Since COVID-19 emerged, a plethora of misinformation has undermined the public's ability to identify reliable sources of accurate information. To identify the range of methods governments used to address COVID-19 misinformation, we conducted a content analysis of international media and evaluated government actions in light of international law, which protects freedom of expression and calls on governments to guarantee this fundamental right even during a pandemic or other emergency. We identified five categories of government activities: (1) disseminating and increasing access to accurate information; (2) restricting access to accurate information; (3) disseminating disinformation, false information, and misinformation; (4) addressing commercial fraud; and (5) criminalizing expression. The goal of addressing COVID-19 misinformation is best served by protecting expression, disseminating factual information, ensuring strong protections for whistleblowers, and supporting an independent media environment. Conversely, governments undermine public health when they create a state of uncertainty and violate human rights.
Background Despite the discovery of vaccines, the control, and prevention of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) relied on non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs). This article describes the development and application of the Public Health Act to implement NPIs for COVID-19 pandemic control in Uganda. Methods This is a case study of Uganda’s experience with enacting COVID-19 Rules under the Public Health Act Cap. 281. The study assessed how and what Rules were developed, their influence on the outbreak progress, and litigation. The data sources reviewed were applicable laws and policies, Presidential speeches, Cabinet resolutions, statutory instruments, COVID-19 situation reports, and the registry of court cases that contributed to a triangulated analysis. Results Uganda applied four COVID-19 broad Rules for the period March 2020 to October 2021. The Minister of Health enacted the Rules, which response teams, enforcement agencies, and the general population followed. The Presidential speeches, their expiry period and progress of the pandemic curve led to amendment of the Rules twenty one (21) times. The Uganda Peoples Defense Forces Act No. 7 of 2005, the Public Finance Management Act No. 3 of 2015, and the National Policy for Disaster Preparedness and Management supplemented the enacted COVID-19 Rules. However, these Rules attracted specific litigation due to perceived infringement on certain human rights provisions. Conclusions Countries can enact supportive legislation within the course of an outbreak. The balance of enforcing public health interventions and human rights infringements is an important consideration in future. We recommend public sensitization about legislative provisions and reforms to guide public health responses in future outbreaks or pandemics.
Despite the discovery of vaccines, control and prevention efforts relied on non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) for the novel Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). This article describes the process of development and application of the public health law in prevention and control of the COVID-19 pandemic in Uganda.Methods: A process evaluation of Uganda’s experience with enacting COVID-19 Rules. Briefly, the Public Health Act Chapter 281 (1935) was reviewed each time there was a revision of the NPIs during the COVID-19 outbreak. The study assessed how and what rules were developed, their influence on the outbreak progress and cases of litigation. The data sources were applicable laws and policies, Presidential speeches, cabinet resolutions, statutory instruments, the COVID-19 situation reports and registry of court cases that contributed to a triangulated analysis.Results: Uganda applied four of COVID-19 broad Rules for the period March to October 2021. These Rules were amended twenty–one (21) times realigned along the pandemic curve, had an expiry period, and were preceded by Presidential pronouncements and directives. The Minister of Health enacted the Rules which were followed by response teams, enforcement agencies, and the general population. The enactment of COVID-19 Rules was necessary but not sufficient to control the pandemic, hence other laws came into play, specifically the Uganda Peoples Defense Forces Act No. 7 of 2005, the Public Finance Management Act No. 3 of 2015, and the National Policy for Disaster Preparedness and Management. Enacting COVID-19 Rules attracted specific litigation arising from perceived infringement on certain human rights provisions.Conclusions: It is possible for low-income countries to enact supportive legislation within the course of a COVID-19 outbreak. The balance of human rights infringements would be an important consideration in future studies.
Despite the discovery of vaccines, control and prevention efforts for the novel Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) relied on non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs). This article describes the development and application of the public health law in the prevention and control of the COVID-19 pandemic in Uganda. Methods: A process evaluation of Uganda’s experience with enacting COVID-19 Rules. Briefly, the Public Health Act Chap. 281 (1935) was reviewed each time there was a revision of the NPIs during the COVID-19 outbreak. The study assessed how and what rules were developed, their influence on the outbreak progress, and cases of litigation. The data sources were applicable laws and policies, Presidential speeches, cabinet resolutions, statutory instruments, the COVID-19 situation reports, and the registry of court cases that contributed to a triangulated analysis. Results: Uganda applied four of the COVID-19 broad Rules for the period March to October 2021. These Rules were amended twenty–one (21) times realigned along the pandemic curve, had an expiry period, and were preceded by Presidential pronouncements and directives. The Minister of Health enacted the Rules which were followed by response teams, enforcement agencies, and the general population. The enactment of COVID-19 Rules was necessary but not sufficient to control the pandemic, hence other laws came into play, specifically the Uganda Peoples Defense Forces Act No. 7 of 2005, the Public Finance Management Act No. 3 of 2015, and the National Policy for Disaster Preparedness and Management. Enacting COVID-19 Rules attracted specific litigation arising from perceived infringement on certain human rights provisions. Conclusions: Countries can enact supportive legislation within the course of an outbreak. The balance of enforcing public health interventions and human rights infringements would be an important consideration in future. We recommend public sensitization about legislative provisions and reforms to guide public health responses in future epidemics or pandemics.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.