Aumento do risco de infecção por Covid-19 em função dos fatores socioeconômicos

Abstract

Introduction: Animal-emerging coronaviruses caused SARS in 2002–2003, MERS in 2012, and COVID-19 in 2019. But unlike the other two highly pathogenic coronaviruses, the highly transmissible SARS-CoV-2 is able to overwhelm the immune system. health, inflict psychophysical morbidities and mortalities, and disrupt our socioeconomic activities. In Brazil, data from the beginning of October 2022, report 633,367,061 confirmed cases and 6,584,526 deaths from Sars-CoV-2 infection, which left the country in second place in relation to the total number of deaths in the world, behind US only. The high speed of the spread of the disease, its severity, the indifference to the means of protection and prevention of the disease by the government, including the delay in acquiring vaccines, light up the challenges of facing the pandemic in a country surrounded by great sociodemographic inequality and economical. Objective: The present study aimed to investigate the association of sociodemographic characteristics and cases of Covid-19 in the municipality of Baraúna-PB. We also asked whether the type of vaccination influenced the test result. Methodology: Observational, analytical, cross-sectional epidemiological study with a quantitative approach. The origin of the data was from a secondary source. Information was sought from socioeconomic variables, vaccination status, type of vaccination and test results that were obtained from 1,020 individuals attended by the Call Center for Combating Covid-19 in a municipality in Paraíba, Northeastern Brazil. Descriptive statistics was applied to analyze categorical and continuous variables. Regression analysis was applied to identify potential variable protective effects of different types of vaccines. Results: Of the 1,020 individuals, 486 (47.7%) and 534 (52.3%) had positive and negative results. Employment data were available for 548 individuals, of whom 395 (72.1%) worked in agriculture. Of all individuals working in agriculture and those with other types of work, 200 (75.5%) and 65 (24.5%) had a positive RT-PCR result (p < 0.001). Working in agriculture was also associated with lower levels of education (p<0.001). Of all 27 unvaccinated subjects, 24 had a positive RT-PCR test compared to 462 (46.5%) of 993 vaccinated subjects (p < 0.001). First vaccination andvaccination schedules were age-dependent and the protective effects of different vaccines were not different. Conclusions: Individuals who worked in agriculture were more at risk of COVID-19 infection. Stronger health policies must focus on protecting this vulnerable population group from COVID-19 and other pandemic agents.