L ast month, a grand experiment was launched. Its aim? To speed up the development of COVID-19 vaccines and make sure they are distributed equitably among higher-and lower-income countries. This welcome endeavour is called the COVID-19 Vaccine Global Access (COVAX) initiative. It is co-led by the World Health Organization (WHO), the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) and Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance. As of 1 October, 167 countries have signed up, covering nearly two-thirds of the global population. More have expressed interest, according to Gavi. The initiative covers several vaccines currently in testing. It aims to ensure access to whichever ones prove to be effective. Under this scheme, even poor nations should have enough vaccines to protect health-care workers and the most vulnerable 20% of their populations. Still, Africa has reasons to worry. Already, several high-income countries have signed their own contracts with individual companies to buy selected vaccines. The United States, for example, has made deals worth upwards of US$6 billion with several firms. An analysis by the international charity Oxfam finds that, even if all five of the most-advanced vaccine candidates succeed, there will not be enough vaccine for most of the world's people until 2022. We've seen a scramble for access to

The aim of this study is to determine how stakeholder engagement can be adapted for the conduct of COVID ‐19‐related clinical trials in sub‐Saharan Africa. Nine essential stakeholder engagement practices were reviewed: formative research; stakeholder engagement plan; communications and issues management plan; protocol development; informed consent process; standard of prevention for vaccine research and standard of care for treatment research; policies on trial‐related physical, psychological, financial, and/or social harms; trial accrual, follow‐up, exit trial closure and results dissemination; and post‐trial access to trial products or procedures. The norms, values, and practices of collectivist societies in Sub‐Saharan Africa and the low research literacy pose challenges to the conduct of clinical trials. Civil‐society organizations, members of community advisory boards and ethics committees, young persons, COVID ‐19 survivors, researchers, government, and the private sector are assets for the implementation and translation of COVID ‐19 related clinical trials. Adapting ethics guidelines to the socio‐cultural context of the region can facilitate achieving the aim of stakeholder engagement.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID 19) has had serious social, economic, and health effects globally. The pandemic caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV- 2), which was first announced in December 2019 has resulted in more than 24 million infections. There is paucity of knowledge on the role of risk perception in the adoption of public health interventions needed to control the spread of COVID 19 infections within communities. This was a scoping review and documents how risk perception may be a major challenge for populations to adopt and implement different behavioral changes recommended to curtail the spread COVID- 19 pandemic in sub-Saharan Africa; and seeks to proffer solutions on how the identified challenges can be addressed drawing from lessons learnt from previous epidemics within the region. Database search of Google Scholar, PubMed, Research Gate among others were performed using related keywords to identify relevant journals and lists of primary articles. Culture, religious beliefs and poverty may influence how populations respond to infectious disease outbreaks. Risk strategies that focus only on biomedical approaches to control the COVID-19 pandemic may not mobilize the needed behavioral change. Lessons learnt from HIV and Ebola epidemics showed that involvement of communities could help transform weak adoption of public health measures when measures were framed in the relevant cultural context. An understanding of the factors influencing risk perception is needed to design appropriate risk communication strategies. Community engagement and reliance on local communication networks could promote mutual trust and increase the uptake of public-health interventions.

COVID-19 mortality rate has not been formally assessed in Nigeria. Thus, we aimed to address this gap and identify associated mortality risk factors during the first and second waves in Nigeria. This was a retrospective analysis of national surveillance data from all 37 States in Nigeria between February 27, 2020, and April 3, 2021. The outcome variable was mortality amongst persons who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 by Reverse-Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction. Incidence rates of COVID-19 mortality was calculated by dividing the number of deaths by total person-time (in days) contributed by the entire study population and presented per 100,000 person-days with 95% Confidence Intervals (95% CI). Adjusted negative binomial regression was used to identify factors associated with COVID-19 mortality. Findings are presented as adjusted Incidence Rate Ratios (aIRR) with 95% CI. The first wave included 65,790 COVID-19 patients, of whom 994 (1∙51%) died; the second wave included 91,089 patients, of whom 513 (0∙56%) died. The incidence rate of COVID-19 mortality was higher in the first wave [54∙25 (95% CI: 50∙98–57∙73)] than in the second wave [19∙19 (17∙60–20∙93)]. Factors independently associated with increased risk of COVID-19 mortality in both waves were: age ≥45 years, male gender [first wave aIRR 1∙65 (1∙35–2∙02) and second wave 1∙52 (1∙11–2∙06)], being symptomatic [aIRR 3∙17 (2∙59–3∙89) and 3∙04 (2∙20–4∙21)], and being hospitalised [aIRR 4∙19 (3∙26–5∙39) and 7∙84 (4∙90–12∙54)]. Relative to South-West, residency in the South-South and North-West was associated with an increased risk of COVID-19 mortality in both waves. In conclusion, the rate of COVID-19 mortality in Nigeria was higher in the first wave than in the second wave, suggesting an improvement in public health response and clinical care in the second wave. However, this needs to be interpreted with caution given the inherent limitations of the country’s surveillance system during the study.