Mediatization, polarization, and intolerance (between environments, media, and circulation)

Trajectories of coronavirus and interpenetrations of social discourses 205 context of cooperation with other institutions, such as the Uni- fied Health System (SUS), public health institutions (state and municipal), and other forms of agents and collaborations. It consisted of the equipment of hospital units, processes for test- ing of the population, by specialized personnel, in addition to educational campaigns that were promoted by different institu- tions, under the guidance of the Ministry. Also, in the monitoring and presentation of the occurrence of cases of affected people, through the data collected around a daily meeting involving, over two months, technicians, and the minister of health himself, journalists from different media, giving rise to the appearance in this context of a certain observatory format, including social listening, co-managing, according to exchanges there generated, tracks of monitoring and intervention on the action of the virus. According to these choices of crisis management procedures, the Ministry of Health distinguished itself as a central reference to express the government’s presence at the head of an attempt- ed policy to combat the virus. Besides the exposition of techni- cians and specialists, the minister, after being dismissed, gave the fact a discursive, multi-institutional construction, highlight- ing marks of cooperation between multiple forces. He moved to the field of actions, associating with the work teams, making evi - dent and valuing the references of the epidemiological knowl- edge employed in the fight against dissemination. This policy mediatized other actors, also putting in the “public square” medical specialists - infectologists, virologists, epidemiologists, etcetera - who left the borders of their offices, and whose identity marks mixed with those of other profession- als in the health field, as well as experts from other fields. The conditions for expanding a modality of technical-professional dialogue deepened according to practices of knowledge inter- penetration, many of which functioned as collateral references that, if maintained, could have been useful to policies to combat the coronavirus. SUS, for many years, was in sight of government officials interested in its dismantling or privatization, under the allegation that it constituted a pachyderm amid health policy practices. It came from the first two ministers - even with a dis - tant background in sanitation - the recognition of this model of public health provision as a central agent in the internalization