What can be learned about pandemic preparedness from greater attention to perspectives of people who live in regions labelled as ‘hotspots’ for disease outbreaks? And how might such attention require us to reconfigure science, policy, and practice – as part of a broader shifting of power in pandemics? These are the questions that motivate and are explored through the papers in this special issue on pandemic preparedness, for which this paper serves as Introduction. All the contributions to this special issue present perspectives, experiences, and reflections from African settings, drawing on research co-designed and conducted in close engagement with local communities or in dialogue with African scientists and public health actors. They approach biosocial questions from the concerns of the disciplinary fields of social, medical, and political anthropology, of engaged interdisciplinary social science, and, crucially, of embedded, ‘grassroots’ fieldwork by researchers who have grown up with the communities they are studying. The team bringing these complementary areas of expertise came together for a collaborative programme on ‘Pandemic preparedness: local and global concepts and practices in tackling disease threats in Africa’ supported by a collaborative award from the Wellcome Trust during 2018–2023. This special issue thus forms part of wider advocacy for rethinking pandemic preparedness and for the value of anthropology in informing its meanings and practices, now more than ever.

This ethnographic study, conducted as part of the Pandemic Preparedness Project, explores the pandemic preparedness of communities in NG and its satellite settlements within Kailahun District, Eastern Province, Sierra Leone. The research site was particularly significant due to its history as one of the hardest-hit areas during the 2014–16 Ebola outbreak. NG is served by a Peripheral Health Unit (PHU) that provides health services to seven villages, as well as one distant village far from its designated facility. The study employed long-term observational research methods, where the researcher lived within the community, becoming an integrated observer familiar with local customs and daily life. This ethnographic approach aimed to understand the health-seeking behaviors of residents following the Ebola crisis. The onset of the Covid-19 pandemic during the study period shifted the focus to examine how the community understood and responded to a new pandemic threat. Additionally, the study reflects on the challenges faced by female social scientists in Sierra Leone, where few are trained in ethnographic methods. This article offers insights into the process of conducting ethnographic research in a challenging context, providing valuable guidance for other female researchers seeking to engage in similar bio-social studies.

This paper compares community responses to Ebola and Covid-19 in two regions of southern and eastern Sierra Leone with reference to the theory of institutional dynamics proposed by the anthropologist Mary Douglas. Institutions, Douglas argued, are conveyed by styles of thought, shaped by the ways human communities, through everyday practices, reinforce systems of classification and denotation. Pandemic advice to ‘follow the science’ proved problematic, since there is no single institution of science, and institutions never stand alone but are bundled with other institutions, reflecting the manifold and intertwined practices of human social life. The paper explores some of the ways a traumatic epidemic of Ebola Virus Disease in Sierra Leone shaped a distinctive local response to this deadly infectious disease in the absence of an effective vaccine. This local approach emphasised social rules based on ideas about sequestration and testing. Communities then proposed to continue this rules-based approach to the pandemic of Covid-19 and showed little initial enthusiasm for vaccination. With Ebola, the adoption of rules resulted in dramatic drops in infection rates. But Covid-19 spreads in different ways, and good results from the application of social rules were much less apparent. The paper shows how communities began to grapple with this new situation. In some cases, vaccine hesitation was overcome by treating the requirement for vaccination as a new form of social discipline. More generally, it is concluded that epidemiologists need to pay specific attention to institutions and institutional dynamics in order to better understand and anticipate public reactions to new disease threats.

Vaccines for COVID-19 began to be available in Africa from mid-2021. This paper reports on local reactions to the possibility of vaccination in one West African country, Sierra Leone. We show that the history of institutionalisation of vaccine is highly relevant to understanding these reactions. Given lack of testing for the disease, medical authorities could not be sure whether there was a hidden epidemic. In addition, many people associate vaccination with care of children under 5 years, and not adults, and an emphasis on vaccinating the old at first seemed strange and worrying. This paper examines evidence from ethnographic studies in two rural areas selected for varying exposure to Ebola Virus Disease (EVD), supplemented by some interviews in two provincial urban centres, Bo and Kenema. We describe local ideas about vaccination (maklet) and body marking with leaf medicine (tεwi). We asked about attitudes to the idea of COVID-19 vaccination both before and after vaccines were available. A number of reasons were given for scepticism and hesitation. These included lack of experience with vaccines for adults and lack of experience of COVID-19 as a severe disease. Medical evidence suggests the vaccination protects against serious illness, but local people had their own views about control of infection, based both recent experience (notably EVD) and the history and institutionalisation of vaccination and public health measures in Sierra Leone more broadly.

This paper examines how past experience and legacies of epidemics shaped Sierra Leone’s response to COVID-19 and how these influences evolved over time. COVID-19 unfolded in the wake of the West African Ebola epidemic (2013–2016), a crisis which was unprecedented in scale. Despite differing markedly in both transmission patterns and clinical outcomes, the Sierra Leonean government repeatedly invoked Ebola when responding to COVID-19, framing the new outbreak through the lens of the old. Drawing on ethnographic fieldwork and interviews with policymakers, response personnel, health workers, and members of the public, the paper analyses how Ebola’s imprint surfaced across four domains of the COVID-19 response: public and governmental framings, the design and implementation of key control measures, disputes over incentives and hazard pay, and practices of data and testing. It shows that when confronting a new outbreak, the past manifests in diverse ways. The analysis reveals how these ‘epidemic pasts’ – contained in lessons, memories, legacies, and assumptions – actively constitute ‘epidemic presents’; and should be understood as politically mobilised and socially contested, shaping responses in both enabling and constraining ways. As such, it is suggested that past experience has been under-explored in preparedness and response, and that formal ‘lessons learned’ exercises offer a limited view of how the past is relevant.

Uganda has received praise for its success in dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic. This opinion piece uses publically available data from Johns Hopkins University to suggest that it is far from clear whether the Public Health and Social Measures (PHSM) introduced in Uganda influenced the course of the first outbreak. In addition, the analysis of data from the second and third waves in Uganda suggest that government action had little or no effect on these outbreaks. The dominant narrative of successful PHSM, therefore, needs to be reconsidered, and alternative explanations for the low rates of COVID-19-related mortality in the country need to be further understood.

Vaccination is one of the most recognised strategies in public health for preventing the spread of epidemics, and the availability of a vaccine is often expected by health actors to be a ‘game-changer’. However, the COVID-19 (coronavirus disease 2019) vaccine in Senegal was not the magic bullet that the international community expected. A very low vaccination coverage rate (less than 10% by April 2023) was observed in this country, once considered a model in West Africa for its epidemic response. Beyond the population’s alleged hesitancy to be vaccinated, was a lack of preparedness to blame? Previous analyses show that outbreak preparation limited to standard interventions is not sufficient in the face of the social, cultural, and political configurations of each epidemic context and that uncertainty limits response capacity. This paper examines the social life of the COVID-19 vaccine to identify the forms and contextual dimensions of uncertainty related to immunisation in Senegal. The authors explore how vaccination was implemented and compare experiences with the preparedness process, to offer insight on uncertainties. Using Stirling’s theoretical model that defines various expressions of incertitude, the authors identify four nexuses at various stages of the social life of COVID-19 vaccine in Senegal: (1) material uncertainty related to vaccine availability, (2) ambiguity of the population about the purpose of vaccination and the risks of the disease, (3) uncertainty related to side effects, and (4) uncertainty about vaccination strategies shared by scientific and health authorities. These uncertainties were only partly considered in the preparedness process, for they are related to systemic structural dimensions and reflect the impact of global/regional powers on the local level. The findings of this research are relevant not only to support better communication around vaccines in Senegal but also more generally to the prevention of emerging epidemics shaped by human behaviours.

The deliberations for the Pandemic Accord have opened an important moment of reflection on future approaches to pandemic preparedness. The concept had been increasingly prominent in global health discourse for several years before the pandemic and had concretised into a set of standardised mainstream approaches to the prediction of threats. Since 2019, the authors and the wider research team have led a research project on the meanings and practices of preparedness. At its close, the authors undertook 25 interviews to capture reflections of regional and global health actors’ ideas about preparedness, and how and to what extent these were influenced by Covid-19. Here, an analysis of interview responses is presented, with attention to (dis)connections between the views of those occupying positions in regional and global institutions. The interviews revealed that preparedness means different things to different people and institutions. Analysis revealed several domains of preparedness with distinct conceptualisations of what preparedness is, its purposes, and scope. Overall, there appear to be some changes in thinking due to Covid-19, but also strong continuities, especially with respect to a technical focus and an underplaying of the inequities that became evident (in terms of biosocial vulnerabilities but also global-regional disparities) and, related to this, the importance of power and politics. Here, the analysis has revealed three elements, cutting across the domains but particularly strong within the dominant framing of preparedness, which act to sideline direct engagement with power and politics in the meanings and practices of preparedness. These are an emphasis on urgent action, a focus on universal or standardised approaches, and a resort to technical interventions as solutions. A rethinking of pandemic preparedness needs to enable better interconnections across scales and attention to financing that enables more equitable partnerships between states and regions. Such transformation in established hierarchies will require explicit attention to power dynamics and the political nature of preparedness.