This policy was innitially well recieved and was quickly ratified by a number of countries with major nuclear capabilities. However after the Fukushima Disaster, this policy and other international policies were percieved by the public to be slow and inefficient in spreading vital information.
This convention has well received by the states’ government that signed, with supplementary information written in six major languages used internationally. This information might not have delivered well enough to the general publics since the lack of social media promotion.
While there was criticism of the policy (see the Washington Post's rebuttal), the policy appeared to be well received until implementation of quarantine for returning health care workers. This, and the backlash, caused the policy to be revised and invited confusion about guidelines. Leaders may have lost political points by staying firm with their guidelines, but chose to revoke their initial decisions-- leading to confusion and worry in the general population.
The NYS Ebola Preparedness Plan was criticized by the public and other agencies, primarily for its strict quarantine protocols, which have been called "overzealous" by some. In addition, the policy was criticized for its inconsistency with Federal and international guidelines which may have created confusion for the public.
The policy has been recieved positively by the public. Many people believe remembering 9/11 is more than a memory. It is something so drastic that affected the entire country. So everyone felt it needed to be enacted into law. The public was estatic about continuing support for innocent people who lost their lives due to the actions of others.
The only major complaint in regards to the plan that I have found is that it costs the designated ebola treatment hospitals significant amounts of money for appropriate waste disposal of PPE used during treatment.
The Act is hailed by many as important in supporting the emergency services community. In 2015, the Act was reauthorized for an additional 75 years of support, something many fought for as the deadline approached for the renewal and nothing had been discussed. Numerous articles cite the importance of the policy in protecting and supporting victims of the attack's lasting affects.
The policy is received by the public through Newspaper, Press, TV and audio. 9/11 terrorist attack is a huge impact that necessary to put into policy.
I can't find anything about how it was received back in the day, but with the current refugee problem facing the world, there is dispute about how to treat refugees and other immigration issues. Rhetoric used to describe refugees - especially those from Syria - has caused a lot of xenophobia around the world and various problems regarding immigration.
The Stafford Act was significantly criticized by the public, primarily for the fact that while the act set up legal systems allowing the government to provide housing and medical services to displaced citizens it did not require the government to do so. There was also concern that the policy created too many restrictions and limitations for FEMA which would slow the response time to an emergency.