Wellbeing is political… experiencing ‘social shock’

March 29, 2020 / hrcessex / Leave a comment

by Caroline Bald, lecturer and researcher in the Centre for Social Work and Social Justice, University of Essex

The sheer speed at which the Covid-19 pandemic has changed our daily lives, bringing with it a new language and daily routine, is of a scale an elderly neighbour, whom I’ve waved to many times but still don’t know by name, considers only akin to his childhood experience during the Second World War, where even then “we could hear the bombs.” The otherworldliness hit when returning to this blogpost after only a matter of days. So many have moved to online communication for the first time; workspaces hastily put together; empty streets and marked out queues at shops.

Coronavirus has in ways never before in our lifetime highlighted wellbeing and health as a political issue. One might call it the phenomenon of ‘capitalism meets coronavirus’. Many sit down each evening to hear the British Prime Minister speak in words unheard of just a few weeks ago. Some, meanwhile, are profiteering in a newly opened market. Events of the last week have helped to reinforce my view that wellbeing is indeed political and always has been (Bache and Scott, 2017). The crisis is forcing many, for the first time, to reflect on what previously was taken for granted: access to food, shelter, money and services, reinforcing Maslow’s hierarchy of needs.

This article is an attempt to capture and reflect on wellbeing narratives in this historically significant moment, as I venture to ask if we are seeing a collective sea change as a form of ‘social shock’ or a “paradise built in hell”, or is this neoliberal business as usual, with a new face?

Wellbeing as a public discourse

In an age of identity politics, resilience is considered a key characteristic, with the ability to bounce back forming a pervasive discourse. My research has explored wellbeing as a discourse, related to power and privilege. Never before, in my experience, has wellbeing and collectivity been quite so foremost in discussion and in the media. Our new-found shared socialism, such as the ‘volunteer army’, supporting the NHS, or the national #clapforcarers campaign, at first glance, appears encouraging. However, the new language of wellbeing is unsettling; from ‘herd immunity’ to ‘social distancing’ to ‘lockdown’. It is the language of war and science, with models and mobilisation being presented alongside talk by a Chancellor for whom party political rhetoric now seems a world away. The unseen Covid-19 virus has become a common enemy, while questions remain about where it came from, and how to ‘turn the tide’ against it.

Workers, who just a few weeks ago were labelled ‘unskilled’, are now heroes, and hotels have given the homeless shelter, with any businesses involved in pandemic profiteering being rejected and policed. The Government has pledged help for businesses and the self-employed, and following an online campaign, free parking is now being provided for NHS staff, and there are reports of the Government challenging Travelodge’s decision to evict vulnerable homeless families. Yet still, while it may appear that there is a new age of compassion, there is a need to pause and consider whether change this sudden can last.

When previously presenting on wellbeing, I was often met with attempts to ‘psychologise’ or ‘medicalise’ the subject. At one point, I advocated taking the ‘woolly out of wellbeing’ after discussions settled on problematising, if not at times even ‘weaponising’, wellbeing from what was essentially an intention that a ‘good life’ should be grounded in human rights. What constitutes a good life has been the source of debate through the ages, largely centring on individual liberty and collective responsibility, and politics too may be most commonly understood as party political with a dualism between individualism and collectivism. What we are bearing witness to now is a blurring of political lines and the spectacle of a Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer using the policies of socialism alongside the language of compassion and kindness.

Reflecting on the right to a social life as fundamental to wellbeing, it is interesting to note that the terms ‘self-isolation’ and ‘social distancing’, may appear to be concepts attached to this current pandemic, but in fact are nothing new. There has been much discussion in recent years of isolation as a real danger to mental health, with evidence to suggest that loneliness, particularly among the elderly, can kill. Yet in the last fortnight we have been presented with ‘social distancing’ as a measure that will save lives. Supermarkets are trialling ‘golden hours’ where vulnerable and older adults, and now NHS staff are able to ‘shop safely’, with the intention of offering them access to products at a time when food supply has never been more challenged. This also brings with it, however, the concern that supermarkets may become ‘superspreader’ hives of infection, putting essential workers and the vulnerable at risk.

Balancing rights with emergency legislative measures

The Coronavirus Act 2020 came into force last week, bringing with it sweeping changes to liberty and collective responsibility. The necessary speed of the legislative process serves to illustrate what certainly is a time of exceptional circumstance. However, human rights experts have raised concerns about the breadth of the legislation’s impact. In addition to the Act giving police greater authority, such as being able to ‘stop and disperse’, Section 14 (1) of the Act removes the duty on Local Authorities to assess and provide care needs for adults, many of whom will be elderly and from the very groups that the current focus is on protecting. In the space of just a few months, wellbeing public policy has shifted from paternalism to patronism to preservation, all to be in place for the next two years, conceding a late challenge from opposition parties to allow for six monthly reviews.

Wellbeing and work

The nexus of wellbeing and work has been seen in the public debate about how best to manage the risk to health and wealth. The current public health narrative of ‘stay safe/stay home’ contrasts with the established ‘wealth before health’ narrative of neoliberal policy, evident in the Government’s initial response to the crisis, which resulted in criticism of the ‘herd immunity’ strategy, and its implications for the vulnerable. Richard Branson’s request for government help for the airlines prompted a swell of opinion against the billionaire, whose firm announced all staff must take two month’s unpaid leave, highlighting the tension between public and privately held wealth. And while social gatherings are being dispersed by police, some workers face corporate policies forcing them to risk their health to attend work or lose their income.

As academics we have moved quickly to remote, online working without necessarily considering this as a blurring of the personal and professional. Increased working in the virtual space has also expanded and enriched opportunities for data harvesting, with the Cambridge Analytica scandal long forgotten. There are increasing concerns about the loosening of general data protection regulation (GDPR), including the apparent unquestioned move to online resources, like Zoom, a platform the Ministry of Defence now no longer uses, due to security risks. In the understandable haste to respond, firm boundaries have become fluid, including emergency registration for health and care professionals, possible relaxation of disclosure and barring service (DBS) checks for volunteers and early release from prison.

The inequality of wellbeing

Finally, it is important to reflect on the inequality of wellbeing, particularly now. From the recent ‘Imagine’ Gal Gadot-led penthouse sing-a-long to the wave of personalised emails from big business CEOs, assuring that the wellbeing of their staff is paramount. What about those on zero-hour contracts or working in sweatshops? These issues still remain and the plight of those workers is only deepened by this crisis. The U.S. has reported a sharp increase in gun sales, with queues that paradoxically respect social distancing practices. Lord Price, former CEO of Waitrose, recommended a relaxation of limits to the number of driving hours to assist with fulfilment of deliveries. Many are now collating a list of those companies who have responded economically, though not necessarily ethically.

All this has led me to consider whether wellbeing will continue to be collectively understood as political. I truly hope so, but I suspect business will need a little help to overcome this ‘shock’ into being ‘social’. After the crisis is over, will health continue to be recognised as trumping wealth? Will we remember the NHS heroes once the dust settles? We are seeing the positive impact on the natural world with CO2 emissions declining in China, the ‘Amazonian effect’ being widened as nature ‘fights’ back. Our right to wellbeing, unharmed by air pollution, policing excesses, street-level bureaucracy or enforced isolation remains paramount. I ask in the coming months we stay safe, we stay ‘virtually’ social and we reflect on how wealth before health has not served human rights well.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Caroline Bald is a criminal justice social worker, post-graduate research student, lecturer and researcher in the Centre for Social Work and Social Justice and Programme Lead for the Masters in Social Work and Human Rights. Caroline is currently researching how students make sense of wellbeing in social work education with a view to informing care profession critical pedagogy. As a critical theorist, she writes about social work education and criminal justice practice. Caroline runs a ‘TwitterChat’ for social work academics and students every Thursday 7-8pm GMT for resources, collaboration and activism #SWjoinin

International Human Rights News: Focus on Coronavirus

March 24, 2020March 24, 2020 / hrcessex / Leave a comment

by Lauren Ng, Pauline Canham, Alana Meier, Bethany Webb-Strong, Amita Dhiman

This week the HRC Blog editorial team has been looking at specific areas of rights affected by the accelerating spread of coronavirus around the world. The challenges we are facing are unprecedented in our lifetimes and after being asked to self-limit our freedoms, the UK Prime Minister went a step further on Monday by ‘instructing’ the British public to stay at home’.

Right to Health

Article 12 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights obligates states to take steps towards ensuring the full realization of the right to physical and mental health for all.

In countries where no public healthcare system is in place, for instance the United States, the disparity in health becomes more apparent, with individuals from lower socio-economic classes being disproportionately affected. In the USA, 28.6 million people are not covered by any form of health insurance. According to the World Health Organisation, although the majority infected will recover and not need any treatment, 1 in 6 people will become severely ill and will require emergency medical attention, something that many fear they will be unable to afford.

In addition, the fast-spreading nature of coronavirus has led to the overburdening of even the most robust public healthcare systems. Italy’s healthcare system, considered one of the best in the world, has been stretched beyond its capacity. As a result of the lack of resources available, compared to demand, doctors have been forced to make decisions about treatment priorities, based on who has the best chance of survival.

The number of cases in the United Kingdom has been following a similar trajectory to that of Italy and within two to three weeks is expected to be facing the same difficult dilemmas in the NHS. With the NHS still yet to recover from austerity measures, the right to health will be stretched to the limit with the steadily increasing pressure of the pandemic.

Freedom of information

Enshrined within the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is the right to freedom of expression, which includes the ‘right to …receive and impart information…’ and this is particularly important during a time of global crisis, when events are fast moving and advice is changing on a daily basis.

In Ethiopia, the Government is using the internet and telephone services to raise awareness about the spread of coronavirus. However, many people are not getting the messages because the Government has shut down these services in areas of military operation against rebel forces, and is refusing to reconnect them. This is leaving communities unaware and vulnerable.

North Korea, meanwhile is withholding the release of figures of those affected by COVID-19 and a source has reported that deaths likely to have been from COVID-19 are being classified as pneumonia and quickly cremated to avoid scrutiny.

In Brazil, Jair Bolsonaro has attacked what he calls media hysteria, and labelled coronavirus just “a little flu”, claiming that citizens were being “tricked”. He also criticised officials in some Brazilian states who are taking the pandemic seriously by imposing lockdowns, dismissing such measures as unnecessary.

With fake news and conspiracy theories spreading faster than the virus, accurate and trusted information is critical during this crisis. ‘The Conversation’, an independent source of information from the academic and research community, talks about how to tell fact from fiction.

Right to Water and Sanitation

March 22 was World Water Day, a day designated by the United Nations to celebrate progress towards the goal of ensuring access to water and sanitation for all. However, at a time when water supplies are increasingly threatened by climate change, overuse, and pollution, the coronavirus has highlighted the immense work that still needs to be done.

Ensuring the human right to water and sanitation – a right recognized by the United Nations through Resolution 64/292 and derived from Arts. 11 and 12 of the ICESCR (as per General Comment No. 15) – is thus critical in preventing the exposure and spread of COVID-19.

“Wash your hands thoroughly and frequently” is one of the key instructions experts are giving to reduce the risk of becoming infected with coronavirus. The World Health Organization notes that water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) are the first lines of defense against infectious disease outbreaks such as COVID-19. But what if you are one of the 780 million people who lack access to an improved water source, 3 billion who lack basic handwashing facilities, or over half of the world’s population that does not have access to safe sanitation services?

Examples of groups that are disproportionately impacted by a lack of access to clean water and proper sanitation, and thus more susceptible to contracting coronavirus include prison populations, the homeless, households facing water shutoffs, and 30% of the world’s urban population living in overcrowded areas, in shanty-towns, or slum-like conditions. With this in mind, states must prioritize efforts to ensure the additional needs and rights of already marginalized and vulnerable groups are being considered.

Rights for those living in refugee camps

As Europe is hit hard by the outbreak of COVID-19, Greece faces the potential impact on refugee camps. Social distancing and self-isolation are a luxury not available to those living in overcrowded camps, and the spread of the virus in such poor sanitary conditions, without access to vital healthcare services is deeply troubling. The only medical provision available is through NGOs and voluntary groups.

Many have called for the evacuation of the camps, MSF highlighting the lack of a ‘credible emergency plan’, stating that it would be impossible to prevent infection, given the cramped conditions.

Awareness campaigns have begun in camps on the islands of Lesbos and Samos, to reinforce the hygiene and hand-washing message with NGOs working tirelessly to mitigate against the spread of the outbreak; four Afghan women have set up a space to make face masks in the Moira camp and hand sanitisers have been taped to trees outside the Vathy camp. The Greek government has introduced a lockdown in refugee camps from 7pm-7am but restrictions on movement have been criticised as ‘discriminatory’ as they do not apply to the residents of the islands.

UNHCR has also raised concerns over travel bans and how they may block the right to seek asylum. The UN High Commissioner for Refugees said that state measures to restrict travel should not lead to the prohibition of refoulement. “In these challenging times, let us not forget those who are fleeing war and persecution. They need..solidarity and compassion now more than ever before.” That solidarity is now being called for by the UN, who issued an appeal for over $1.5 billion in funding to prepare for outbreaks in refugees and conflict areas

Economic Rights

In the words of International Labour Organisation (ILO) Director General, Guy Ryder, the coronavirus crisis is “no longer only a global health crisis, it is also a major labour market and economic crisis that is having a huge impact on people”. The ILO are urging swift action by leaders to protect workers and stimulate economies, as low-income families and small businesses, in even the most developed nations, face the strain of increasing economic issues.

The right to work is enshrined in Article 6 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) but millions around the world are now faced with a stark choice between health and income. United States Labour Department data from 2019 shows that 29% of workers have no access to paid sick leave, which ‘places an undue burden on poor and marginalized workers’. The US Government have now introduced a Coronavirus Law , which provides some relief to smaller businesses but does not apply to 48% of American workers who work for larger organisations.

The U.K. Government has pledged to help businesses by covering 80% of their workers’ salaries for at least the next three months. However, the Government is coming under increasing pressure to support the self-employed along similar lines.

Germany is expanding its Kurzarbeit (short term work) System, described by the Finance Minister as a big “bazooka”, created during the 2008 financial crisis. The scheme will pay roughly two-thirds of an employee’s salary to keep people in work and maintain their skill levels.

Covid-19: Key human rights questions for the UK

March 23, 2020March 23, 2020 / hrcessex / Leave a comment

by Judith Bueno de Mesquita, Co-Deputy Director, Human Rights Centre, University of Essex

The emergence and rapid global spread of Covid-19 raises critical human rights questions. The initial response expressed alarm about a cover-up in China, but as the disease spread and scale of the disaster became clearer, wide-ranging human rights concerns began to emerge.

Meanwhile, UN Special Procedures and the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights have called for human rights to be at the heart of the response, while UNAIDS became the first international organisation to issue detailed rights-based guidance on dealing with an epidemic, drawing on the experience of HIV. The pervasive negative impact of the virus across economic, social and cultural rights, and responses that appeared to pit public health against civil and political rights, initially created the impression of Covid-19 as an utterly intractable human rights problem. These new resources provide much needed clarity.

The first case of Covid-19 was confirmed in the UK on 31 January and by 22 March there were 5,683 confirmed cases and 281 deaths, almost all elderly persons or persons with comorbidities; although it is thought that the number of suspected cases is much higher. With the publication on 19 March of the UK 329-page Coronavirus Bill, which includes a raft of sweeping legislative amendments, concerns remain about the inadequacy and tenor of policy responses, with human rights questions increasingly coming to the fore.

The UK Government has international human rights obligations which it must respect, protect and fulfil in its Covid-19 responses under treaties such as the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), as well as the European Convention on Human Rights. WHO’s International Health Regulations (2005), which exert binding obligations on states, in the context of global infectious disease responses, also pay due regard to human rights. What do these instruments obligate the UK to do, and how does the UK’s response fare?

The right to health

The “right to the highest attainable standard of health”, known as the right to health, is the primary human right at stake in the context of Covid-19. Under ICESCR article 12, states must take steps for “the prevention, treatment and control of epidemic…diseases”.

As part of this obligation, states, including the UK, must “create conditions which would assure to all, medical services and medical attention in the event of sickness.” This implies that the response must maximise the potential of healthcare services to provide Covid-19 testing and treatment to those in need, including intensive care where required, whilst maintaining services for other acute healthcare needs. Seemingly, in contradiction with available evidence in terms of the experience of other countries in containing the spread of Covid-19, the UK Government initially advocated a controlled epidemic response amid discussions with its advisors on herd immunity.

Whilst the Government has denied herd immunity was a tactic, its response elicited alarm from many public health experts, underpinned by fears of a lack of sufficient intensive care beds, and that it would result in many unnecessary deaths. This, in itself, raises significant questions in terms of the rights to health and life, and is even more troubling when viewed through the prism of equality and non-discrimination, given that the elderly and those with underlying health conditions would be affected disproportionately.

With intensive care units in hospitals across the UK already close to capacity, are we witnessing an escalation, particularly in London, that mirrors the tragedy engulfing northern Italy? There, health professionals have been left with agonising triage decisions, and where demand outstrips supply, national guidelines recommend “those patients with the highest chance of therapeutic success will retain access to intensive care.” Non-discrimination and equality also requires duties to address groups at risk. For example, there have been calls for urgent measures to protect prison populations, and homeless persons.

Beyond the field of healthcare, the right to health includes access to information and education about evidence-based ways to prevent transmission through hygiene and staying at home if symptoms develop, in addition to details on how to access care if needed. This information has been widely distributed across community venues and through the press but it does require monitoring to filter out fake news and misinformation.

The right to health also includes a right to social determinants of health, such as the neighbourhood environment. This requires that Government response minimises the risk of transmission in the community. Social (ie physical) distancing measures including closures of restaurants and pubs, school closures and home working, alongside the provision of information and facilities to promote hygiene in public and private spaces, are examples of policy measures being adopted in the UK. Ensuring compliance with social-distancing is currently under discussion.

Widespread testing and contact tracing has not been adopted in the UK as yet, though it has been viewed as central to limiting the spread of the virus, and saving lives in other countries, including South Korea, and is also recommended by the WHO, with its “test, test, test” mantra. Strategies must be in place to to support people who need to self-isolate, whilst the difficulties faced by some individuals, including the elderly and others with home care needs, must be recognised and addressed by the State.

The Covid-19 response must be grounded in human rights principles, including transparency, participation, and accountability. Transparency means there must be clarity about the aims of responses, as well as the medical and epidemiological evidence underpinning them, and yet this has been lacking in the UK response. The input of affected groups is essential in supporting a robust, rights-sensitive and sustainable response, yet the degree to which this is occurring is unclear. Accountability requires a range of independent oversight procedures and already we are seeing calls for a review, in due course, of the Government’s handling of the outbreak. In the meantime, the Joint Committee on Human Rights has launched an inquiry into the Government’s response.

Restrictions of human rights

Most human rights are not absolute. Under the ICCPR, public health is one of the grounds for permissible limitations to freedoms of movement, assembly, association and expression. The Siracusa Principles on the Limitation and Derogation of Provisions in the ICCPR stress these limitations should be used as an option of last resort and that any limitations must be:

provided for and carried out in accordance with the law;
in the interest of a legitimate objective of general interest;
strictly necessary in a democratic society to achieve the objective;
based on scientific evidence and not drafted or imposed arbitrarily i.e. in an unreasonable or otherwise discriminatory manner.

The self-isolation and quarantine policies already in place are voluntary measures, and, as such, do not raise particular concerns according to these criteria. They also reflect the notion that human rights embrace duties to the community (Universal Declaration on Human Rights art 29).

Of greater concern, however, is the Coronavirus Bill which sets out open-ended powers of detention, by police & public health professionals, of individuals who may be infected and might infect others. Experience from the control of other infectious diseases, such as HIV, Ebola and TB, suggests that such measures are often ineffective as prevention policies, particularly where there is no effective treatment, and may discourage some individuals, particularly from marginalised groups, from seeking care. Access to community testing (still not available in the UK) and voluntary treatment are the mainstays of healthcare responses to infectious disease, whilst compulsory approaches should only be used as a last resort, if at all, and only where voluntary approaches have failed.

The far-reaching public health response, as well as the response of businesses and individuals, also runs the risk of severely compromising other social and economic rights in a litany of ways. The closure of schools to protect public health not only poses obstacles for the right to education, but it can also disrupt the right to food for families that benefit from free school meals, and leave vulnerable children at risk.

The right to work is threatened by economic precarity and if people are not paid, or cannot work, whether due to ill-health or redundancy, they may have difficulty in paying their mortgage or rent, or buying food. Panic buying of groceries threatens the ability of vulnerable groups, including the elderly, to access to food, with food banks also struggling to operate. Attention also needs to be given to the broader disproportionate impact on particular groups such as women, who more often assume caring roles in the event that schools are closed, limiting their work and economic opportunities.

A public health crisis is not a carte-blanche to trade economic and social rights off against each other. Governments have a positive obligation to protect other economic and social rights affected during public health crises, particularly for the most vulnerable groups. Though some issues remain unresolved, the UK government has loosened its purse strings and adopted wide-ranging measures intended to protect an adequate standard of living and income, for those employed by businesses. The self-employed, however, are yet to see the same level of protection.

International cooperation

Lastly, and certainly the biggest challenge of all, is international cooperation, an often-neglected dimension of international human rights obligations. The pandemic response requires global cooperation by countries and international organisations, through the sharing of expertise and resources. Leaders, experts and the wider community must look outwards as well as inwards in their crisis response, not only to learn from the good practice of others, but equally to support preparedness and response elsewhere. Dire predictions of the impact of the virus on countries in conflict, in refugee camps, and on the continent of Africa which “faces a catastrophe to dwarf all others”, all require immediate action.

Concluding remarks

Experience with other infectious diseases shows that, alongside appropriate public health and economic measures, human rights are an essential part of any effective strategy for preventing, treating and controlling infectious disease. As clearly summed up by UNAIDS, “responding to an epidemic is not a question of balancing public health and human rights but rather that a successful and effective response requires us to adhere to human rights principles.” Though human rights were largely absent from discourse in the early stage of the UK’s response, it is encouraging that the human rights community has found its voice.

As we await the development of vaccines and other treatments, which are in themselves entitlements of the right to health, the human rights community’s guidance can complement public health evidence to support a more robust response going forwards. This will be most successful where the two communities work closely together to ensure that human rights standards underpin public health interventions, and evidence underpins how human rights standards are interpreted and applied.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Judith Bueno de Mesquita is Co-Deputy Director of the Human Rights Centre and a Lecturer in International Human Rights Law at the University of Essex. Her research focuses particularly on health and human rights, and economic, social and cultural rights. She has worked closely with public health organisations over many years, notably WHO, UNFPA, and UNAIDS.

International Human Rights News: Focus on Coronavirus

March 18, 2020 / hrcessex / Leave a comment

by Amita Dhiman, Lauren Ng, Julia Kedziorek , Pauline Canham, Bethany Webb-Strong, Alana Meier

This week, we focus our weekly round up of news on the extraordinary times in which we find ourselves, following the world-wide Coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak. Around the world, governments are taking unprecedented measures to try to slow down the spread of the virus and manage its impact. This is having an inevitable effect on human rights in many areas including freedom of movement, freedom of expression, freedom of information and the press, the right to health and protection from discrimination. There will also be a lasting economic impact as entire industries absorb the impact of the control measures, forcing people out of work and in many cases into poverty.

Americas

From the U.S.A. declaring a national emergency, to the first cases starting to appear in Venezuela and other Latin American countries, COVID-19 is reaching across the length and breadth of the American continent. Governments from North to South are taking various measures such as increasing testing of all citizens, quarantining travellers, closing borders, closing schools and universities, shutting down entertainment venues and launching awareness campaigns, asking people to self-isolate or take social-distancing measures. So far the Bahamas, Bolivia and Honduras are among countries with the lowest numbers testing positive for the virus.

USA: After his repeated insistence over the last few weeks that COVID-19 was not a pandemic, President Trump has since done an about-turn and finally announced a national emergency on 13^th March, making $50 billion available to assist those affected through loss of work, sick leave and medical needs. However, he has come under fire this week for labelling the virus the ‘Chinese virus’, and his Secretary of State calling it the ‘Wuhan virus’, both being accused of ‘fuelling bigotry’ and inciting discrimination towards the Asian community.

Venezuela: At time of writing, Venezuela has confirmed just 36 positive cases of COVID-19 but concern is growing for a health service described by Human Rights Watch (HRW) last year as a system that had already ‘totally collapsed’. Some hospitals are even without basics such as water and soap, and HRW is now warning that an outbreak in Venezuela could threaten the whole of Latin America.

East Asia

Japan: Japan’s Prime Minister Abe enacted a revised law allowing the state to declare a state of emergency, temporarily limiting citizens’ rights, as a measure to control the coronavirus outbreak. Although this step has yet to be taken nation-wide, concerns have been raised about how this will affect the protection of human rights when enacted. Suspicions have also been raised with regards to Japan’s approach to testing and underreporting of cases.

South Korea: Compared to the lockdowns taking place throughout the globe, South Korea has adopted a different approach to the management of the virus. Their focus has centred around making information as accessible as possible in order for people to assess whether they have been exposed to the virus and, if so, be tested immediately. Inevitably, this has come at the cost of privacy as the government enacted a law allowing authorities access to a wide-range of data, including GPS tracking on cellphones and credit cards.

China: As cases of coronavirus decline in China, a senior World Health Organisation official has told UN News that other countries need to learn from China’s experience. He admitted that citizens of Wuhan in particular had paid a high price during the lock-down, but the measures had helped in containing the virus, with travel restrictions in the province now being relaxed.

Europe

Italy: The epicentre of the coronavirus outbreak in Europe is Italy, recording (at time of writing) 31,506 infected and 2,503 deaths. Italian schools, shops, sporting events and businesses are closed and the people ordered to stay at home except for essential travel, with military vehicles patrolling public spaces. The retail sector employs 15 per cent of all jobs and contributes about 12 per cent of gross domestic product. It is estimated that Italy will soon be in its 4th recession in just over a decade.

UK: The Boris Johnson government had initially taken a different approach to other European countries but this week back-tracked on its “herd immunity” strategy. Stricter measures were announced on 16^th March to control the spread of coronavirus, including self-isolation and social distancing. Those over 70, pregnant or with serious health conditions have been asked to not go out unless absolutely necessary and mass gatherings and social events have been cancelled. Supermarkets are beginning to limit ‘bulk-buying’ after customers stripped the shelves of essentials, concerned at the period of isolation. The number of people showing symptoms are growing rapidly and at time of writing, there were 1950 confirmed cases and 71 deaths .

Poland: Central Europe is in a state of emergency, with Poland announcing a ‘state of epidemic threat’, after just 100 coronavirus cases were confirmed. All non-essential shops, schools and restaurants will remain closed for the next 10 days with the possibility of a 20-day extension. The borders were closed on 15^th March with no commercial air traffic allowed in or out. Any citizens returning must go into quarantine for 14 days with regular police checks to ensure co-operation. Currently, there are over 200 people infected and and there is concern about the capacity of Poland’s public health system to cope, due to ‘long-standing underinvestment’.

Middle East and Africa

Middle East: The effects of Coronavirus are being felt across the Middle East region with shops, restaurants, universities and schools closing and some countries imposing strict restrictions on travel. Religious sites are also being effected; The al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem, the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem, and the Shiite Muslim shrine in Karbala, Iraq, are among those closed. Saudi Arabia has closed all mosques except for the 2 holy mosques of Mecca and Medina.

Qatar, with the highest number of cases in the region outside of Iran, announced a suspension of all non-Qatari citizens entering the country and any Qatari arrivals requiring a 14 day quarantine period. Meanwhile concerns grow that Syria’s weakened healthcare system would severely limit its capacity to cope with an outbreak. Yemen has closed its airports to all non-humanitarian flights, fearing a strain on its collapsing resources, as it already struggles to cope with rising numbers of cholera cases after 5 years of war.

Africa: The African continent lags behind the rest of the world in reported cases but has already begun to impose strict measures to contain the outbreak, with Algeria and Morocco both suspending air and sea links with Europe. There are also growing concerns of discrimination towards Chinese and other Asian nationals, with the Kenyan member of parliament giving permission to his constituents to “chase away and stone any Chinese people within their vicinity.” Meanwhile in Egypt, the Government has been accused of supressing the true scale of the outbreak, even arresting those who suggest the numbers are higher than official figures announced.

South East Asia

The spread of COVID-19 has had a severe impact upon rights to privacy, freedom of movement and freedom of expression particularly in countries in the South East Asia region. Governments are engaging in a ‘difficult balancing act’, says Michelle Bachelet, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, in attempts to impede the spread of the virus whilst considering the impact these restrictive measures may have.

Singapore: Authorities in South East Asian countries have taken extremely restrictive measures to curb the spread of the virus. Singapore has adopted a policy of ‘contact tracing’ to identify those infected with the virus and isolate them, interrogating them about their movements to track down other potential cases.

Thailand: Two individuals were arrested in Thailand for spreading ‘fake news’ about COVID-19 and charged with violating the Computer Crimes Act which can result in imprisonment of up to five years.

Many countries in South East Asia rank considerably low on the 2019 world press freedom index. It has been acknowledged that these states had been increasing the recognition of civil liberties, however, their extreme response to the spread of COVID-19 seems to mark a reversal of recent progress. COVID-19 poses both a health risk and an increasing danger that authoritarian governments will impose draconian measures, restricting individual rights of privacy and free expression.

West Asia and India

Iran: With the third-highest death toll from coronavirus globally, Iran is considered the epicentre of the pandemic in the Middle East. March 16th marked the second straight day of Iran’s single-day fatalities exceeding 100 (113 and 129 deaths respectively), yet President Hassan Rouhani continues to rule out general quarantine and is pushing to keep the nation’s borders open. Foreign Minister, Javad Zarif, has reached out to the United Nations to demand the United States end its crippling sanctions, which he referred to in a recent tweet as ‘Economic Terrorism’. The sanctions have made it extremely difficult to import medication and medical equipment needed to fight the virus.

India: Though the official view within India appears to be that there is no community spread of COVID-19, many believe it is likely the country of 1.3 billion people has many more than the 143 cases reported. India’s coronavirus testing rates remain among the lowest in the world, with criteria for being tested limited to those exhibiting typical symptoms who have returned from a foreign country, been in contact with someone from a foreign country, or a person with the coronavirus. There is a push for a more proactive approach and increased number of testing centres (of the estimated 600 needed there are only 52 around the country), as India faces challenges like overcrowded regions and the spread of misinformation about unproven homeopathic remedies.

Wellbeing as a public discourse

Balancing rights with emergency legislative measures

Wellbeing and work

The inequality of wellbeing

Right to Health

Freedom of information

Right to Water and Sanitation

Rights for those living in refugee camps

Economic Rights

Other stories making the news around the world

International

Africa

Asia

Australasia

Europe

Latin America

Middle East

North America

South and South-east Asia

The right to health

Restrictions of human rights

International cooperation

Concluding remarks

Americas

East Asia

Europe

Middle East and Africa

South East Asia

West Asia and India

Other stories making the news around the world

Africa

Europe

Latin America

Middle East

North America

South and South-east asia