Factors associated with persistence of African animal trypanosomiasis in Lango subregion, northern Uganda.

African animal trypanosomiasis (AAT) continues to inflict heavy losses on livestock production especially cattle in terms of decreased production and productivity in Uganda. AAT is a disease complex caused by tsetse fly-transmitted Trypanosoma brucei brucei, Trypanosoma brucei rhodesiense, Trypanosoma congolense, and Trypanosoma vivax. The disease is most important in cattle but also known to cause serious losses in pigs, camels, goats, and sheep. Several control measures including live bait technology, mass treatment of cattle with trypanocidal drugs, and deployment of tsetse traps have been used in the past 10 years, but the problem still persists in some areas. This necessitated an exploration of the factors associated with continued trypanosome infections in cattle, which are also known reservoirs for the zoonotic trypanosomiasis. A structured questionnaire was administered to 286 animal owners from 20 villages purposively selected from Lira, Kole, and Alebtong districts of Lango subregion to obtain information on the factors associated with persistence of infection. Over 50% of the respondents reported trypanosomiasis as a major challenge to their livestock. Land ownership (P = 0.029), type of livestock kept (P = 0.000), disease control strategy employed (P = 0.000), source of drugs (P = 0.046), and drug preparation (P = 0.017) were associated with persistent AAT infection. We recommend continued farmer sensitization on the threat of AAT and the available prevention and control options. The use of isometamidium chloride for prophylaxis against trypanosomiasis is highly recommended. There is also a need to foster qualified private veterinary drug supply in the region.

A Comparative Analysis of COVID-19 Physical Distancing Policies in Botswana, India, Jamaica, Mozambique, Namibia, Ukraine, and the United States

BackgroundUnderstanding the differences in timing and composition of physical distancing policies is important to evaluate the early global response to COVID-19. A physical distancing intensity framework comprising 16 domains was recently published to compare physical distancing approaches between U.S. States. We applied this framework to a diverse set of low and middle-income countries (LMICs) (Botswana, India, Jamaica, Mozambique, Namibia, and Ukraine) to test the appropriateness of this framework in the global context and to compare the policy responses in this set of LMICs and with a sample of U.S. States during the first 100-days of the epidemic. ResultsAll six of the LMICs in our sample adopted wide ranging physical distancing policies. The highest peak daily physical distancing intensity in each country was: Botswana (4.60); India (4.40); Ukraine (4.40); Namibia (4.20); and Jamaica (3.80). The number of days each country stayed at peak intensity ranged from 12-days (Jamaica) to more than 67-days (Mozambique). We found some key similarities and differences, including substantial differences in whether and how countries expressly required certain groups to stay at home. We also found that the LMICs generally implemented physical distancing policies when there were few confirmed cases and the easing of physical distancing policies did not discernably correlate with change in COVID-19 incidence. The physical distancing responses in the LMIC sample were generally more intense than in a sample of U.S. States, but results vary depending on the U.S. State. For example, California had a peak intensity of 4.29, which would place California below the peak intensity for Botswana, India, and Ukraine but above Mozambique, Namibia and Jamaica. The U.S. State of Georgia had a peak intensity of 3.07, which would place it lower than all of the LMICs in this sample. The peak intensity for the U.S. 12-state average was 3.84, which would place it lower than every LMIC in this sample except Jamaica. ConclusionThis analysis helps to highlight the differing paths taken by the countries in this sample and may provide lessons to other countries regarding options for structuring physical distancing policies in response to COVID-19 and future outbreaks.