









































Communication, Society and Media 
ISSN 2576-5388 (Print) ISSN 2576-5396 (Online) 

Vol. 3, No. 3, 2020 
www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/csm 

37 
 

Original Paper 

COVID-19 Communication and Lockdown Strategies of 

Selected Countries—Brazil, India, South Africa and Vietnam 
Amb. Dr. John O. Kakonge1* 

1 President, the Association of Former International Civil Servants in Kenya (AFICS-Kenya) 
* Amb. Dr. John O. Kakonge, President, the Association of Former International Civil Servants in 

Kenya (AFICS-Kenya) 

 

Received: June 6, 2020         Accepted: June 13, 2020          Online Published: June 19, 2020 

doi:10.22158/csm.v3n3p37                      URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.22158/csm.v3n3p37 

 

Abstract 

This paper focuses on case studies of four countries—Brazil, India, South Africa and Vietnam—to 

determine whether communication strategies and lockdown policies have been effective in reducing the 

numbers of positive cases of COVID-19. Given the data limitations, it is not clear whether the 

communication strategies each country used have helped to enforce the lockdown. Regardless, there is 

no question that lockdown, whether national or selective, has helped to reduce increases of positive 

cases in three countries-India, South Africa and Vietnam; Brazil has not had a lockdown, and numbers 

have escalated. Lockdown, in turn, has helped the former countries to plan ahead to cope with 

COVID-19. Moreover, from these case studies reviewed, it is demonstrated that the success of 

lockdowns depends on the understanding and support of all stakeholders. 

Keywords 

COVID-19, lockdowns, communication strategies, business as usual, case studies 

 

1. Introduction 

There have been several arguments as to whether lockdowns during the coronavirus pandemic have 

been useful in saving lives (Nocera, 2020). Some argue that some lockdown policies have been 

draconian, while others comment that lockdowns have not been fair to the disadvantaged groups of 

society across many countries (Banaji, 2020). Before lockdowns commenced, national leaders used a 

range of communication strategies to prepare their people, with varying degrees of success. All in all, 

both the directives for lockdown and the communication strategies employed to support the lockdown 

have been uneven. This brief paper examines a few selected countries and the strategies they have used 

to contain the novel coronavirus and save lives. In particular, the paper looks at both the role the 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/csm               Communication, Society and Media                Vol. 3, No. 3, 2020 

 

 
38 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

communication strategies have played and the impact that lockdown has had, especially in terms of 

reducing the number of positive cases of COVID-19.  

 

2. Methodology 

The paper is based on a desk review, supported by some discussions with a few experts in the field of 

public health. The four countries (Brazil, India, South Africa and Vietnam) were randomly selected to 

some extent, but also were chosen on the basis of media coverage and available data. In the case of 

Brazil, the country has been continuously in the news for all the wrong reasons. Brazil was chosen 

because it did not carry out a national lockdown strategy but continued with ‘business as usual.’ South 

Africa and India both had national lockdowns for an initial three weeks with subsequent extensions. 

Vietnam was included because instead of a national lockdown, it decided to target the hotspots and lock 

down only those areas. 

 

3. Communications Strategies 

The first part of the paper looks at the communication strategies adopted by the selected countries, 

notably the role the governments have played in informing their citizens about the coronavirus and the 

consequences of infection. Some governments did well in terms of communicating with their citizens. 

The efforts of others have been disappointing, causing confusion and anxiety (see Table 1). A typical 

example of the latter is the USA, where the President has sent different signals to the American people 

from time to time during his regular coronavirus briefings.  

In Brazil, according to Ricard and Medeiros (2020), President Bolsonaro has adopted a strategy of 

misinformation and disinformation. Specifically, he has de-emphasized preventive and control 

measures and delegitimized those supporting social isolation measures and quarantine. He continues to 

praise those who publicly support a return to normalcy. This has led the President to disregard the 

advice of his health experts and WHO. There has been no lockdown and President Bolsonaro has 

continued with his business-as-usual policy (Table 1). He has continued to stand against scientific and 

evidence-based recommendations. The situation has been chaotic, and the states which are currently the 

hardest hit have been trying to impose a lockdown. Even then, the President has continued to contradict 

the state leaders and has even urged the citizens to demonstrate against lockdown and self-quarantine. 

With the lack of a clear communications strategy on the status of the virus in the country, fake news has 

been thriving, especially on social media. 

 

 

 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/csm               Communication, Society and Media                Vol. 3, No. 3, 2020 

 

 
39 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

Table 1. Types of Communication Strategies Adopted by Different Countries 

Strategy Country 

Daily briefings  South Africa, Vietnam 

No communication strategy, but the Prime 

Minister gave a speech before the lockdown 

India 

 

No strategy; President has been providing 

misinformation and disinformation 

Brazil 

 

With regard to India, Prime Minister Narendra Modi initially adopted a lockdown for three weeks, with 

a subsequent extension. According to Mondkar (2020), Prime Minister Modi’s statement before the 

lockdown stressed that social distancing and lockdown were the only tools that would enable the 

country to win the battle against COVID-19. He emphasized several things people should do during the 

lockdown, namely, taking special care of the elderly; strictly adhering to the lockdown and observing 

social distancing; respecting and following the protocols issued by the Ministry of Health; being 

compassionate to employees by not sacking them or cutting their wages; helping the poor and the 

needy as they were the ones to be most affected by the lockdown measures; and respecting the efforts 

of the coronavirus warriors—doctors, nurses, sanitation workers and the police force. There have been 

no further briefings since his initial speech. 

Shelar (2020) argues that the information from the Indian Prime Minister took people by surprise and 

many people, especially the poor, were left stranded without transport to take them to their home states 

and villages. Shelar ( 2020) further notes that a lot of people did not understand the concept of social 

distancing and quarantine. Because of anxiety and poverty, most people, especially casual labourers, 

are interested in daily survival as opposed to public health and the safety of society at large. As a result 

of the lack of clarity, some people perceived the lockdown as a form of punishment. 

According to Harding (2020), President Cyril Ramaphosa of South Africa acted quickly in imposing a 

lockdown. He appealed to his compatriots to be understanding and supportive. The lockdown was to 

save lives, and it was in the best interests of the country and everyone. The Minister of Health provides 

focused daily briefings to demystify some of online fake news. Harding (2020) confirms that the 

no-nonsense Minister of Health seems sober and knowledgeable in his briefings. Also, the President 

has been able to galvanize the crucial support of the private sector, especially in terms of making both 

financial and in-kind contributions to assist the poor and underprivileged during the lockdown period. 

Civil society has also been sharing the messages relating to social distancing and effective hygiene in 

South Africa’s poorest, most crowded neighbourhoods, where the virus might cause tremendous havoc. 

Despite other challenges, it is fair to say that the government has been somewhat effective in winning 

the trust of the people and educating the masses. 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/csm               Communication, Society and Media                Vol. 3, No. 3, 2020 

 

 
40 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

Vietnam’s communications policy has focused on strategic issues. The Prime Minister reminded people 

that COVID-19 was an enemy which must be fought, and the battle won. Therefore, the government 

was willing to sacrifice economic benefits in the short-term for the health of its people. Second, 

according to Ha et al. (2020), the government has continued to provide updated information and clear 

messages on COVID-19 through official and social media in a transparent manner. As a communist 

country and one-party state, Minh and Bich (2020) suggest that people spying on their neighbours and 

reporting them to the authorities, have in turn, changed community behavior towards wearing masks, 

hand-washing and social distancing. Moreover, national celebrities have joined the government in 

sharing the key messages with their compatriots, such as the importance of social distancing, washing 

hands, and others practices. According to Minh and Bich (2020), a survey in 45 countries of positive 

public opinion on government response to the pandemic, showed that Vietnam scored 62 percent, 

which was better than Singapore and South Korea. This is confirmed by the survey conducted by 

Statista (5-13 May, 2020), showing that 89 per cent of Vietnamese trusted the media when it came to 

COVID-19.  

Overall, it very difficult to determine whether the communication strategy used by each of the four 

countries has been effective. India, South Africa and Vietnam sensitized their people before the 

lockdown. However, India did not continue with daily briefings. The three governments have used 

various techniques to share the key messages of COVID-19. The South Africa and Vietnam 

governments have used television, radio, drama, art and other formats to impart information on 

COVID-19. For example, in Vietnam, it has become a matter of patriotism to wash hands and stay 

home—a message that had been successfully communicated through various forms of popular art and 

propaganda about COVID-19 (Asia Unbound, 2020). Clearly, from the foregoing, the communication 

and information strategies adopted by the governments of South Africa and Vietnam must continue to 

be accurate and timely to help their citizens prevent, or reduce, the spread of the disease and must also 

guide those affected towards services and treatment. This is what the governments of Brazil and India 

have lacked so far. 

 

4. The Impact of Lockdown 

As indicated earlier, the four countries have adopted different lockdown measures, namely, national 

lockdowns, targeted selective lockdown, and one country, Brazil, has no formal government lockdown 

policy (see Table 2). The impact of these different strategies is examined below. 

 

 

 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/csm               Communication, Society and Media                Vol. 3, No. 3, 2020 

 

 
41 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

Table 2. Response Strategies 

Strategy Countries 

Total lockdown South Africa and India  

Selective lockdown Vietnam 

Business as usual Brazil 

 

In the case of South Africa, Arndt, Gabriel and Robinson (2020) note that the lockdown policy of the 

government has been stringent. Specifically, the government banned the sale of alcohol, tobacco, and 

cooked hot food (Hirsch, 2020). Hirsch (2020) argues that one of the reasons for the tough conditions 

was basically that the government did not have confidence in the national public health capacity to 

contain COVID-19 and other diseases. In other words, by imposing a stringent lockdown policy, the 

government was attempting to avoid overburdening the health services with COVID-19 while at the 

same time continuing to attend to other on-going diseases. The lockdown has enabled the country to 

strengthen its health system capacity and put in place upgraded systems to better manage other 

infectious diseases. The capacity in question includes 25,000 additional beds for quarantine, substantial 

quantities of personal protective equipment for health workers, and needed medical supplies.  

India has a population of about 1.4 billion people and a federal system comprising 28 states. India has 

not done too badly taking into account its huge population. It is among the few countries to have 

completed testing of 1 million people at a rate of 75,000 tests a day (Zeeshan, 2020). As a percentage 

of its population, however, this is far less than South Korea or Germany, which have done more testing 

on a per capita basis. In a bid to ease the lockdown, India has been split into three zones, namely, red 

zone—high number of infections, orange zone—relatively low number of cases, and the green 

zone—no cases of the virus. This is all well and good. Perhaps India should also examine what Kerala, 

one of its 28 states, has done to contain the coronavirus. Kerala State, in south-western India, has been 

successful in flattening the curve (Tharoor, 2020). Currently, it has 1326 reported cases, 608 recoveries 

and 10 deaths (2 June 2020). Kerala started a lockdown after public health officials identified a positive 

case in a student who had returned from China. This was before the national lockdown, and it could 

serve as a model within India for handling public health emergencies. Kerala’s success hinges on 

regular communication with the public about health risks, broadcasting precautionary messages 

through official channels to dispel fake news, localizing messages into immigrants’ languages, the 

participation of grassroots organizations, citizens cooperating with the authorities, and governmental 

accountability (Tharoor, 2020). Obviously, other states and central government in Delhi should emulate 

Kerala’s model to continue containing COVID-19 in the entire country. 

In Brazil from the outset, President Bolsonaro dismissed COVID-19 as a “small flu” and stated that 

Brazilians had acquired immunity to the disease (Nunes, Ventura, & Spanghero Lotta, 2020). Instead of 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/csm               Communication, Society and Media                Vol. 3, No. 3, 2020 

 

 
42 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

instituting a lockdown, he followed a business-as-usual policy. His focus has been on the economy and 

not the public health threat. The President has ignored and openly criticized the advice of health experts, 

resulting in the firing of the former Health Minister. The replacement Health Minister resigned after 

less than one month. The President has been totally against self-isolation and quarantine. On 4 April he 

called for a Day of God in relation to COVID-19 and on 20 April 2020 he knelt before an evangelical 

pastor who declared that Brazil was free of the coronavirus. Currently, Brazil is second in terms of the 

number of COVID-19 infections, with over 529,000 positive cases and more than 30,000 deaths 

(Worldometer, 2 June, 2020).  

Vietnam did not apply a nationwide lockdown, in part due to financial constraints. Instead, it adopted 

national isolation by closing its borders, and banned gatherings, encouraged staying at home, and 

implemented a quarantine policy, among others. This low-cost proactive preventative approach was 

selective and included contact tracing, ramping-up production of medical supplies and installing 

checkpoints at airports. Further, the government empowered provincial authorities to implement 

large-scale or targeted area lockdown, including strict checkpoints in and out of the localities for testing 

and treatment. Currently, Vietnam has only reported 328 cases of COVID-19 and has had no deaths 

from the disease. 

 

5. Discussion 

The total number of positive cases of COVID-19 in each of the four countries, as at 2 June 2020, is 

summarized in Table 3. It is clear that Vietnam has done better than the other countries in terms of 

containing the coronavirus. It has had only 328 positive cases and zero fatalities. Vietnam has also 

opened up its economy. The country enjoyed maximum support of the control measures by its people 

since the virus was perceived as an enemy. Its lockdown strategy had the support of everyone and the 

country’s communication strategy was very effective. The national population of Vietnam is just less 

than half that of Brazil, yet Brazil, which did not institute a lockdown, is currently second globally in 

terms of total positive cases with over half a million people, or 0.25 percentage of its total population, 

infected by the coronavirus as at 2 June 2020. The results in Table 3 thus indicate that lockdowns, 

whether nationwide (India and South Africa), or partial (Vietnam), have been effective in containing 

the pandemic. 

 

 

 

 

 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/csm               Communication, Society and Media                Vol. 3, No. 3, 2020 

 

 
43 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

Table 3. Number of COVID-19 Cases as a Percentage of the Total Population, 2 June 2020 

Country Positive Cases Population Fatalities 
Positive cases as a % of 

national population 

Brazil 529,405 212,559,470 30,046 0.2490 

India 199,613 1,400,000,000 5,610 0.0142 

South Africa 34,357 59,308,690 705 0.0579 

Vietnam 328 97,338,578 0 0.0003 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
Figure 1. Total Positive COVID-19 Cases as a Percentage of the National Population (at 2 June 

2020) 

 

In both India and South Africa, the lockdown had initial challenges because of the huge 

socio-economic disparities within the population. The poorest segments of the countries’ societies were 

caught unaware. For example, in India, the cancelling of the transport system resulted in people, 

especially casual labourers, taking days to get back to their villages across the country. The people who 

live in big urban slums or crowded townships continue to have problems to maintain social distancing. 

Regardless of the difficulties caused, it would appear that India and South Africa have managed to 

reduce their number of cases because of the lockdowns that have been imposed. 

Brazil is now ranked second globally in terms of countries with the highest number of positive cases of 

COVID-19 after the United States. The President is very obstinate and does not appear to consider the 

opinions of his scientists and public health experts. Without a well-focused containment strategy 

accompanied by good public health science, Brazil is heading for a major disaster. As Nunes, Ventura 

and Spanghero Lotta (2020) note, Brazil’s health professionals, scientists and public servants are 

committed and dedicated to supporting the country. What is currently needed is strong leadership and 

cooperation between the central government and the states to contain this coronavirus pandemic which 

has already claimed over 30,000 deaths country-wide.  



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/csm               Communication, Society and Media                Vol. 3, No. 3, 2020 

 

 
44 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

Other countries could learn important lessons from the four countries’ examples as they move forwards 

to contain this pandemic. The experience of Brazil should be avoided at any cost. Interestingly, we have 

other countries whose leaders share similar attitude to those of Brazil’s President, for example, Burundi 

and Tanzania. These two countries have encouraged their people to continue working and socialising. 

In fact, Burundi went ahead with its General Election on 20 May 2020. Sadly, the First Lady of 

Burundi has just tested positive for the coronavirus and was evacuated on 28 May to Kenya for 

treatment. On the positive side, Vietnam and South Africa, and to some extent India, have had positive 

results from their lockdown experiences, which could be replicated as countries continue in their efforts 

to contain COVID-19. In the case of India, the Kerala State approach stands out, which the federal 

government in Delhi should consider replicating in the rest of the country (Tharoor, 2020). 

In both India and Brazil, the governments have been politicising the current pandemic. This needs to 

stop. For example, even though the Kerala State government comes from a different party to that of 

Prime Minister Narendra Modi, his government should examine the strategies Kerala has used to 

flatten the pandemic curve and determine which ones could be used or replicated to benefit the rest of 

the country. Likewise, the Brazilian infection rate is now one of the highest in the world, second only to 

the United States. President Bolsonaro should offer strong leadership and work closely with states and 

major cities (including Sað Paulo and Rio de Janeiro) to contain the crisis before it gets out of hand. 

From the experiences of other countries reviewed, no country can contain the coronavirus unless the 

incumbent government works closely with the opposition parties, acting as one country, fighting one 

common enemy. This has been the case in South Africa. 

 

6. Conclusion 

It has not been easy to get the necessary data to clearly demonstrate whether the communication 

strategies each country used have helped to enforce the lockdowns imposed. However, the example 

from Vietnam demonstrates that the communication briefings organized by the government were 

effective as all citizens supported the government’s targeted selective lockdown and stay-at-home 

directive. Further, the low positive case numbers and zero deaths is a demonstration that Vietnam’s 

coronavirus containment strategies are working. In the case of India, even though it has a huge 

population, the government has not conducted daily briefings after the initial speech of the Prime 

Minister. In addition, many millions of people were stranded following the announcement of the 

lockdown, and the number of COVID-19 cases continues to rise as highly vulnerable people, 

particularly those living in urban areas and slums, cannot observe social distancing and basic hygiene 

of washing hands. By and large, however, the lockdown has saved lives, as is evident by the small 

percentage of the total population that is infected. The South African situation in terms of lockdown has 

been somewhat effective. There is no question that the lockdown the government of South Africa 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/csm               Communication, Society and Media                Vol. 3, No. 3, 2020 

 

 
45 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

imposed has reduced the number of infections, and its daily media briefings have raised the level of 

awareness of the general population regarding the coronavirus. When comparing infection rates of the 

total population, however, South Africa’s approach has not been as effective as India’s. Brazil’s case 

stands in stark contrast to the rest. The President of Brazil is against lockdown and his messages have 

contradicted WHO and his own public health experts. Unfortunately, the country has been living on 

misinformation and disinformation. The end result is that Brazil is the second highest country in the 

world in terms of positive cases.  

In a nutshell, national lockdowns or selective targeted lockdowns are necessary, but they must be well 

planned and implemented in a humane way taking into account the socio-economic disparities within 

each country. From the cases reviewed, the successes of the lockdowns depend on the understanding 

and support of all stakeholders. Above all, governments play the key role in ensuring that pandemic 

preventive measures put in place are well coordinated between central government and states or 

provinces, and that those measures are clearly articulated, explained and adopted by the national 

populace. 
 

Acknowledgement 

I want to thank Mr. Nobert Maina, my research assistant, for his support. The views, thoughts and 

opinions expressed in this article belong solely to the author and not necessarily to AFICS-Kenya. 

 
References 

Arndt, C., Gabriel, S., & Robinson, S. (2020). Assessing the toll of COVID-19 lockdown measures on 

the South Africa economy. International Food Policy Research Institute, 6 May. Retrieved May 17, 

2020, from 

https://www.ifpri.org/blog/assessing-toll-COVID-19-lockdown-measures-south-african-economy 

Asia Unbound. (2020). Vietnam’s Successful Battle Against COVID-19. Council on Foreign Relations, 

30 April. Retrieved May 15, 2020, from 

https://www.cfr.org/blog/vietnams-successful-battle-against-COVID-19  

Banaji, M. (2020). What effects has the lockdown had on the evolution of COVID-19 in India? 

Scroll.in, 27 May. Retrieved May 27, 2020, from 

https://scroll.in/article/962992/what-effects-has-the-lockdown-had-on-the-evolution-of-COVID-19

-in-india 

Ha, B. T. T., Quang, L. C., Mirzoev, T., Tai, N. T., Thai, P. Q., & Dinh, P. C. (2020). Combating the 

COVID-19 Epidemic: Experiences from Vietnam. International Journal of Environmental 

Research and Public Health, 17(9). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17093125 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/csm               Communication, Society and Media                Vol. 3, No. 3, 2020 

 

 
46 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

Harding, A. (2020). South Africa’s ruthlessly efficient fight against coronavirus. BBC News, 3 April. 

Retrieved May 12, 2020, from https://www.bbc.com/news/av/embed/p0887wjc/52125713 

Hirsch, A. (2020). Can South Africa’s achievement in containing COVID-19 lead to sustained success? 

University of Cape Town News, 28 April. 

Minh, V., & Bich, T. T. (2020). The Secret to Vietnam’s COVID-19 Response Success. The Diplomat, 

18 April. Retrieved May 16, 2020, from 

https://thediplomat.com/2020/04/the-secret-to-vietnams-COVID-19-response-success/ 

Mondkar, A. (2020). COVID-19, India and crisis communication. Observer Research Foundation, 4 

April. Retrieved May 10, 2020, from 

https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/COVID-19-india-and-crisis-communication-64102/ 

Nocera, J. (2020). Lockdown Critics May Have Some Valid Points. Bloomberg Opinion, 29 April. 

Retrieved May 18, 2020, from 

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/lockdown-critics-may-valid-points-152936053.html  

Nunes, J., Ventura, D., & Spanghero Lotta, G. (2020). Brazil: Jair Bolsonaro’s strategy of chaos hinders 

coronavirus response. The Conversation, 23 April. Retrieved May 16, 2020, from 

https://theconversation.com/brazil-jair-bolsonaros-strategy-of-chaos-hinders-coronavirus-response

-136590 

Ricard, J., & Medeiros, J, (2020). Using Misinformation as a political weapon: COVID-19 and 

Bolsonaro in Brazil. Harvard Kennedy School, Misinformation Review. 

https://doi.org/10.37016/mr-2020-013 

Shelar, J. (2020). COVID-19: communication key to cope with the challenges of isolation. The Hindu, 

16 March. Retrieved May 14, 2020, from 

https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/other-states/COVID-19-communication-key-to-cope-w

ith-challenges-of-isolation/article31077693.ece 

Tharoor, S. (2020). The Kerala Model: The state’s handling of COVID-19 admirable. The Star, Kenya, 

15 May. Retrieved May 15, 2020, from 

https://www.the-star.co.ke/opinion/columnists/2020-05-15-the-kerala-model/ 

Worldometer. (2020). Coronavirus Update. Retrieved May 28, 2020, from 

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/ 

Zeeshan, M. (2020). In Looking Beyond its Lockdown, India can look to its past Public Health 

Successes: India needs exit strategy to break out of its lockdown. The Diplomat, 5 May. Retrieved 

May 11, 2020, from 

https://thediplomat.com/2020/05/in-looking-beyond-its-lockdown-india-can-look-to-its-past-publi

c-health-successes/ 

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

