Search

It doesn't cover many people that openly do have insurance, nor does it interview the healthcare providers outside of the ER, like the PCPs, the recovery facilities, etc.

The information used to produce and support the arguments made in the article comes from a number of articles and reports, as well as interviews. For example, the author communicated with the former scientific director of Spetsatom and used that information to form a better image of the situation post-Chernobyl. This information could then be contrasted to other disasters and the organizations formed in the aftermath. The author could then use research papers as a source for statistical data, as well as scientific reports as a basis for the disaster’s existence and its implications. These all together are used to form an interdisciplinary view of disaster relief, and the steps needed to prevent and respond to another nuclear disaster.

When community factors such as transportation and insurance status were minimized as factors preventing HIV/AIDs care, the playing field was leveled within a few years. No longer were those issues much more often seen in the patients that did not survive, rather, they were seen more evenly in those that did and did not survive.

Combining clinic treatments with home-visits and prescription drug deliveries has been found to be most effective for treating all people, regardless of social factors, in places from rural Africa to Boston, MA.

Mutli-faceted approach in rural areas were most effective and able to dramatically reduce Mother-to-Infant-Transmission of HIV. This requires more resources and organization, but it takes care of the issue most efficiently in areas that are very poor and have very rudimentary infrastructure, even worse than in poor cities.

The largest challenge faced by the ARC seems to be organizing such a large group of volunteers for specific response. There are so many different pieces to disaster respones, and with mostly volunteers organizing things, a strong central leadership is needed, which seems to be lacking in the group as a whole. 

Lakoff has a PhD in social anthropology and is an associate professor of sociology at the Univeristy of Southern California. Collier in an associate professor of international affairs at the New School in New York. Both authors have extensive backgrounds in studying people, but not disease, so their stance in this paper is not looking at the biological or emergency response aspects, but more how people plan and react to such.

The rise and emergence of infectious diseases has led to a number of puclic health "scares" over the years. The creation of national and international frameworks, as well as focus groups, has brought the struggle of infectious diseases like AIDS to light. Looking at diseases with the combined inputs of governmental and philanthropic organizations has had a positive influence on the fight against them. In the realm of bioterrorism, many factors are at play. First is the terrorist act itself and the social issues that lead to a terrorist being created. Then there is themethod, which is the numerous diseases that can be weaponized. These diseases are researched at the government level as potential additions to the arsenal of weapons a country has. However, they are also used at the individual level. With highly educated individuals and any number of social ideologies, the risk for bioterrorism increases. By looking at bioterrorism through the lens of both a social expert and scientist, the roots of bioterrorism can be examined. 

The causes for these examinations are events that have had a largescale effect on multiple levels of expertise. These "focusing events" have a lot of factors and players, and thus require a lot of different views to analyze, as the article argues. 

First responders share their experiences, how they responded, how they realized there weren't going to be many survivors. Many of them suffered from health issues afterwards. The air was very toxic and led to cancers. It makes you wonder how other safety information is given to first responders. They weren't even doing a rescue mission at the point that asbestos was being hidden in reports, so their lives should not have been risked like that for simply cleaning up rubble. Was it worth it for them to shovel the debris and pull out parts of bodies at that point, while putting their well being and lives at risk? If they had waited a few months for the dust to settle and be cleaned up, would that have saved many of the first responders? Offices in the area and houses nearby weren't inspected until even later. Schools opened as a sign of American strength led to asthma, bronchitis, etc. Are those lives worth the public image?

Emergency responders as a unique group aren't discussed or portrated in the film. However, the doctors had to take on the role of emergency responders often, while not neccesarily being emergency doctors. The question in the film became whether or not the doctors were prepared for these roles, and if they had the energy to dedicate to them. Some doctors burn out, and others thrive, but regardless they are challenged to make sacrifices that emergency responders often must decide on. 

The health of the inmates is in serious jeopardy and there was in instance in which an ambulance was unable to get to the island, which resulted in a death. There are also a lot of suicide attempts so that should be a warning to someone.

The article uses a combination of sources, such as research, epidemiology, and "ethnograpic portrayals" by affected individuals. These are compared to form a comprehensive view of the aftermath of Katrina, and how the government was not prepared to address the large scale relief efforts neccessary.