Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
28 June 2023 Photo Supplied
UFS Experts
Ms Akani Baloyi is from the Disaster Management Training and Education Centre for Africa (DiMTEC) at the University of the Free State. | Dr Olivia Kunguma is from the Disaster Management Training and Education Centre for Africa (DiMTEC) at the University of the Free State. | Dr Arishka Kalicharan, Department of Basic Medical Sciences, UFS

 


Opinion article by Ms Akani Baloyi; Dr Olivia Kunguma, Disaster Management Training and Education Centre for Africa (DiMTEC) at the University of the Free State; and Dr Arishka Kalicharan, Department of Basic Medical Sciences, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Free State.

Since the 1800s, many countries globally have had a long history of cholera outbreaks, with several countries experiencing periodic outbreaks and the disease remaining a public health concern. In Africa, countries like Senegal, Malawi, Zimbabwe, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Tanzania and many more have suffered greatly from this water-borne plague.

South Africa is among these countries – one of its major outbreaks, in 2008, killed more than 65 people, with more than 12 000 cases reported. The outbreak spread from Musina in Limpopo to the other provinces. The spread of cholera from Musina was attributed to a 2008/2009 outbreak in Zimbabwe, which affected more than 98 000 people; this was a case of disease contagion.

The 2008/2009 Zimbabwe outbreak was rated the country and the world’s largest ever recorded. Due to its political and economic crises, thousands of Zimbabweans migrated to South Africa. The movement of people from Zimbabwe helped spread the disease, as it is highly contagious. Because South Africa also had its own political and economic issues, cholera started spreading like wildfire. Similarly to Zimbabwe, South Africa is struggling with service delivery by local authorities due to poor governance and corruption.

In an effort to improve Zimbabwe’s health  system after that outbreak, the United Nations donated almost $5 million. Despite such a big cash injection, the country’s health system is still not of a standard that can help mitigate and prevent cholera. The country still finds itself losing people due to cholera outbreaks.

The challenge in Africa is that decision-makers suffer from ‘reactive syndrome’, i.e. they wait for an outbreak before intiating activities like surveillance, health promotion, encouraging of laboratory testing, assessing and maintaining boreholes/ municipal water plants, and providing temporary emergency water, sanitation and hygiene. Only when an outbreak is already under way do they remember the existence of emergency and response plans, and then start updating them.

A recent cholera outbreak in Hammanskraal, north of Tshwane in Gauteng, South Africa, had claimed 23 lives by 28 May after residents were diagnosed with diarrhoeal disease due to cholera. In the neighbouring Free State, two deaths had been reported by 9 June.

It has become common knowledge that the main source of cholera infection is poor sanitation, lack of clean water, and contaminated food. But it is important to also know that most people exposed to the cholera bacterium do not get sick. They are unaware they have been infected, unless they start displaying symptoms such as diarrhoea, vomiting, and muscle cramps. Excessive diarrhoea can lead to dehydration, making it difficult for the body to perform basic functions. If left untreated, diarrhoea can be fatal.

The root causes are exacerbated by poor investment in public health and an unsettled political environment, in particular governance of municipalities and neglect of water treatment plants. The prevalence of this preventable infectious disease demands immediate attention from policymakers, health organisations, and society in general. Addressing the root causes, boosting preventative measures, and ensuring access to clean water and adequate healthcare services to eradicate cholera in South Africa is crucial.

How can we mitigate and prevent the spread of cholera?

While we lobby for policymakers or people who hold political power to be called to account and advocate for large-scale investment in establishing and maintaining water and sanitation facilities and the strengthening of public health community engagement, we need to consider some methods the public can explore.

Most infected people will have few to mild symptoms, which can be successfully treated with an oral rehydration solution. This solution replenishes the body’s fluid levels and can treat mild dehydration caused by diarrhoea, vomiting, or other medical conditions. Oral rehydration solutions can be made at home with the following ingredients:

  • 1 litre of preboiled water (an effective way to disinfect the water)
  • 6 level teaspoons of sugar (improves the absorption of electrolytes and water)
  • ½ teaspoon of salt (promotes water absorption, since there is significant fluid loss due to diarrhoea)
  • 1 tablespoon (or a palatable amount) of white vinegar (contains antimicrobial properties for preventing and treating infections)

This solution should be consumed after every loose stool, or as often as possible. If a child has been infected with the disease, in addition to the oral solution, give the child 20 mg (over 6 months of age) or 10 mg (under 6 months of age) zinc per day (tablet or syrup).

We should also always adhere to cost-effective habits such as routinely washing our hands and consuming preboiled water.

There are also three World Health Organisation (WHO) pre-approved oral cholera vaccines, namely Dukoral, Shanchol, and Euvichol-Plus. They all require two doses for full protection. These vaccines are available at the nearest clinic or hospital, and are relatively cost-effective.

Cholera and several other public health crises should not exist in the modern economy we are living in. Africa has the resources needed, including several medical interventions. Africa must address its issue regarding political leadership, which is its biggest challenge. There is an urgent need for proactiveness among our political leaders and government authorities which should see them take the lead in continuous multi-sectoral collaboration. They should invest in preparedness programmes that include training health workers and surveillance. And lastly, there is an urgent need for an accountability system for all the funds donated and invested towards improving a country’s healthcare system.

News Archive

Inaugural lecture: Prof. Phillipe Burger
2007-11-26

 

Attending the lecture were, from the left: Prof. Tienie Crous (Dean of the Faculty of Economic and Management Sciences at the UFS), Prof. Phillipe Burger (Departmental Chairperson of the Department of Economics at the UFS), and Prof. Frederick Fourie (Rector and Vice-Chancellor of the UFS).
Photo: Stephen Collet

 
A summary of an inaugural lecture presented by Prof. Phillipe Burger on the topic: “The ups and downs of the South African Economy: Rough seas or smooth sailing?”

South African business cycle shows reduction in volatility

Better monetary policy and improvements in the financial sector that place less liquidity constraints on individuals is one of the main reasons for the reduction in the volatility of the South African economy. The improvement in access to the financial sector also enables individuals to manage their debt better.

These are some of the findings in an analysis on the volatility of the South African business cycle done by Prof. Philippe Burger, Departmental Chairperson of the University of the Free State’s (UFS) Department of Economics.

Prof. Burger delivered his inaugural lecture last night (22 November 2007) on the Main Campus in Bloemfontein on the topic “The ups and downs of the South African Economy: Rough seas or smooth sailing?”

In his lecture, Prof. Burger emphasised a few key aspects of the South African business cycle and indicated how it changed during the periods 1960-1976, 1976-1994 en 1994-2006.

With the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) as an indicator of the business cycle, the analysis identified the variables that showed the highest correlation with the GDP. During the periods 1976-1994 and 1994-2006, these included durable consumption, manufacturing investment, private sector investment, as well as investment in machinery and non-residential buildings. Other variables that also show a high correlation with the GDP are imports, non-durable consumption, investment in the financial services sector, investment by general government, as well as investment in residential buildings.

Prof. Burger’s analysis also shows that changes in durable consumption, investment in the manufacturing sector, investment in the private sector, as well as investment in non-residential buildings preceded changes in the GDP. If changes in a variable such as durable consumption precede changes in the GDP, it is an indication that durable consumption is one of the drivers of the business cycle. The up or down swing of durable consumption may, in other words, just as well contribute to an up or down swing in the business cycle.

A surprising finding of the analysis is the particularly strong role durable consumption has played in the business cycle since 1994. This finding is especially surprising due to the fact that durable consumption only constitutes about 12% of the total household consumption.

A further surprising finding is the particularly small role exports have been playing since 1960 as a driver of the business cycle. In South Africa it is still generally accepted that exports are one of the most important drivers of the business cycle. It is generally accepted that, should the business cycles of South Africa’s most important trade partners show an upward phase; these partners will purchase more from South Africa. This increase in exports will contribute to the South African economy moving upward. Prof. Burger’s analyses shows, however, that exports have generally never fulfil this role.

Over and above the identification of the drivers of the South African business cycle, Prof. Burger’s analysis also investigated the volatility of the business cycle.

When the periods 1976-1994 and 1994-2006 are compared, the analysis shows that the volatility of the business cycle has reduced since 1994 with more than half. The reduction in volatility can be traced to the reduction in the volatility of household consumption (especially durables and services), as well as a reduction in the volatility of investment in machinery, non-residential buildings and transport equipment. The last three coincide with the general reduction in the volatility of investment in the manufacturing sector. Investment in sectors such as electricity and transport (not to be confused with investment in transport equipment by various sectors) which are strongly dominated by the government, did not contribute to the decrease in volatility.

In his analysis, Prof. Burger supplies reasons for the reduction in volatility. One of the explanations is the reduction in the shocks affecting the economy – especially in the South African context. Another explanation is the application of an improved monetary policy by the South African Reserve Bank since the mid 1990’s. A third explanation is the better access to liquidity and credit since the mid 1990’s, which enables the better management of household finance and the absorption of financial shocks.

A further reason which contributed to the reduction in volatility in countries such as the United States of America’s business cycle is better inventory management. While the volatility of inventory in South Africa has also reduced there is, according to Prof. Burger, little proof that better inventory management contributed to the reduction in volatility of the GDP.

We use cookies to make interactions with our websites and services easy and meaningful. To better understand how they are used, read more about the UFS cookie policy. By continuing to use this site you are giving us your consent to do this.

Accept