Search

1. I first looked up travel to and from Liberia during the Ebola outbreak, since it had been seized. There was a ban, which has since been lifted after, but people coming to and from West Africa are still screened and recommended to visit physicians. As of mid-2015 there wa still a 21 day monitoring period needed. http://www.infectioncontroltoday.com/news/2015/05/cdc-downgrades-travel…'
2. I was interested if there had been any progress on treatment for Ebola, but found that the main form of treatment is supportive care. Doctors are informed to provide IV fluid and ensure that the patient's immune response and other bodily functions are functioning properly. A vaccine is being worked on but has not gone through a trial to prove safety and effectiveness. https://www.cdc.gov/vhf/ebola/treatment/index.html
3. I looked further into the vaccine being produced for Ebola. Currently, there is a combined phase 2 and phase 3 trial occurring in Sierra Leone called STRIVE (Sierra Leone Trial to Introduce a Vaccine against Ebola). The study is unblinded, so patients know whether or not they have received the vaccine. The vaccine is a rVSV-ZEBOV, or recombinant Vesicular Stomatitis Virus Zaire ebolavirus vaccine. This vaccine is also being used in phase 2 and phase 3 trials in Guinea and Liberia http://www.cdc.gov/vhf/ebola/strive/qa.html

The main point and argument of this film is to demonstrate the importance of public health education and protocols for both the public and those in charge or part of the government. The documentary focuses on the West African Ebola outbreak. Specifically, the struggles of Liberia are demonstrated and portrayed. The outbreak proved to be something that the government wasn't able to fully contain and protect citizens from. The fact that this outbreak occurred right after the end of a 14 year long civil war also proved to be an obstacle. The documentary shows the uneducated, misinformed lack of effort to contain, stop or cure the spread of disease or to even inform those that were infected. There was a complete lack of awareness on diseases in general, Ebola specifically and of protocols to enact when faced with this issue demonstrated by the government.

This film appeals to the viewers from an emotional aspect. The documentary follows a family and is told from the father's perspective, a student from Wisconsin. It shows a first person experience of what it was like to deal with this situation and the climate and magnitude of the situation in Liberia. The documentary isn't scientific or statistics heavy. Rather it has testimony from natives of the area and footage of bodies and the lack of hospital effectiveness and government protocol. The stories and narratives from locals is what really captures the attention of viewers and accurately portrays the hardships faced. There were a few parts at the end where numbers of those infected were mentioned, yet the the narrator's account of what occurred as well as other local's stories is what really drives home the point of anguish and despair seen during those hard times in Africa. 

There were numerous people invested in this situation and effected by the repercussions of it. The main focus is on the citizens of Liberia. The film shows their account of what happened, in terms of the severe amount of deaths and deplorable conditions in which they lived in. There was a complete lack of health care and public health or awareness, as well as resources such as food and supplies. Citizens were at first not taking the situation as seriously as it should have been, not heeding the warnings from doctors, convinced the government was exaggerating. Yet, once the turmoil and panic of officials was displayed, citizens soon began to worry. There were issues and decisions made involving protecting themselves from the disease as well as their families. Those infected also faced many issues. There was a complete lack of resources for those separated from the population due to infection. There were scarce amounts of food, water, supplies and medical attention. Fear, death and disease spread fast throughout the population. Decisions about not only quarantine and families had to be made, but also decision of whether leaving the country was a good choice, as seen by the main family in the documentary. Other stakeholders include health care officials as well as government employees. There were many decisions made by them in terms of allocating resources, as well as informing citizens about the situation. 

Emergency response was completely lacking in man power and containment efforts. There wasn't much structure to the efforts taken by emergency response in terms of containment and education of the public. There were far too many of those in need and way too few emergency response teams. Hospitals closed due to lack of personnel as well as doctors getting infected themselves. People were dying left and right and being left on the side of the street. Responders weren't able to get to people in time in some cases. Locals began to take out aggressions and frustrations on emergency responders, despite them working at full capacity. The lack of man power, communication and education lead to the emergency response being sub par in this situation. 

I found the testimony of those effected in Liberia to be the most compelling. The personal statements and recountings of the situations that they underwent is what really reinforced the main purpose of the documentary. Seeing footage of people crying in the streets as well as the lack of food and resources, paired with the bodies and caskets is really the most persuasive aspect, in my opinion. It communicated the true devastation that occurred in Liberia during this outbreak. 

I found aspects involving the governments response to the situation very unconvincing. I would like to have seen more in the documentary about the government's attempts to inform and the actions they took. This may have been due to a lack of efforts taken by the government. Yet seeing more about the government's involvement as well as the hospital's and doctor's would have made that side of the situation far more compelling. The way it was portrayed in the documentary made it very unconvincing and I was not compelled by it. 

I would say the average community member is the main intended audience of this documentary, due to the fact that those in the general public can see themselves as being in the same situation. Most of those in the public aren't medically educated and the responses seen in Libera is the same that many of those would have in other general populations of other countries and locations. Due to the lack of scientific research and statistical analysis in the documentary, I would say that this documentary was meant to appeal to the general average person and not scientists, scholars or experts on the topic of disease containment. 

I would say that the perspectives of the government as well as first responders were not included in this film. They were not able to communicate the stresses as well as the lack of resources and man power. There were no viewpoints from first responders or volunteers, having that testimony would have more accurately depicted the hardships that first responders and aid were facing. 

I think that adding more evidentiary support such as data analysis r statistics would have enhanced this video's educational value. It would have shown the physical evidence and the magnitude of the disaster. I also believe that citing more government officials and getting statements from more hospital workers, doctors and first responders would have given this film a more well rounded and accurate depiction of all sides of the outbreak.