Search

I am currently in the process of transitioning my M.A. level course on Science, Technology, and Development with 11 students to virtual instruction. One of my interests in engaging with COVID-19 is to examine how it (should) informs development ideologies and practices. How should students of development studies retool -- conceptually, methodologically, practically -- in wake of the pandemic?

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?

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.

Medicaid covers the elderly and low-income families, those that are likely to not be able to afford health care, since children and the elderly often\ require more medical attention. It would seem to me that mental disabilities don't discrimintate based on age or strength, like physical issues may, however old age and decreasing physical abilities can harm mental health. These populations, with lower income, do not have as much access to mental health help, and that can further their economic situation, so this policy ensures that they will be taken care of sufficiently. At the same time, it ignores the needs of the middle-aged patients, as they must be covered by the state or in other ways.

The program is targeted for the entire world. They want to advance science while encouraging peace and furthering the training and knowledge of those who will save lives in the face of disaster. This is able to apply to the whole world, based on the possible size of disasters associated with the magnitude of these types of power. Thus, the goal is for everyone to be involved, and most of the world is involved at this point.

Emergency response is not directly discussed in this article, however seizures are a common reason to call  for EMS. Seizures, or "fainting" as they called it, can be dangerous, especially if the patient is alone or if it is at night. If there are a lot of people with epillepsy that is not controlled, then there could be an overload on the EMS system.

"But more significantly, in addition to revealing the reproduction of inequality, the fissures rendered visible by the entry of gender-based violence into humanitarian missions force an engagement with new forms of the political. Humanitarianism’s mission has expanded so that it now occupies a dominant place in the global political arena – whether humanitarians asked for this or not"

"It seems that humanitarianism, as universalism,both erases and depends on difference; on the one hand, it manages difference, declawing it so that it doesn’t tear apart the humanitarian kit, made to fit and rehabilitate everyone into a basic bare-bones humanity. That is, it assumes that difference ultimately leads back to sameness: to some nondescript, generic human survival. Yet on the other hand, humanitarianism is necessarily built on difference – the difference between two populations – those who have the power to protect, and those who need protection66 – those who suffer, and those who recognise and address suffering"

"It seems that MSF workers assumed that sexual violence would bring a particular sort of shame, greater than that accompanying other forms of violence or brutality; and therefore that it should be kept quiet, confidential, in the private realm. This particular approach stems from the historically and culturally situated belief that a woman’s chastity is her most precious possession and that sexual violence is more significant than other forms of violence – of course,the question is whether it is equally significant for female and male, straight and queer."