Search

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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. 

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.

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. 

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.

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.