Search

This exploratory study aims to assess Africa's lagging position in global health in relation to some healthcare infrastructure before critically examining the situation of Africa in the light of pressing COVID-19 healthcare infrastructural needs in terms of the number of hospital beds, intensive care units beds and ventilators per 100,000 people. A comparative analysis is provided to showcase which regions are leading in the health facilities in the world in general and Africa, in particular, as well as countries that are lagging in the attendant healthcare facilities. Analytical insights are provided to illustrate that the COVID-19 pandemic has revealed how Africa cannot reach most Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), especially SDG-3 on health and well-being. Moreover, corresponding inferences suggest that the continent is unprepared for future pandemics in terms of health facilities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The purpose of this study is to understand how countries have leveraged on their economic resilience to fight the COVID-19 pandemic. The focus is on a global sample of 150 countries. The study develops a health vulnerability index (HVI) and leverages on an existing economic resilience index (ERI) to provide four main scenarios from which to understand the problem statement, namely 'low HVI-low ERI,' 'high HVI-low ERI,' 'high HVI-high ERI,' and 'low HVI-high ERI' quadrants. Countries that have robustly fought the pandemic are those in the 'low HVI-high ERI' quadrant and, to a lesser extent, countries in the 'low HVI-low ERI' quadrant. Most European countries, namely one African country (Rwanda), four Asian countries (e.g., Japan, China, South Korea, and Thailand), and six American countries (e.g., United States, Canada, Uruguay, Panama, Argentina, and Costa Rica) are apparent in the ideal quadrant. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study complements the extant literature by constructing COVID‐19 economic vulnerability and resilience indexes using a global sample of 150 countries categorised into four principal regions: Africa, Asia‐Pacific and the Middle East, America, and Europe. Seven variables are used for the vulnerability index and nine for the resilience index. Both regions and sampled countries are classified in terms of the two proposed and computed indexes. The classification of countries is also provided in terms of four scenarios pertaining to vulnerability and resilience characteristics: low vulnerability‐low resilience, high vulnerability‐low resilience, high vulnerability‐high resilience, and low vulnerability‐high resilience to illustrate sensitive, severe, asymptomatic, and best cases, respectively. The findings are relevant to policy makers, especially as they pertain to decision‐making in resource allocation in the fight against the global pandemic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study has: (a) analysed the economic impact of the Covid‐19 pandemic, (b) evaluated the effectiveness and relevance of different measures against the pandemic and (c) examined nexuses between the corresponding measures and economic outcomes. The study uses a sample of 186 countries divided into four main regions, notably: Asia‐Pacific and the Middle East, Europe, Africa and America. Thirty four preventing and mitigating measures against the Covid‐19 pandemic are classified into five main categories: lockdown, movement restrictions, governance and economic, social distancing, and public health measures. The empirical evidence is based on comparative difference in means tests and correlation analyses. The findings show how the effectiveness and consequences of the Covid‐19 measures are different across regions. In adopting the relevant policies to fight the ongoing pandemic, the comparative insights from the findings in the study are worthwhile. Inter alia: (a) from a holistic perspective, only European countries have favorably benefited from the Covid‐19 measures; (b) lockdown measures at the global level have not been significant in reducing the pandemic; (c) the restriction of movement measure has been relevant in curbing the spread in the American continent; (d) the enforcement of the social distancing measures has been productive in Europe and counter‐productive in Africa; (e) governance and economic measures have exclusively been relevant in Europe and (f) overall public health measures have not had the desired outcomes in flattening the infection curve probably because most of the underlying measures are awareness decisions or oriented toward people already infected. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]