Geospatial variations in socioeconomic conditions and health outcomes in COVID-19 era: insights from South Africa (2020–2022)

South Africa also has the highest burden of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) related comorbidities in Africa. We aimed to quantify the temporal and geospatial changes in unemployment, food insecurity, and their combined impact on depressive symptoms among South Africans who participated into several rounds of national surveys. We estimated the population-attributable risk percent (PAR%) for the combinations of the risk factors after accounting for their correlation structure in multifactorial setting. Our study provided compelling evidence for immediate and severe effect of the pandemic where 60% of South Africans reported household food insecurity or household hunger, shortly after the pandemic emerged in 2020. Despite the grants provided by the government, these factors were also identified as the most influential risk factors (adjusted odds ratios (aORs) ranged from 2.06 to 3.10, p < 0.001) for depressive symptoms and collectively associated with 62% and 53% of the mental health symptoms in men and women, respectively. Similar pattern was observed among pregnant women and 41% of the depressive symptoms were exclusively associated with those who reported household hunger. However, aORs associated with the concerns around pandemic and vaccine were mostly not significant and ranged from 1.12 to 1.26 which resulted substantially lower impacts on depressive symptoms (PAR%:7%-and-14%). Our findings suggest that South Africa still has unacceptably high rates of hunger which is accelerated during the pandemic. These results may have significant clinical and epidemiological implications and may also bring partial explanation for the low vaccine coverage in the country, as priorities and concerns are skewed towards economic concerns and food insecurity. © 2023, The Author(s).

Does Zero-COVID neglect health disparities?

Since the World Health Organization (WHO) first declared the novel coronavirus a pandemic, diverse strategies have emerged to address it. This paper focuses on two leading strategies, elimination and mitigation, and examines their ethical basis. Elimination or 'Zero-COVID' dominates policies in Pacific Rim societies. It sets as a goal zero deaths and seeks to contain transmission using stringent short-term lockdowns, followed by strict find, test, trace and isolate methods. Mitigation, which dominates in the US and most European nations, sets targets for community transmission and lifts restrictions once targets are met. This approach takes calculated risks and regards a certain amount of disease and death as ethically justified. Section I examines different societal responses to risk that underlie these different policy approaches. Section II focuses on ethical arguments favouring Zero-COVID and raises health equity objections. Section III proposes a long-term strategy that balances the twin goals of promoting population health and health equity.