Search

Background The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic has sparked heated debate among scholars on the relevance of lockdowns. There are those in favor of the lockdown and others who are critical of it. However, despite the increased interest in understanding the relevance of lockdowns, there still has not been much focus on its relevance in countries like Zambia. Thus, with the help of the Social Representation Theory (SRT), we set out to explore and document the local characterization of the lockdown by residents of Lusaka, Zambia. Methods We recruited our participants through convenient and purposive sampling techniques. This was done through the use of the ZAMTEL public phone records. Initial contact was made to potential participants, and they were asked of their availability and willingness to participate in the interview. Upon agreeing to participate, they were included in the sample. A total of 68 people were selected to take part in this study. Their age ranged from 20 to 76 years old. 33 of them were male and 35 females. After this, we conducted interviews with the 68 participants. Due to COVID-19 restrictions, our interviews were conducted via telephone in conformity with the recommendations from the IRB in Lusaka and the advice of the ministry of health. We anonymized the demographic characteristics and responses from our participants. Later, thematic analysis was used to analyze the data. Results The lockdown was on one hand lauded for slowing down the incidence rates, preventing fatalities, and protecting the healthcare system from collapse. On the other hand, it was criticized for exacerbating poverty levels, unemployment rates, increasing the rate of mental health problems, aiding gender-based violence, and intensifying political repression and corruption. The results speak to the complexity in the characterization of the lockdown as a response to COVID-19 in Lusaka, Zambia. This observation demonstrates the folly of viewing, applying and characterizing the COVID-19 lockdown as a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach in Lusaka, Zambia. Conclusion Rather than establishing the lockdown as an incontestable good, as it is depicted by some scholars or as useless by its critics, our findings instead demonstrate the diversity and complexity in how it is locally viewed by Lusaka residents. The study provides grounds for caution on simplistic and binary characterization of lockdowns. It indicates the need for careful dialog between the designers of lockdowns and citizens in order to tailor such interventions to local realities in context-specific ways. It also shows that though the development of such interventions, all the various and complex elements it embodies must be taken into account in order to realize optimum outcomes.

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.

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.

Background: While lockdowns have become a gold standard response to the Covid-19 pandemic, debates on its usefulness still continue. There is currently good amount of research work originating from western countries on the usefulness of lockdowns, however, similar research is still missing in low income countries like Uganda which implemented stricter lockdowns. More importantly, not much is known about the views of the residents of Uganda for which such a measure was meant for. Despite the implementation of lockdowns, it is still not yet known how relevant residents of Uganda view the lockdown. Research has demonstrated that interventions are most successful when they resonate with the target population This study fills this identified gap by investigating the views and lived experiences of residents of Uganda with regards to the usefulness of the lockdown as a response to the prevention and control of COVID-19.Methods: This was a cross sectional survey using qualitative methods of data collection. Data will was collected from 1000 participants in the four regions of Uganda on the views and experiences on lockdown as a response to the prevention and control of COVID-19 crisis among residents of Uganda. Data collection was down through use of a Qualtrics Survey Tool. Thematic analysis with the help of the Social representation theory was then used to analyze the data. Findings: The study demonstrated that there was visible nuance in the manner in which the lockdown was characterized. On one hand it was seen as useful in slowing down the spread, protecting the fragile healthcare system and giving government enough time to learn about the novel virus and thus respond efficiently. On the other hand, our participants were critical of its devastative nature on the livelihoods of people. Particularly, the lockdown closed down economic survival opportunities for the most vulnerable in society, increased unemployment and poverty levels. The lockdown also contributed to worsening mental health conditions and simultaneously provided fertile ground for domestic abuse including sexual abuse especially among girls.Conclusion: Ultimately, our study questions the narrow view of branding the lockdown as unequivocally good or bad. It rather sheds light on the complexities of its effect on society in Uganda by pointing out its multicapillary-like consequences in society wherein it can, in various ways protect lives and at the same time destroy livelihoods. Our study thus highlights that responding to such complexities defies the logic of implementing the lockdown as a ‘one-size-fits-all magic bullet’, but rather that it must be contextualized, localized and appropriated to the realities of Uganda.