Emergency response is mentioned in the short and long term, in terms of placing infrastructure to direct and prevent diease. The authors stressed that dealing with epidemics as they happen is important to prevent further spread of diease. While long term repsonses in the past -clinics and medications- were placed, emergency response- going there and fixing the problem was stressed.
The article seeks to broaden the vision of the current medical system and structures by acknowledging and delivering care with the knowledge of biosocial effects.
Emergency response isn't really addressed to the degree of the disaster discussed last week. The response discussed in this article isn't about immediate emergency response, triage or even fallout aftermath. The response discussed in this article was more about the analysis of social parameters on the spread of disease. The response in this case would be the need to better address these social influences on the spread of disease in certain populations.
The article emphasizes the need for a disaster-preparedness plan, with pre-existing infrastructure to address trauma and mass casualty management, as well as long-term sources of clean water and waste disposal. Assured primary healthcare and wide-spread vaccination usage help with these efforts.
Post-disaster, there will need to be intervention to ensure that these standards are being met, as well as surveillance for communicable diseases.
Emergency response isn't explicitly addressed in the article, but in order to incorporate structural interventions into public health, emergency response would have to be improved as well. As the article states, there are many "diseases of poverty" and medical emergencies would be more common in those populations. Noting these trends can streamline medical response and help with providing education/ resources to prevent emergencies.
Emergency response is not specifically addressed in this article but access to health care is, which is just as important. Limiting the access to healthcare because of socioeconomic conditions contributes to the spread of diseases.
The report quite clearly details the need to change our approaches to healthcare and epidemic emergencies. Currently, we seem to address these events in a singular method, and are unwilling to alter this approach. This is partially due to the narrow scope of patient care; for the most part, administering care to patients follows a standard guideline that does not seek to reach beyond that singular case. It is beyond the scope of a practitioner to attempt to mitigate socioeconomic discrepancies within their clinics alone. However, as Farmer and his colleagues argue, broadening this standard is necessary to combat illness. Biosocial factors, not just medicinal factors, need to be tackled in order to fully combat disease.
It is not addressed, but public health and the system of healthcare as a whole is discussed.
Emergency response does not appear to be specifically mentioned, instead the factors that could lead up to epidemics and disasters are studied. The conditions in the aftermath of disasters were also studied.
Emergency response isn't addressed in the report at all. The only area that could be claimed to be touched on is access to emergency prophylaxis for HIV by those in poor areas.