The Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2016 provides an up-to-date analysis of the burden of diarrhoea in 195 countries. This study assesses cases, deaths, and aetiologies in 1990-2016 and assesses how the burden of diarrhoea has changed in people of all ages. We modelled diarrhoea mortality with a Bayesian hierarchical modelling platform that evaluates a wide range of covariates and model types on the basis of vital registration and verbal autopsy data. We modelled diarrhoea incidence with a compartmental meta-regression tool that enforces an association between incidence and prevalence, and relies on scientific literature, population representative surveys, and health-care data. Diarrhoea deaths and episodes were attributed to 13 pathogens by use of a counterfactual population attributable fraction approach. Diarrhoea risk factors are also based on counterfactual estimates of risk exposure and the association between the risk and diarrhoea. Each modelled estimate accounted for uncertainty. In 2016, diarrhoea was the eighth leading cause of death among all ages (1 655 944 deaths, 95% uncertainty interval [UI] 1 244 073-2 366 552) and the fifth leading cause of death among children younger than 5 years (446 000 deaths, 390 894-504 613). Rotavirus was the leading aetiology for diarrhoea mortality among children younger than 5 years (128 515 deaths, 105 138-155 133) and among all ages (228 047 deaths, 183 526-292 737). Childhood wasting (low weight-for-height score), unsafe water, and unsafe sanitation were the leading risk factors for diarrhoea, responsible for 80·4% (95% UI 68·2-85·0), 72·1% (34·0-91·4), and 56·4% (49·3-62·7) of diarrhoea deaths in children younger than 5 years, respectively. Prevention of wasting in 1762 children (95% UI 1521-2170) could avert one death from diarrhoea. Substantial progress has been made globally in reducing the burden of diarrhoeal diseases, driven by decreases in several primary risk factors. However, this reduction has not been equal across locations, and burden among adults older than 70 years requires attention. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

With one billion people on the move or having moved in 2018, migration is a global reality, which has also become a political lightning rod. Although estimates indicate that the majority of global migration occurs within low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs), the most prominent dialogue focuses almost exclusively on migration from LMICs to high-income countries (HICs). Nowadays, populist discourse demonises the very same individuals who uphold economies, bolster social services, and contribute to health services in both origin and destination locations. Those in positions of political and economic power continue to restrict or publicly condemn migration to promote their own interests. Meanwhile nationalist movements assert so-called cultural sovereignty by delineating an us versus them rhetoric, creating a moral emergency. In response to these issues, the UCL-Lancet Commission on Migration and Health was convened to articulate evidence-based approaches to inform public discourse and policy. The Commission undertook analyses and consulted widely, with diverse international evidence and expertise spanning sociology, politics, public health science, law, humanitarianism, and anthropology. The result of this work is a report that aims to be a call to action for civil society, health leaders, academics, and policy makers to maximise the benefits and reduce the costs of migration on health locally and globally. The outputs of our work relate to five overarching goals that we thread throughout the report. First, we provide the latest evidence on migration and health outcomes. This evidence challenges common myths and highlights the diversity, dynamics, and benefits of modern migration and how it relates to population and individual health. Migrants generally contribute more to the wealth of host societies than they cost. Our Article shows that international migrants in HICs have, on average, lower mortality than the host country population. However, increased morbidity was found for some conditions and among certain subgroups of migrants, (eg, increased rates of mental illness in victims of trafficking and people fleeing conflict) and in populations left behind in the location of origin. Currently, in 2018, the full range of migrants’ health needs are difficult to assess because of poor quality data. We know very little, for example, about the health of undocumented migrants, people with disabilities, or lesbian, gay, bisexual, transsexual, or intersex (LGBTI) individuals who migrate or who are unable to move. Second, we examine multisector determinants of health and consider the implication of the current sector-siloed approaches. The health of people who migrate depends greatly on structural and political factors that determine the impetus for migration, the conditions of their journey, and their destination. Discrimination, gender inequalities, and exclusion from health and social services repeatedly emerge as negative health influences for migrants that require cross-sector responses. Third, we critically review key challenges to healthy migration. Population mobility provides economic, social, and cultural dividends for those who migrate and their host communities. Furthermore, the right to the highest attainable standard of health, regardless of location or migration status, is enshrined in numerous human rights instruments. However, national sovereignty concerns overshadow these benefits and legal norms. Attention to migration focuses largely on security concerns. When there is conjoining of the words health and migration, it is either focused on small subsets of society and policy, or negatively construed. International agreements, such as the UN Global Compact for Migration and the UN Global Compact on Refugees, represent an opportunity to ensure that international solidarity, unity of intent, and our shared humanity triumphs over nationalist and exclusionary policies, leading to concrete actions to protect the health of migrants. Fourth, we examine equity in access to health and health services and offer evidence-based solutions to improve the health of migrants. Migrants should be explicitly included in universal health coverage commitments. Ultimately, the cost of failing to be health-inclusive could be more expensive to national economies, health security, and global health than the modest investments required. Finally, we look ahead to outline how our evidence can contribute to synergistic and equitable health, social, and economic policies, and feasible strategies to inform and inspire action by migrants, policy makers, and civil society. We conclude that migration should be treated as a central feature of 21st century health and development. Commitments to the health of migrating populations should be considered across all Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and in the implementation of the Global Compact for Migration and Global Compact on Refugees. This Commission offers recommendations that view population mobility as an asset to global health by showing the meaning and reality of good health for all. We present four key messages that provide a focus for future action.

Resumo A pandemia de COVID-19 tem desafiado pesquisadores e gestores a encontrar medidas de saúde pública que evitem o colapso dos sistemas de saúde e reduzam os óbitos. Esta revisão narrativa buscou sistematizar as evidências sobre o impacto das medidas de distanciamento social na epidemia de COVID-19 e discutir sua implementação no Brasil. Foram triados artigos sobre o efeito do distanciamento social na COVID-19 no PubMed, medRXiv e bioRvix, e analisados atos do poder público nos níveis federal e estadual para sumarizar as estratégias implementadas no Brasil. Os achados sugerem que o distanciamento social adotado por população é efetivo, especialmente quando combinado ao isolamento de casos e à quarentena dos contatos. Recomenda-se a implementação de medidas de distanciamento social e de políticas de proteção social para garantir a sustentabilidade dessas medidas. Para o controle da COVID-19 no Brasil, é imprescindível que essas medidas estejam aliadas ao fortalecimento do sistema de vigilância nos três níveis do SUS, que inclui a avaliação e uso de indicadores adicionais para monitorar a evolução da pandemia e o efeito das medidas de controle, a ampliação da capacidade de testagem, e divulgação ampla e transparente das notificações e de testagem desagregadas.

Background This study describes heat- and cold-related mortality in 12 urban populations in low- and middle-income countries, thereby extending knowledge of how diverse populations, in non-OECD countries, respond to temperature extremes. Methods The cities were: Delhi, Monterrey, Mexico City, Chiang Mai, Bangkok, Salvador, São Paulo, Santiago, Cape Town, Ljubljana, Bucharest and Sofia. For each city, daily mortality was examined in relation to ambient temperature using autoregressive Poisson models (2- to 5-year series) adjusted for season, relative humidity, air pollution, day of week and public holidays. Results Most cities showed a U-shaped temperature-mortality relationship, with clear evidence of increasing death rates at colder temperatures in all cities except Ljubljana, Salvador and Delhi and with increasing heat in all cities except Chiang Mai and Cape Town. Estimates of the temperature threshold below which cold-related mortality began to increase ranged from 15°C to 29°C; the threshold for heat-related deaths ranged from 16°C to 31°C. Heat thresholds were generally higher in cities with warmer climates, while cold thresholds were unrelated to climate. Conclusions Urban populations, in diverse geographic settings, experience increases in mortality due to both high and low temperatures. The effects of heat and cold vary depending on climate and non-climate factors such as the population disease profile and age structure. Although such populations will undergo some adaptation to increasing temperatures, many are likely to have substantial vulnerability to climate change. Additional research is needed to elucidate vulnerability within populations.

Brazil is a large complex country that is undergoing rapid economic, social, and environmental change. In this Series of six articles, we have reported important improvements in health status and life expectancy, which can be ascribed largely to progress in social determinants of health and to implementation of a comprehensive national health system with strong social participation. Many challenges remain, however. Socioeconomic and regional disparities are still unacceptably large, reflecting the fact that much progress is still needed to improve basic living conditions for a large proportion of the population. New health problems arise as a result of urbanisation and social and environmental change, and some old health issues remain unabated. Administration of a complex, decentralised public-health system, in which a large share of services is contracted out to the private sector, together with many private insurance providers, inevitably causes conflict and contradiction. The challenge is ultimately political, and we conclude with a call for action that requires continuous engagement by Brazilian society as a whole in securing the right to health for all Brazilian people.