Covid-19 We Must Not Forget About Indigenous Health And Equity By Tina Ngata

In this essay I will be comparing the two texts of “COVID‐19: we must not forget about Indigenous health and equity” by Melissa McLeod et al. and “COVID-19 and the Māori duty to protect” by Tina Ngata. I think the essay by McLeod presents a stronger argument in this case because it provides an essay with good arguments and facts. Not to say that the arguments by Ngata are weaker or not strong enough as the ones presented by McLeod. I will explore these differences in argument and why I think the text by McLeod provides a stronger argument. There is an importance of comparing similar essays, because although at a first glance they might read and feel the same, but upon closer inspection and reading, there are a multitude of differences between

It reads as a scientific paper, providing evidence and facts for every argument that they have. For example, Mcleod writes “The severity of COVID‐19 illness – and subsequent risk of death – is increased among those with underlying health conditions… We, as Māori, are substantially more likely to have all comorbidities relevant to COVID‐19 and thus will experience a significant disproportionate burden of serious COVID‐19 outcomes compared to European ethnic groups.” It talks about many different health conditions that Māori are more susceptible too and how COVID-19 affects those with said conditions more. It follows logical progression giving evidence and reason to its claims. Ngata, when talking about the same topic of how indigenous groups are more affected, although evidence is provided about how past epidemics have affected indigenous groups it fails to provide relevant evidence and relies heavily on emotions and loaded words to get the argument through(Hall 310). In Ngata’s case of ‘the Māori duty to protect’ gives many anecdotal evidence of culture which I believe are not strong enough compared to the evidence provided in McLeod’s

McLeod’s essay builds it case thoroughly. Starting off with a strong thesis of ‘The inequities of indigenous health’ and any connected crisis and ending with it ‘isn’t just about the direct health effects of COVID-19’ and the social and economic implications that come with it “Health and welfare implications related to multiple issues such as disability, care and protection… will all differentially affect Māori.”(McLeod). Whereas, Ngata’s essay has many powerful arguments in its passages and a high intensity throughout, relying heavily on emotionalism and loaded language. The essay’s main thesis is not clearly stated in its introduction and instead builds it in the body paragraphs. Ngata writes “You see, we don’t forget our dead… We immortalise their stories in carved pou on our marae so that we speak of their experiences when we gather. We keep our ancestors close, their memories live on with us, and their lives become our lessons.” Which I believe could be the thesis of “the Māori duty to protect” but it isn’t mentioned until the fifth paragraph. Having the thesis in the body paragraphs instead of the introduction might make the point harder to argue, as with having the thesis in the beginning you can use the body paragraphs to strengthen your