Search

The stakeholders discribed in the film was the general population of Liberia. They had shared experiances of seeing the effects of ebola, innitially being in denial of its severity, then finally seeing the entire liberian public health system be overwhelmed and fail by an apparently unstopable and horrifying disease. The people effected needed to make difficult decisions about how to avoid contracting the disease, how to protect their families, and how to deal with the emotional strain placed on them by the epidemic.

Perspectives of public health officials, goverment workers (excluding the president), and international aid organizations such as doctors with out borders and the united nations (both of which are depicted), are not included in the film. More scholarly perspectives are also not included.

This article was published throught the National Institute of Public Health's Public Access database. The NIH makes all of the peer reviewed articles and studies that it funds available to the public on this platform "to advance science and improve public health." 

This film is designed to have an emotional appeal. Very little scientific evidance is provided, and most of what we see are images and naratives about the effects of ebola from the public's perspective. Powerful images and stories, such as the death of a pregnant women on the side of the road, the closing of hospitals, and the turning away of patients are predominantly displayed. Much of this movie is told from the perspective of a student of the University of Wisconsin, and there was a large amount of dialouge about how he tried to get his family out of the effected zone. The only notable statistics given in the film was at the end, when the number of effected and the number of deaths were compared. 

This study was funded by the National Institute of Health, which is why it was made available through their public access database.

I feel that this film would be best suited for a general public, non-scholarly, audiance. While it provides great, compelling, emotional stories of first hand accounts of ebola, it does not look at the disaster from an objective, scholarly, perspective. 

This study sought to establish the prevelance and corelation of intimate partner violance victimization in the six months before and after Hurricane Katrina. The studies conducted showed the following results:

The percentage of women reporting psychological victimization increased from 33.6% to 45.2 %.

The percentage of men reporting psychological victimization increased from 36.7% to 43.1%

Reports of physical victimization increased from 4.2% to 8.3% for women, but were unchanged for men.

The studies also showed that various socioeconomic standings from before the storm had significant impacts on how intimate partner violance increased after the storm.

The main arguement of the film is that the development of stable and adequite public health networks is as important to the greater good of the population as the prevention of civil war.

This study is primarily about vulnerable populations, showing that in areas where people have been effected by major disasters, domestic violance increases, especially in households with lower overall socioeconomic status.

I found the images of speaches by the liberian president to be out of place and not compelling. I also found the apparent lack of hard numerical and scientific data in the film to be offputting.