Epidemiology of Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) in Nigeria

In late December 2019, there was an outbreak of a new Coronavirus infection in Wuhan, Hubei Province, China, which caused acute respiratory syndrome of unknown aetiology. The World Health Organization (WHO) named the virus Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV2) or COVID-19 and declared the infection a pandemic on the 11th of March 2020. The first case of COVID-19 in Nigeria was reported on the 27th of February 2020 and since then the numbers of confirmed cases has been on the increase, at least in Nigeria. With no vaccine or cure in sight, only public health measures that include personal protective measures, physical distancing, environmental and travel-related measures have been recommended to mitigate and contain the spread of the disease. There is need to make testing for COVID-19 widely available so that the true burden of the infection will be described. This step should assist policy makers in making evidence-based decisions in the prevention and control of the disease

COVID-19 Pandemic in Nigeria: A review

Background: An ongoing outbreak of pneumonia associated with a novel coronavirus was reported in Wuhan city, China. This new virus was named severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) by the Coronavirus Study Group (CSG) of the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses. That disease, caused by the SARS-CoV-2, has been named coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) by the WHO. The outbreak has since spread across the globe, including countries in Africa. Main body: The dominant mode of transmission is from the respiratory tract, via droplets or indirectly via fomites, and to a lesser extent via aerosols. The rapidity with which the infection spread throughout the world was unexpected. The disease has now affected 212 countries, areas, or territories, with more than 2.1 million total confirmed cases and over 144 thousand fatalities as at the time of writing. It, therefore, behooves countries of the world to take firm public health measures for the pandemic is to be contained. Conclusion: Nigeria, with a population of at least 170 million people, is of global interest because a rapid rise in the number of infected people will have serious implications not only for the country but for the whole African continent

COVID-19: May healthcare practitioners ethically and legally refuse to work at hospitals and health establishments where frontline employees are not provided with personal protective equipment?

The purpose of this article is not to encourage health practitioners to refuse to assist COVID-19 patients if they are not provided with personal protective equipment (PPE) at the workplace. It is to encourage them to advocate for PPE by pointing out that in South Africa (SA), health establishments that fail to provide them with PPE will be held ethically and legally responsible for the deaths of any patients ­ not health practitioners ­ if as a last resort such health professionals have to withdraw their services to protect other patients, themselves, their families and their colleagues. The article refers to the World Medical Association, World Health Organization and Health Professions Council of SA guidelines regarding the use of PPE during the COVID-19 epidemic, especially in the case of shortages. All the guidelines state that the safety of healthcare workers is a priority if they are to care for their patients properly. Mitigation measures are suggested, but do not extend to failing to provide PPE to those healthcare workers who deal directly with patients. The law protects all workers, who have a constitutional and statutory right to a working environment that is not harmful and does not threaten their health and safety. The article concludes that as a last resort, if the international and national ethical guidelines and legal rules are not being followed regarding PPE and advocacy attempts to persuade health establishments to provide PPE fail, and healthcare workers are exposed to the COVID-19 virus, they may ethically and legally withhold their services. These points should be made when health practitioners are advocating for PPE

Transmission of respiratory viruses when using public ground transport: A rapid review to inform public health recommendations during the COVID-19 pandemic

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, numerous countries worldwide declared national states of emergency and implemented interventions to minimise the risk of transmission among the public. Evidence was needed to inform strategies for limiting COVID-19 transmission on public transport. On 20 March 2020, we searched MEDLINE, CENTRAL, Web of Science and the World Health Organization's database of 'Global research on coronavirus disease (COVID-19)' to conduct a rapid review on interventions that reduce viral transmission on public ground transport. After screening 74 records, we identified 4 eligible studies. These studies suggest an increased risk of viral transmission with public transportation use that may be reduced with improved ventilation. International and national guidelines suggest the following strategies: keep the public informed, stay at home when sick, and minimise public transport use. Where use is unavoidable, environmental control, respiratory etiquette and hand hygiene are recommended, while a risk-based approach needs to guide the use of non-medical masks

COVID-19 related knowledge, attitudes, practices and needs of households in informal settlements in Nairobi, Kenya

Objective: Urban slums are at high risk of COVID-19 transmission due to the lack of basic housing, water, and sanitation, and overcrowding. No systematic surveys of slum households' experiences exist to date. Methods: A mobile phone knowledge, attitudes, and practices survey was conducted March 30- 31, 2020. Participants were sampled from two study cohorts across five urban slums in Nairobi, Kenya. Findings: 2,009 individuals (63% female) participated. Knowledge of fever and cough as COVID-19 symptoms was high, but only 42% listed difficulty breathing. Most (83%) knew anyone could be infected; younger participants had lower perceived risk. High risk groups were correctly identified (the elderly - 64%; those with weak immune systems - 40%) however, 20% incorrectly stated children.Handwashing and using hand sanitizer were known prevention methods, though not having a personal water source (37%) and hand sanitizer being too expensive (53%) were barriers.Social distancing measures were challenging as 61% said this would risk income.A third worried about losing income, only 26% were concerned about infecting others if themselves sick. Government TV ads and short message service (SMS) were the most common sources of COVID-19 information and considered trustworthy (by >95%) but were less likely to reach less educated households. Conclusion: Knowledge of COVID-19 is high; significant challenges for behavior change campaigns to reach everyone with contextually appropriate guidance remain. Government communication channels should continue with additional efforts to reach less educated households.A strategy is necessary to facilitate social distancing, handwashing and targeted distributions of cash and food