University College Utrecht, Campusplein 1, 3584 ED Utrecht, the Netherlands.
University of Amsterdam, Politics, Psychology, Law and Economics (PPLE) College, Roetersstraat 11, 1018 WB Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Pan Afr Med J. 2021 Jun 3;39:102. doi: 10.11604/pamj.2021.39.102.26023. eCollection 2021.
The emergency of COVID-19 has forced many sub-Saharan African (SSA) governments to lockdown countries. This meant minimizing interaction between individuals through actions such as closure of schools, restaurants, bars, and imposing restrictions on movements and events. Supporters of lockdowns argue that lockdowns are useful for slowing down the spread of the disease, preventing the health care systems from potential collapse and preventing deaths. While they are well-intended, these arguments in support of lockdowns are out of touch with reality in SSA. The socioeconomic, psychological and political impact of lockdowns may be much larger than its benefits. Total population lock-downs in the context of SSA seem to be unhelpful especially given that the population at risk is a small identifiable demographic. A more useful approach would be to isolate, focus and direct available care to the most at risk population in context-specific ways and carefully open up the countries.
新冠疫情的紧急情况迫使许多撒哈拉以南非洲(SSA)国家封锁了边境。这意味着通过关闭学校、餐馆、酒吧等措施,尽量减少个人之间的互动,并对人员流动和活动实施限制。封锁措施的支持者认为,封锁对于减缓疾病传播、防止医疗系统崩溃和预防死亡是有用的。虽然这些措施的初衷是好的,但在 SSA,这些支持封锁的论点与现实脱节。封锁措施在社会经济、心理和政治方面的影响可能比其带来的好处大得多。在 SSA 背景下,全面封锁人口似乎没有帮助,特别是因为面临风险的人群是一小部分可识别的人口。一种更有用的方法是,在特定情况下,以隔离、集中和定向的方式,将现有医护资源提供给最危险的人群,并谨慎地重新开放国家。