Responses

Download PDFPDF

Off the back burner: diverse and gender-inclusive decision-making for COVID-19 response and recovery
Compose Response

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests

PLEASE NOTE:

  • Responses are moderated before posting and publication is at the absolute discretion of BMJ, however they are not peer-reviewed
  • Once published, you will not have the right to remove or edit your response. Removal or editing of responses is at BMJ's absolute discretion
  • If patients could recognise themselves, or anyone else could recognise a patient from your description, please obtain the patient's written consent to publication and send them to the editorial office before submitting your response [Patient consent forms]
  • By submitting this response you are agreeing to our full [Response terms and requirements]

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

  • Published on:
    On Warlord Discourses – an Inclusive Storytelling is Needed for COVID-19 Response.
    • Tri-Long Nguyen, Assistant Professor Section of Epidemiology, Department of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark

    I thank both Rajan et al. and Bali et al. for highlighting a lack of inclusivity in the governance of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) response.1,2 While the pandemic raises societal concerns, decision-making bodies remain unrepresentative of civil society and suffer from a dearth of diversity – with, for instance, an underrepresentation of women’s perspectives.1,2 I would add that inclusivity may have been thus far derogated by the popular discourse of some traditional, paternalistic leadership – namely, that which is conveyed through wordings worthy of warlords.

    “We are at war”, as declared the Director-General of the World Health Organization, before exhorting G20 leaders to “fight like hell” and calling for “aggressive action” to combat the COVID-19 pandemic.3 This rhetoric of war echoes that of some men country leaders and scientists, pressing authorities for immediate action. Yet, as metaphors frame the way people act,4 triggering civil and societal responsiveness should instead begin with wordings of compassion, cooperation and emancipation.

    First, the rhetoric of war may monopolize the public attention to a unique, imminent goal: mustering all forces to defeat and annihilate an enemy (here, the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2) – any other objectives being put aside as under war economy. This imposed monopoly may contrast with population concerns: Do we – civil society – strive merely to exterminate SARS-CoV-2, or rathe...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.