A comparative analysis of COVID-19 physical distancing policies in South Africa and Uganda

Sana Mohammad, Emma Apatu, Lydia Kapiriri and Elizabeth Alvarez

PLOS Global Public Health, 2024, vol. 4, issue 7, 1-27

Abstract: COVID-19 responses internationally have depended on physical distancing policies to manage virus transmission, given the initial absence of treatments and limitations on vaccine availability. Different jurisdictions have different contexts affecting their responses such as past epidemic experience, ratings of epidemic preparedness, and income level. COVID-19 responses in African countries have not been well-studied. A qualitative multiple embedded case study design was used to examine the COVID-19 policies in South Africa and Uganda from January 2020 to November 2021. This study included a documentary review using government websites and reports, news articles, and peer-reviewed journal articles to obtain data on policy responses and contextual factors. Epidemiological data were collected from public sources. Key informant interviews with relevant stakeholders were used to confirm findings and cover missing information. A comparative analysis was conducted to explore differences in implementation of different types of physical distancing policies and potential consequences of lifting or prolonging public health measures. South African and Ugandan policy responses included physical distancing measures such as lockdown, international travel bans, school closures, public transportation measures, and curfew, in addition to socioeconomic relief programs and vaccinations. Differences between jurisdiction policy responses existed in terms of overarching strategy, timing, and stringency. This study provided in-depth comparisons of COVID-19 policy responses and relevant contextual factors in South Africa and Uganda. The study showed how contextual factors such as population age, geographic distribution, and recent epidemic response experience can influence COVID-19 transmission and response. The study also showed differences in overall strategy, timing, and strictness of epidemic management policies in these jurisdictions. These findings suggest it may be important to have sustained, strict measures to limit the spread of COVID-19 and manage the course of a pandemic, which need to be further explored alongside other important social and economic pandemic outcomes.

Date: 2024
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.plos.org/globalpublichealth/artic ... journal.pgph.0003170 (text/html)
https://journals.plos.org/globalpublichealth/artic ... 03170&type=printable (application/pdf)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:plo:pgph00:0003170

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pgph.0003170

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in PLOS Global Public Health from Public Library of Science
Bibliographic data for series maintained by globalpubhealth ().