Analyze

I teach anthropology and environmental studies at Haveford College, just outside of Philly. Currently, I'm holed up in a cabin in the Adirondacks in upstate New York with several family members, including my spouse and 4 year old daughter and 3 dogs. I started working on disasters by accident, when one day in 2001 I was walking to class at NYU and saw the World Trade Center buildings on flames. I have known Kim for a few year and I contacted her to connect with folks around Covid-19 and its imacts.

I'm particularly intersted in issues of communal grief, mourning, and bereavement. Also, I'm interested in the religious response to Covid-19.

By the public, it is regarded as a prestigious academic program that enables and creates an environment in which students can become leaders in their respective DRL careers. DRLA is also mentioned in the news alongside headlines including the USAID office of Foreign Disaster Assistance as well as Rwanda assistance and in high regards with the FEMA Chief of staff. It is clear that this program is intermingled with many governmental agencies and is regarded highly by them, as well as the public for its humanitarian efforts and abilities to produce excellent leaders in the DRL fields. It is very clear that this program is highly regarded academically, professionally and socially by the public as well. 

This is seen as a good start to a major problem that needs far more assistance and advancement. People cite that meeting eligibility requirements are very hard and there are people that make more money than allowed to qualify, but still cannot afford mental health treatment. This policy is appreciated in a certain capacity, yet it is very apparent that people want more and think more help is needed. Of course, you will always have an opposing side when it comes to politics and there are people who think this is the perfect amount of assistance and nothing else is needed. 

Emergency response is addressed in more of a public health aspect rather than EMS. The conditions post Chernobyl in terms of government involvement, political and social climates were emphasized. Along with this, the resettlement and life adjustments of those effected, as well as health and radiation implications are extensively discussed. 

The article is supported through the use of numerous examples and educated points made by the author. First, the author supports her arguments by going through the events that transpired that day at the Fukushima Daiichi plant. She uses the details of the events in Japan to support her argument that a global emergency nuclear response team is necessary. Schmid also cites other areas in the world where this was an issue and protocols were not clear. Ultimately which caused the incidences at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, all of which would have benefited from a response team equipped and specially trained to deal with this type of situation. The author cites that incidences at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl were the result of systems that were too complex, tightly coupled  and technical, ultimately not allowing broad policy changes when needed. The author also cites that this occurred in one of the world's most advanced areas in the world, both technologically and economically. She states that having scientists and the elite left to make decisions about responses to disasters alone further proves her point and supports her arguments. She also notes that current organizations have little international authority and often suffer when attempting to include or talk to the public in terms of these situation which doesn't allow for full integration with the public. She notes the importance of this integration, but also that world leaders are attempting to do so and see how beneficial this is. She compared the way previous situations similar to that in Japan was handled and she mapped out new regulations that arose based off each of those incidences in order to see what can further be implemented as a blanket response globally for all nations in a situation like this.

This program is funded by tuition paid for my students (or maybe some form of scholarship, on a case by case basis.) Columbia University is a private institution, and those enrolled in this program pay a tuition for cost of the education and resources. 

The authors support their argument many ways, one being how that the rates of HIV/AIDS are so positively linked and correlated with social arrangements that it is often referred to as social disease. HIV commonly effects those that are poor and disease rates are fueled by gender inequality, racism and poverty. The article discusses how structural violence has influenced HIV progression. The article cites that structural violence influences diagnosis rates, staging and treatment. The also article references a study done in Baltimore which reports racism and poverty forms of structural violence and the effects on excess mortality among African Americans without insurance- ultimately showing  they were more likely to to be susceptible. The authors also used other historical data and research to support heir claims. Efforts through Partners in Health were made to prevent the spread and transmission of diseases in Haiti. The efforts made in Haiti and Rwanda were cited, both the positives and negatives. The article also discusses ways to incorporate more interventions to help eliminate any social influences of disease. 

The argument is supported through an analysis of current subjects of humanitarian aid and how it effects them differently and now the principle of neutrality is not apparent and discrimination is seen based off type of suffering. The argument is also supported through numerous essays from Medecins Sans Frontieres, which provide background information as well as statistical data. Also the expert analysis of the author is used to support the article based on her interpretation and experiences of gender based violence being a humanitarian problem. There is also an ample amount of facts and statistics to support the argument. 

A main concern is the fact that no disaster will ever be the same. A hurricane in one area will be very different in another area, despite the same source of destruction. This is because each areas has a different population, different needs  and different services available in each area. The most challenging part is the ability to foresee what might be good resources or equipment or forms of medical care and best to supply at each different disaster since each one is unique. 

This article focuses on the effect of violence on the heath service delivery in complex security environments on individuals, discrimination, property and more. The challenges associated with researching this are also discussed in this paper. The paper notes that there is a deficit in the ability to be able to analyze the correlation of violence and the health service delivery due to data collection. There is an overall lack of research that is health specific, publicly available and isn't gender based. This gap in research, overall limits analysis of the correlation.