Background: While lockdowns have become a gold standard response to the Covid-19 pandemic, debates on its usefulness still continue. There is currently good amount of research work originating from western countries on the usefulness of lockdowns, however, similar research is still missing in low income countries like Uganda which implemented stricter lockdowns. More importantly, not much is known about the views of the residents of Uganda for which such a measure was meant for. Despite the implementation of lockdowns, it is still not yet known how relevant residents of Uganda view the lockdown. Research has demonstrated that interventions are most successful when they resonate with the target population This study fills this identified gap by investigating the views and lived experiences of residents of Uganda with regards to the usefulness of the lockdown as a response to the prevention and control of COVID-19.
Methods: This was a cross sectional survey using qualitative methods of data collection. Data will was collected from 1000 participants in the four regions of Uganda on the views and experiences on lockdown as a response to the prevention and control of COVID-19 crisis among residents of Uganda. Data collection was down through use of a Qualtrics Survey Tool. Thematic analysis with the help of the Social representation theory was then used to analyze the data.
Findings: The study demonstrated that there was visible nuance in the manner in which the lockdown was characterized. On one hand it was seen as useful in slowing down the spread, protecting the fragile healthcare system and giving government enough time to learn about the novel virus and thus respond efficiently. On the other hand, our participants were critical of its devastative nature on the livelihoods of people. Particularly, the lockdown closed down economic survival opportunities for the most vulnerable in society, increased unemployment and poverty levels. The lockdown also contributed to worsening mental health conditions and simultaneously provided fertile ground for domestic abuse including sexual abuse especially among girls.
Conclusion: Ultimately, our study questions the narrow view of branding the lockdown as unequivocally good or bad. It rather sheds light on the complexities of its effect on society in Uganda by pointing out its multicapillary-like consequences in society wherein it can, in various ways protect lives and at the same time destroy livelihoods. Our study thus highlights that responding to such complexities defies the logic of implementing the lockdown as a ‘one-size-fits-all magic bullet’, but rather that it must be contextualized, localized and appropriated to the realities of Uganda.