Search

The main focus of this film is highlighting the need for proper public health infrastructure as a way to contain the spread of disease. 

I did not find the portions of the President speaking very compelling. While I understand that the speeches provided context, it did not show any perspective from the governmental side. Had they provided interviews from government officials, that would have helped the argument and framed a better picture for the viewer.

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 most compelling part of the film for me was the woman yelling at the side of the road about a pregnant woman that was sick and left behind by emergency responders that did not have the authority or equipment to handle the ebola patient. The fetus was still alive and moving, however, the ebola team came too late and the baby died along with its mother. This was compelling because it showed her dead on the side of the road and the woman screaming watched it happen. The baby could have been saved, but the understaffed ebola team could not get there in time. 

The main argument in this film is that there is a clear lack of infrastructure in Liberia. Points of intervention that would build more infrastructure or provide better public health education would be good points of intervention. 

Emergency responders are portrayed in the film as being understaffed and overwhelmed by the outbreak. They show hospitals having to turn patients away due to being overwhelmed. They also show how Liberians were frustrated with this lack of communication between doctors and the patients. Nurses started dying from the disease, forcing hospitals to close. Responders had to deal with the community's denial of the disease, the lack of education, the rapid spread, and the number of patients. 

More scientific data and interviews with government workers and health officials would have strengthened the argument of this film and turned it into more of an educational film, rather than a solely emotional one. Even providing the viewer with some information about ebola could have been helpful. 

Many stakeholders are mentioned in this film. The main group are the Liberian citizens who were directly affected. Those living in Monrovia were interviewed. They show a quarantine zone and show how citizens within it were unable to receive adequate food. They show a 260kg bag of rice meant to feed over 2,500 people. The lack of resources is something the film discusses and highlights. The film also shows government workers and their lack of knowledge and how that caused tension between the citizens and their leaders. The main narrator in the film discusses his challenges with getting his family out of Liberia and to the United States. Doctors and nurses are mentioned as well and their role in the outbreak. NGOs are discussed and how doctors from around Liberia volunteered to come to express their patriotism and assist those in need. The President is shown addressing the country, but the quarantines enacted prove to be inaffective as they caused a lot of rioting. 

This film does not show the perspective of the government in all of this at all. 

The narrative in this film is an emotional one, rather than a scientific one. For the most part, scientific knowledge is common, as the outbreak occurred recently. The only scientific information given was at the end where the statistics of how many deaths occurred in Liberia are given as well as the amount of people who contracted the disease. The primary appeal of this film is that it plays into people's emotions. The narrator is a student at the University of Wisconsin, who discusses his struggle with getting his family to the United States and out of the infected areas. Through graphic footage, as well as this story and narratives from people within the community, we are given an emotional framework with which to empathize.