Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis of Nigeria: The Extent of Future Devastating Earthquake.

The several past seismic occurrences in Nigeria has recently led to warnings from research agencies and the forecast of large earthquake from researchers in Nigeria. Nevertheless, the major forecast from researchers has appeared to be open ended. To this end, this paper aimed at the probabilistic seismic hazard analysis of Nigeria and the limit to probable future earthquake magnitudes in Nigeria. The Gutenberg-Richter recurrence law was majorly employed for the purpose of this research. The Findings of this research established that Nigeria is at the risk of experiencing earthquake magnitudes as high 6.0 in the year 2020; 6.5 between the year 2021 and 2022; 7.0 between the year 2025 and 2026 and 7.1 in the year 2028 with a 36.79% probability.The probability that an earthquake of magnitude 7.1 will be experienced from 2019 to 2028 also ranges from 9% to 36.79%. The findings of this work inform on the sizes of probable future earthquake magnitude and it is recommended that the government of Nigeria pays rapt attention to earthquakes in Nigeria

Perceptions of the COVID-19 vaccine and willingness to receive vaccination among health workers in Nigeria

Objectives The study aimed to examine health workers’ perceptions of the coronavirus disease 2019 vaccine in Nigeria and their willingness to receive the vaccine when it becomes available. Methods This multi-center cross-sectional study used non-probability convenience sampling to enroll 1,470 hospital workers aged 18 and above from 4 specialized hospitals. A structured and validated self-administered questionnaire was used for data collection. Data entry and analysis were conducted using IBM SPSS ver. 22.0. Results The mean age of respondents was 40±6 years. Only 53.5% of the health workers had positive perceptions of the COVID-19 vaccine, and only slightly more than half (55.5%) were willing to receive vaccination. Predictors of willingness to receive the COVID-19 vaccine included having a positive perception of the vaccine (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 4.55; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.50−5.69), perceiving a risk of contracting COVID-19 (AOR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.25–3.98), having received tertiary education (AOR, 3.50; 95% CI, 1.40−6.86), and being a clinical health worker (AOR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.01−1.68). Conclusion Perceptions of the COVID-19 vaccine and willingness to receive the vaccine were sub-optimal among this group. Educational interventions to improve health workers' perceptions and attitudes toward the COVID-19 vaccine are needed

Banking Regulation: A Delicate Balancing act between Safeguarding the Economy and Encouragement of Creativity in the Banking Sector

Although it has been well over ten years since some of the most advanced global economies witnessed an unprecedented financial catastrophe which some banks are still recuperating from their losses, since then a lot has been written about the crisis by academics and more are still going to be written in an effort to see to it that crises on that scale and with such devastating effects are reduced to the barest minimum if not eliminated altogether. The study evaluated the desirability or otherwise of the ring-fencing policy as a suitable regulatory measure in response to the global financial crisis (GFC) particularly in the circumstances of the Global Systemically Important Banks (GSI-Bs) in the UK. Through evaluation of the financial accounts of the case studies from 2004 to 2018, the study aimed to determine the varied long-term impacts of the GFC on the performance of four of the largest UK banks chosen as case studies, the Royal Bank of Scotland, Barclays Bank, Standard Chartered Bank and HSBC Plc. Lest we forget too quickly, the study lays out some of the direct consequences and costs of the downward journey of these banks since 2004 – 2018 and the difficult road back to recovery as a lesson on record for the future. The question is concerned with whether structurally separating ring-fenced banks from their roots and with it, moving away cheap core deposits’ funds from the non-ring-fenced banks is serving the best interest of the banking sector and by extension the UK economy or that there are better ways of keeping a rein on the bankers without unduly hurting the financial intermediation capabilities of the GSI-Bs in the UK. A longitudinal multiple case studies strategy was adopted engaging both qualitative and quantitative methodologies in the data analysis. The study suggests that a better approach could have been to use legislative powers to stop the banks from engaging in risky speculative investment trading while on application, licences could be given to qualified banks that are interested in incorporating a separate entity that could engage in speculative proprietary trading should they wish to do so. In effect, it is the risky investment elements that should be taken off the mainstream banks not the core deposit accounts. That way, core depositors’ accounts would be protected in the same way that the ring-fencing policy would do. The added advantages are that the cheap core deposits would then be available for the traditional corporate lending where huge multinational corporate customers’ financial needs could be catered for. Also, the UK universal banks would have been able to retain their competitiveness in relationship with the other European counterparts that did not adopt the ring-fencing policy