ABSTRACT
Introduction Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) was predicted to be severely affected by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, but the actual data seem to have contradicted these forecasts. This study attempted to verify this observation by comparing predictions against actual data on the spread and burden of the COVID-19 pandemic in SSA.
Methods Focused on the period from March 1st to September 30th, 2020, we compared (1) the predicted interval dates when each SSA country would report 1 000 and 10 000 COVID-19 cases, to the actual dates when these numbers were attained, as well as (2) the daily number of predicted versus actual COVID-19 cases.
Further, we calculated the case fatality ratio of the COVID-19 infection in SSA, and the correlation coefficient between the weekly average number of confirmed COVID-19 cases reported by each country and the weekly average stringency index of its anti-COVID-19 policy measures.
Results 84.61% (33) and 100% (39) of the 39 SSA countries for which predictions were made did not reach a total of 1 000 and 10 000 confirmed COVID-19 cases at the predicted interval dates. The daily number of confirmed COVID-19 cases was lower than the one projected for all SSA countries. The case fatality ratio of the COVID-19 infection in SSA was 3.42%. Among the 44 SSA countries for which the correlation could be estimated, it was negative for 17 (38.6 %) of them.
Conclusions The natural characteristics of SSA and the public health measures implemented might partly explain that the actual data were lower than the predictions on the COVID-19 pandemic in SSA, but the low case ascertainment and the numerous asymptomatic cases did significantly influence this observation.
Competing Interest Statement
I have read the journal?s policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: Simeon Pierre Choukem who is co-author of this paper is also an Academic Editor for PLOS ONE journal. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials. Further, the conclusions made herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the position of the institutions to which they belong.
Funding Statement
We did not receive any funding for this research.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Not Applicable
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Our study was exempt from Institutional Review Board approval since we used data already collected and published.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Not Applicable
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Not Applicable
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Not Applicable
Data Availability
Data will be made available by the corresponding author upon a signed data access agreement.
