Coronavirus outbreak in Nigeria: Burden and socio-medical response during the first 100 days

Abstract

Background: The coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic shocked the world, overwhelming the health systems of even high-income countries. Predictably, the situation has elicited social and medical responses from the public and governments, respectively. Nigeria recorded an imported case from Italy on February 27, 2020. Hence, this paper assesses the early socio-medical response to COVID-19 in Nigeria in the first 100 days after the index case. The paper employs analytical methods and collates data from various media reports and official sources. Findings: The incidence of COVID-19 grew steadily in Nigeria, moving from an imported case and elitist pattern to community transmission. The case fatality stood at 2.8%. The country recorded an upsurge (52% of total cases) in the transmission of COVID-19 during the short period the lockdown was relaxed. This paper presents a concise response framework to highlight some specific multisectoral responses to the pandemic. A combination of social and medical responses to a large extent helped Nigeria curtail the spread of the virus. Conclusion:The potential of overwhelming COVID-19 is still imminent in Nigeria as the country is attempting to hurriedly open the economy, which could sacrifice public health gains for temporary economic gains.

Early geography of the coronavirus disease outbreak in Nigeria

“…Initially, the World Health Organization declared the outbreak on the 30th of January, 2020, as a Public Health Emergency of international concern but later it was labeled as a pandemic on the 11th of March 2020. Within this period, most countries of the world including Nigeria had started recording cases of COVID-19 disease (Akande-Sholabi and Adebisi 2020 ; Amzat et al 2020 ; Bowale et al 2020 ; Ohia et al 2020 ; Olapegba and Ayandele 2020 ). The pandemic has since then plunged the global economy and the entire means of production into an entirely new era of uncharted terrain going by the unpredictability of the outbreak and unavailability of data as to R 0 of the infection.…”

Sine qua non larva, turmoil and disdain: Responsiveness to ‘Covid-19 face-mask’ at Ogunpa, Ibadan, Nigeria

“…This is in tandem with Abraham & Sheeran's (2015) study on how people can be more susceptible to diseases when they exhibit disbelief or careless attitude about them. Amzat et al (2020) have also observed the nonchalant attitudes of rural dwellers in Nigeria towards the coronavirus disease. Yet, Ogoina (2020) has pointed out that perhaps the cheapest and most effective prevention gadget against Covid-19 is the face-mask.…”

COVID-19 knowledge, beliefs, prevention behaviours and misinformation in the context of an adapted seasonal malaria chemoprevention campaign in six northern Nigerian States

“…In Nigeria, the Federal Ministry of Health, in collaboration with agencies such as NCDC and the National Primary Health Care Development Agency, has undertaken a programme to disseminate messages on COVID-19 prevention and symptoms through health facility workers, with training provided by the federal government. Cascade training with standardised messages has similarly been centrally provided to local traditional leaders and religious leaders on public health messaging, identification of potential cases, case reporting to authorities, and measures to ensure safety of constituents and congregations [ 15 ]. NCDC public health information campaigns have been transmitted via radio and television, which have explicitly attempted to counter COVID-19 misinformation.…”

“…While there exists some evidence on knowledge and attitudes of COVID-19 in various settings, including Nigeria [ 9 – 13 ], there remains, to our knowledge, no evidence on effectiveness of different sources of information that influence these outcomes. Diffusion of misinformation on COVID-19 has emerged as a significant issue worldwide [ 14 ], including in Nigeria, where ‘myths’ surrounding methods to prevent or cure infection have the potential to undermine public health messaging and interventions [ 15 ].…”