There is high panic in Rwanda following the deaths of eight people in an outbreak of the Marburg virus disease (MVD).
Health minister Sabin Nsanzimana confirmed the bad news on Saturday, September 28, 2024 through a video statement posted on X, and explained that 20 had been infected. “We are counting 20 people who are infected, and six who have already passed away due to this virus. Most cases and deaths are among healthcare workers, mainly in the intensive care unit.” The following day, he announced two more people had succumbed to the disease, while cases of infections had gone up by six.
The public craves correct, sanctioned, helpful, timely, and flowing information in times of epidemics; these largely coming from relevant national and international state and non-governmental institutions. The reason is to provide the people with the necessary coping and management mechanisms as to deflate panic and offer assurance that mandated institutions are doing everything possible to address the situation.
In Rwanda, the Ministry of Health on Friday, September 27, 2024, announced MVD had been confirmed in a few patients in health facilities. A related statement noted investigations were being conducted to determine the origin of the infection, while guiding the public on basic information about the disease.
“Contact tracing is underway, and cases have been isolated for treatment. Such infections are transmitted through contact with blood and body fluids of people who are visibly sick… Anyone experiencing symptoms such as a high fever, strong headaches, vomiting, muscle aches, and stomach aches should call Rwanda Biomedical Centre (RBC) on 114, or visit the nearest health facility,” the statement said.
Three reporters at The New Times – Joan Mbabazi, Hudson Kuteesa, and Alexis Kayinamura – kept their firm hands on the beat. They continuously updated the paper’s website with helpful latest information from the government and the World Health Organization (WHO) in a way that was professionally unmatched in Rwandan media.
For example, on the day the Ministry of Health confirmed the outbreak, the publication ran the story under the title, ‘Rwanda confirms Marburg outbreak, steps up preventive measures’, but did not end at merely parroting Dr Nsanzimana. It also provided crucial information on the disease: What is Marburg? Early symptoms; late symptoms; how do people become infected? The paper fetched fecund answers from WHO and relevant national institutions. That was good journalism.
There was more. The New Times published follow-up articles on the outpouring of international support to Kigali, including the WHO’s resolve in scaling up support to stop the spread of MVD and protect people at risk. It also informed its readers about the government guidelines (on Sunday, September 29, 20224) for preventing the spread of the disease. They included: suspension of hospital visits for the next 14 days and focus on maintaining personal hygiene.
“Wakes and home vigils (ikiriyo) are not allowed in the case of a death linked to the Marburg virus to avoid gatherings that may increase the risk of spreading the virus… Funeral services where the cause of death was determined to be Marburg will be attended by not more than 50 people… Open-casket viewing is not permitted in homes, churches or mosques. These will only take place in designated areas within health facilities with a limited number of people,” The New Times reported.
Over the border into Burundi. There, the media was largely quiet on what was afflicting their neighbour. Only Burundi Times published a story on the matter. However, the story read like a cut-and-paste public announcement by the government.
Titled, ‘Burundi strengthens healthcare response amid Marburg virus threat from Rwanda’ and published on September 28, 2024, the 10-para-article was awash with official generalities. It failed to respond to basic public-empowering questions in the style of The New Times, even after warning its readers in the headline.
Para 1: “On September 28, 2024, a vital collaboration took place in Burundi as the Ministry of Health, alongside the [WHO] team, visited the National Center of Gihungwe.” What’s this “vital collaboration” and, pray, what does the National Center of Gihungwe do? The paper didn’t say.
Why the visit? “According to the WHO in Burundi, the primary objective of the visit was to assess and enhance the infrastructure of Gihungwe to ensure it can effectively respond to any potential health emergencies. During the assessment, the team evaluated the existing facilities and identified areas that require strengthening to provide optimal care for patients.”
What were these “identified areas” of Gihungwe (whatever the facility does) that require strengthening for optimal performance? Nothing was mentioned.
The story contained three paras, back-to-back, that were pure products of editorialising, if not glaring exhibitions of the sneaky hand of the government in media content.
“This visit reflects a commitment to public health and the well-being of the Burundian community.
“As neighbouring regions face health threats, it is essential for Burundi to take proactive measures to safeguard its citizens and maintain a resilient healthcare system.”
The final para revealed a blatant government advertisement, only that the story was not flagged as such: “Stay tuned for further updates as the Ministry of Health and WHO continue their work to enhance healthcare infrastructure in Burundi.”
Lesson learnt? Burundi Times failed the story on the likely threat of the MVD outbreak by excluding basic crucial scientific and sanctioned information on the disease. In essence, the omission is likely to cause more panic and frustration among the public and the health sector in the country. Such is the danger of sloppy reporting.
