ABSTRACT
Resumo O Ministério da Saúde declarou em 03 de fevereiro de 2020 estado de emergência em saúde pública de importância nacional em decorrência da pandemia pelo novo coronavírus SARS-CoV-2. Com isso, o IBGE adiou a realização do Censo Demográfico de 2020 e passou a formular uma PNAD COVID-19. O inquérito contou com uma amostra total de 349 mil pessoas em cerca de 200 mil domicílios. Do total da população-residente brasileira, o IBGE estimou em maio/2020 que 24,0 milhões (11,4%) tiveram pelo menos um dos sintomas de síndrome gripal (SG). Desse contingente, 20,2 milhões (84,3% do total dos sintomáticos) não procuraram unidade de saúde. As inovações trazidas para a vigilância em saúde e o pioneirismo do IBGE demonstram ser possível, em um país continental e que vem experimentando diversas epidemias locais em momentos diferentes em seu território, que outros países também desenvolvam inquéritos domiciliares semelhantes, com coleta de dados semanal (referida às semanas epidemiológicas) por telefone de forma inovadora e tempestiva. A PNAD COVID-19 trouxe ainda uma nova tecnologia para o Instituto, resgatando o papel de avaliador externo do Sistema Único de Saúde (SUS).
Abstract On February 3, 2020, the Brazilian Ministry of Health declared a state of emergency in public health of national relevance due to the pandemic caused by the new coronavirus SARS-CoV-2. As a result, IBGE postponed the 2020 Demographic Census and started to formulate a COVID-19 PNAD. The survey included a total sample of 349 thousand people in about 200 thousand households. Of the total Brazilian resident population, the IBGE estimated in May/2020 that 24.0 million (11.4%) had at least one of the flu-like syndrome symptoms. Of this contingent, 20.2 million (84.3% of all symptomatic patients) did not seek health care. The innovations brought to health surveillance and the IBGE's pioneering spirit show that it is possible, in a continental country that has been experiencing several local epidemics at different times in its territory, that other countries also develop similar household surveys, with weekly data collection (referred to epidemiological weeks) by telephone in an innovative and timely manner. The COVID-19 PNAD also brought new technology to the Institute, reviving its role as an external evaluator of the Unified Health System (SUS).
Subject(s)
Humans , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Public Health , Surveys and Questionnaires , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Public Health Surveillance/methods , Pneumonia, Viral/therapy , Pneumonia, Viral/virology , Brazil , Patient Acceptance of Health Care/statistics & numerical data , Coronavirus Infections , Coronavirus Infections/therapy , Coronavirus Infections/virology , Biomedical Technology , Delivery of Health Care/organization & administration , Pandemics , Betacoronavirus , Betacoronavirus 1/isolation & purificationABSTRACT
Lay bioethics is an applied ethic that allows us to face the problems generated by the tension between science and the human being.The current pandemic caused by an unknown infectious agent has highlighted the need for the application of this applied ethic, not located on the laurels of the ethereal or purely intellectual, but rather based in day-to-day reality. Decision-making from all areas of health care requires this fundamental frame of reference; the application of correct precepts in epidemiological, sanitary decisions and political measures cannot and should not be done without this frame of reference; or the result will be catastrophic.
La Bioética laica es en principio una ética aplicada que permite afrontar los problemas generados por la tensión existente entre la ciencia y el ser humano. La actual pandemia causada por un agente infeccioso no conocido ha puesto de relieve la necesidad de la aplicación de esta ética aplicada, no ubicada en los laureles de lo etéreo o puramente intelectual sino más bien asentada en la realidad del día a día. La toma de decisiones desde todos los ámbitos del quehacer sanitario requiere este marco referencial fundamental; aplicación de correctos preceptos en las decisiones epidemiológicas, sanitarias y medidas políticas no puede ni debe hacerse sin este marco referencial; otrora el resultado será catastrófico.(AU)