![]() ![]() Given the age demographics in African countries, and the existing data on those the disease affects most (primarily the elderly), Africa’s population would be less susceptible to COVID-19 than its counterparts in Europe and the USA. Overcrowded conditions, reliance on social grants and food parcels for which queuing is necessary, and shared ablutions all substantially change the effect of a regulation that says “stay at home”. However, in this case, it was easy to see from the outset that lockdowns would be unfeasible in much of South Africa, and in the region more generally. ![]() The evidence suggests that lockdown was not an effective strategy against COVID-19 in South Africa. But there were no subsequent changes that might be attributed to further regulation changes. We found a sharp change in cases that could be attributable to initial mitigation strategies. It is important to bear in mind that the correct way to assess harder lockdown measures is not against total inaction, but against a baseline of mitigation strategies such as the lockdown level 1 which is now in place. If lockdown regulations were having the intended effect, one would expect the rate of infection to spike as restrictions were relaxed. And as the country entered level 2, the pandemic started to recede. In fact, during level 3, the pandemic peaked. As lockdown restrictions were relaxed and South Africa entered levels 4 and 3, when much of the economy re-opened and restrictions on movement were substantially reduced, there was no increase in the rate of infection. Of course, the number of cases did increase over time, but what counts is whether the rate of increase changed when lockdowns changed. Note that one must look for a delay due to the disease’s 5-6 day average incubation period, and time for test results to be released. If this “hard lockdown” had been effective, the rate of infection would have dropped significantly 7-14 days after lockdown was implemented. ![]() All non-essential businesses were shut down, and cigarette and alcohol sales were banned. Citizens weren’t allowed to leave their residence except for essential purposes such as grocery shopping and medical care. Lockdown level 5 in South Africa was one of the world’s strictest. But we found no decline in either daily new cases or deaths between around 27 March, which was the first day of level 5 and the latter part of July, when cases began to tail off during level 3. The mitigation strategies initially implemented may well have gone some way to “flattening-the-curve” – that is, reducing the rate at which the virus spreads through the population. ![]() We recently reviewed the evidence for the effectiveness of the lockdown at slowing the spread of the pandemic. Yet data concerning both the spread of the virus and the indirect consequences of the lockdown suggest that the severe restrictions imposed in South Africa – some of the strictest in the world – were far from effective. By Benjamin T H Smart, Alex Broadbent and Herkulaas MvE CombrinkĪt the start of October, the World Health Organisation (WHO) and the Chinese government lauded South Africa’s response to the global COVID-19 pandemic. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |