Facing COVID-19, African countries were confronted with a dilemma: enacting strict lockdowns to “flatten the curve” could potentially have large effects on food security. Given this catch-22 situation, there was widespread concern that Africa would suffer most from the pandemic. Yet, emerging evidence in early 2021 showed that COVID-19 morbidity remained low, while “biblical famines” have been avoided so far. This paper explores how five African countries maneuvered around the potentially large trade-offs between public health and food security when designing their policy responses to COVID-19 based on a content analysis of 1188 newspaper articles. The findings show that food security concerns played an important role in the public policy debate and influenced the stringency of lockdowns, especially in more democratic countries.

Motivation Countries facing challenges of nutrition security confront a trade‐off when dealing with pandemics such as COVID‐19. Implementing lockdown measures, widely used worldwide, can help “flatten the curve” (of disease), but such measures may worsen nutrition security. Purpose We aim to identify and justify nutrition‐sensitive lockdown measures to reduce trade‐offs with nutrition security. Methods and approach We propose a conceptual framework which distinguishes eight lockdown measures and six pathways to nutrition security. To demonstrate the relevance of the pathways, we reviewed emerging literature on COVID‐19 and nutrition security. We analysed the content of 1,188 newspaper articles on lockdown effects in five African countries — Benin, Ghana, Kenya, Uganda and Zambia. Findings Some lockdown measures, such as closing workplaces and restricting movement, potentially worsen nutrition far more than others — banning events and public gatherings have far lesser impacts on nutrition. This can be seen from the framework, literature, and is supported by the analysis of newspaper reports in the five countries. Policy implications It is better when possible to test and trace disease than to lockdown. But when lockdowns are needed, then first recourse should be to measures that have few nutritional consequences, such as banning public events. When more drastic measures are necessary, look to mitigate nutritional harm by, for example, exempting farm labour from restrictions on movement, by replacing school meals with take‐home rations, and, above all, providing income support to households most affected and most vulnerable.