A DISSYMMETRY IN THE FIGURES RELATED TO THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC IN THE WORLD: WHAT FACTORS EXPLAIN THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AFRICA AND THE REST OF THE WORLD?

  1. Cheikh Faye
  2. CheikhTidiane Wade
  3. Ibrahima Demba Dione

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Humanity has experienced outbreaks for millennia, from epidemics limited to pandemics that have claimed many victims and changed the course of civilizations. The advent of vaccines has eradicated some of the serious pathogens and reduced many others. However, pandemics are still part of our modern world, as we continue to have pandemics as devastating as HIV and as alarming as severe acute respiratory syndrome, Ebola and the Middle East respiratory syndrome. The Covid-19 epidemic with 0-exponential contamination curves reaching 3 million confirmed cases should not have come as a surprise, nor should it have been the last pandemic in the world. In this article, we try to summarize the lost opportunities as well as the lessons learned, hoping that we can do better in the future. The objective of this study is to relate the situation of Covid-19 in African countries with those of the countries most affected by the pandemic. It also allows us to verify how, according to the observed situation, the African ecosystem seems to be much more resilient compared to that of other continents where the number of deaths is in the thousands. To verify this, the diagnosed morbidity and mortality reported for different states of the world are compared to the ages of life and the average annual temperature of these states. The results show that the less dramatic balance of the African continent compared to other continents is partly linked to the relatively high temperatures on the continent but also to the relatively young character of its population.

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.05.17.20104687: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board Statementnot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a protocol registration statement.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  2. Version published to 10.1101/2020.05.17.20104687v1 on medRxiv