Search

The family followed during most of the film was able to get several members out of Liberia during the Ebola crisis, I was under the impression that travel across the border of affected nations was prohibited. The CDC webpage was able to confirm that travel bans were imposed to and from Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone during the Ebola crisis. Travel to and from these places was only permitted for health officials and aid worked, and required a 21 day quarantine upon returning to the US. However, several cases in surrounding countries were reported and it is known that people would first travel to a different country before attempting to fly to the United States.

I was also interested in how health care workers and emergency responders kept themselves safe while working with such a dangerous virus, the CDC webpage was also able to clarify the PPE used when dealing with suspected or confirmed cases of Ebola, including gloves, gowns, respiratory protection and boots. Protocols also exist for training responders in the proper methods of donning and doffing PPE to protect themselves.

As a portion of the film focused on the public outrage concerning the quarantine, I read an article “Encouraging Compliance with Quarantine: A Proposal to Provide Job Security an Income Replacement” by Mark A. Rothstein which explains in greater detail the effectiveness but also challenges posed by a quarantine, and how this directly effects the infected and uninfected individuals inside.

The argument that health infrastructure was imperative in the prevention of outbreaks was very compelling. The first half of the film, while the virus was just beginning to spread emphasized that initially the hospitals were overwhelmed and forced to close because the resources and personnel needed were not available and no system was in place to deal with the number of cases. This supported the ending argument that Liberia needed more trained medical professionals, better infrastructure, and more health education.

The film primarily suggests health infrastructure as a preemptive intervention for outbreaks, with the belief that existing facilities would be better equipped to deal with potentially disastrous diseases when they initially appeared and prevent a wide-scale outbreak. The film also suggests that health education would aid the public in protecting themselves and understanding the necessary steps in stopping a virus.

Emergency response is viewed in the film from the perspective of a potential patient rather than the organizations or medical professionals. From this perspective it is easy to see how the public can lose faith in the ability of their hospitals and doctors to protect them. The public did not have the information to understand that the emergency response groups were working as hard as possible, instead many people were angry at the time it would take for an ambulance to arrive, or the fact that the hospitals had to turn away patients. This emphasizes the importance of communication as the emergency responders would have had more success if the public had been cooperative, but the public could not be cooperative while their feared for their lives and the lives of their families.

The interviews in the film suggested the government was acting improperly during the initial outbreak, interviews with officials in the government would greatly increase the educational value of the film as it would provide differing opinions and a more complete understanding of the situation.

Stakeholders from every level of the health care system were mentioned, as well as he portrayal of Liberians in the quarantine zones and living in Monrovia. For the citizens in quarantine zones, the film emphasized the challenges that come from an outbreak including food and water shortages, fear, and the rising tension caused by a lack of information and the government’s actions. The main family followed throughout the film was faced with the challenge of trying to get out of Monrovia and bringing their children the United States to join the rest of the family, an understandable decision in a time of crises. The decision to leave Monrovia however directly opposes the decisions made by the government and health officials who imposed quarantines as a way of containing the virus, and were forced to lift the quarantines due to rioting.

The film primarily included the viewpoints of a family separated due to the Ebola outbreak, from both the affected Monrovia and the safety of the United States. The views of aid workers, advocates, patients, and doctors, government officials or health experts were not included.

The argument is made using footage from the events occurring in Monrovia during the Ebola outbreak and subsequent months, which allows for the audience to truly understand the difficulties and horrors caused by disease. The film did not include much scientific data on the virus, only stating that 11,000 people had died and over twice that many had contracted the virus. Due to the public awareness of the Ebola epidemic, as it occurred so recently, and the graphic footage included, the film invokes feelings of horror and sadness for the many who couldn’t be helped.

The film addresses the general public, as it does not include significant amounts of scientific information that would require prior knowledge. The nature of the film however does aim toward a mature audience, as the film advises viewer discretion due to graphic images.

The film shows that health infrastructure is imperative in the treatment of patients and containment of an outbreak. Also, it is suggested that the government’s attempts to contain the spread of the disease were challenged in part by a lack of awareness and available information.