled early containment of the virus.
In contrast, the experience of the Ecuadorian port city of Guayaquil, where the coronavirus was introduced from Spain, shows what can happen when this is not the case. In Latin America’s first hotspot, it took many weeks before the uncontrolled spread could be contained, with several thousand deaths.
Unfortunately, the success of Paraguay and Uruguay also poses a risk. Because of the low number of infections, the danger of a second wave is even greater.
Looking at the Latin American cases suggests that governance in each country has a significant influence on the development of the coronavirus epidemic. Only a variety of factors can ultimately explain the differing results in fighting the spread.
However, the dismal results in countries like Brazil are not a product of divine intervention. On the one hand, the study shows that the Latin American governments that reacted early, decisively, and clearly, have been successful, at least in the first stage. On the other, the countries that most clearly lacked this determination, downplayed the virus, and failed to pursue a consistent strategy – Brazil and Mexico – lost the battle early on.