The author has conducted their research by being an advocate for poverty, inequality, and social justice. He is a reporter and has access to theose resources by using information gathered by his collegues who report from Africa. The Washington Post has people stationed who gather relevent information to world issues.
The article does not offer solutions on how to address this problem after the inital epidemic, it is instead a collection or statement in addressing what has been happening and leaves the question unanswered and leaves it up to others to find a solution.
The policy addresses matters of public health because it ensures people who were affected by 9.11 get the help and support they need. It provides money and healthcare to those who were hurt physically or mentally by the attack on the world trade center. The act itself identifies possible issues ( a braod spectrum) that could be a driect fault of the attack, it also offers a board if the issue is not listed- to be treated.
" The dangers under which health workers try to function appear to be heightening, as frightening locals continue to blame the doctors for prepetuating the violence"
"We don't accept their prescence at all. They ae the transporters of the virus in these communities"
A point that I looked up to further my knowledge of the article was the stoning of the Ebola workers, if it was reported anywhere else (a hot topic) or if there was any new information available; only one other news source reported on this topic and that source does not appear to be reliable. I also looked up the possibility of Ebola workers actually transporting Ebola to others. I found that the protocals in place to prevent this is extensive and infection (the possibility of) is extremely low. I finally looked up Guiena village leaders to understand why they do not trust western medicine, to understand if it is generally like that; if they do not like outsiders invading their village or if it is a general fear of infection. In truth it is the latter.
The policy was an amendment of an earlier policy that guarenteed compensation and healthcare to those affected by 9/11. This previous bill, however would stop providing help in Fall 2016. An amendment to reauthorize the bill was posed in 2015 and the bill was renewed and made permenant to remember 9.11. The originial policy had a difficult time getting passed due to an uneven vote in congress and negative opinions.
The article addresses emergency response because it talks about the dark of helping people. The side people never hear about, those who do not want help or those who do not trust the help they are recieving. The volunteers (emergency response) that is provided is not recieved well, it says how the structure of helping these people needs to be changed so people believe that prevention will not bring diease.
The policy applies to victims, first responders (fire,police and EMS) that are/were directly affected by the events of 9/11.
The implications that this policy has on first responders and others is that the whole country supports the cause of those who fight to protect the rights of others in a time of need. It foreshadows that if something drastic was to happen again, that those who work to save others would get the needed recognition.
The actors that the article refer to is the healthcare workers, those who have experienced this violence. Those who feel that their perogitive to help others (and to do their jobs) is greater than 'offering themselves up' to the people of these tribes who feel that they are doing more harm then good. Another actor is people from the villages who describe what has happened. The discovery of these murdered healthcare workers and their opinions on the Ebola workers- they do not want them near their tribes at all. Outside worldwide coordinators also comment on the tradegies of the death and the affects it has on the treatment of Ebola. The Red Cross is also an actor, their workers were afraid/chased by locals due to wearing "Ebola gear".