Search

As a researcher, I’m interested in the political, ecological, and cultural debates around mosquito-borne diseases and the solutions proposed to mitigate them.

When we received the task, my first impulse was to investigate about the contemporary effects of anthropogenic climate change in mosquito-borne diseases in New Orleans. But I was afraid to make the same mistake that I did in my PhD research. I wrote my PhD proposal while based in the US, more specifically in New England, during the Zika epidemic, and proposed to understand how scientists were studying ecological climate change and mosquitoes in Brazil. However, once I arrived in the country the political climate was a much more pressing issue, with the dismantling of health and scientific institutions.

Thus, after our meeting yesterday, and Jason Ludwig’s reminder that the theme of our Field Campus is the plantation, I decided to focus on how it related to mosquitoes in New Orleans.

The Aedes aegypti mosquito and the yellow fever virus it can transmit are imbricated in the violent histories of settler-colonialism and slavery that define the plantation economy. The mosquito and the virus arrived in the Americas in the same ships that brought enslaved peoples from Africa. The city of New Orleans had its first yellow fever epidemic in 1796, with frequent epidemics happening between 1817 and 1905. What caused New Orleans to be the “City of the Dead,” as Kristin Gupta has indicated, was yellow fever. However, as historian Urmi Engineer Willoughby points out, the slave trade cannot explain alone the spread and persistance of the disease in the region: "Alterations to the landscape, combined with demographic changes resulting from the rise of sugar production, slavery, and urban growth all contributed to the region’s development as a yellow fever zone." For example, sugar cultivation created ideal conditions for mosquito proliferation because of the extensive landscape alteration and ecological instabilities, including heavy deforestation and the construction of drainage ditches and canals.

Historian Kathryn Olivarius examines how for whites "acclimatization" to the disease played a role in hierarchies with “acclimated” (immune) people at the top and a great mass of “unacclimated” (non-immune) people and how for black enslaved people "who were embodied capital, immunity enhanced the value and safety of that capital for their white owners, strengthening the set of racialized assumptions about the black body bolstering racial slavery."

As I continue to think through these topics, I wonder how both the historical materialities of the plantation and the contemporary anthropogenic changes might be influencing mosquito-borne diseases in New Orleans nowadays? And more, how the regions’ histories of race and class might still be shaping the effects of these diseases and how debates about them are framed?

Andrew Lakoff is an Associate Professor of Sociology and Communication at the University of Southern California, Department of Sociology. His disciplines are: Social Theory, Medical Anthropology, and Cultural Anthropology.

Stephen Collier holds a Ph.D in Sociocultural Anthropology at the University of California Berkeley, Department of Department of Sociology. His disciplines are Social Policy, Social Theory, Social Theory, Foucault, and Neoliberalism. He was also Chair and Associate Professor at The New School, Department of International Affairs from 2003-2015.

Although they are not directly involved in emergency response, Stephen and Andrew have written extensively on the social aspects of medicine, especially in disaster scenarios. 

I felt that the extend interview time of Emmanuel Urey’s family in the US did not further any real understanding of the issue and was just an appeal to the viewer’s emotion.

The Iroquois Theater Fire, the destruction of US Capitol Building, and the Hague Street boiler explosion are used as historical examples to support the arguments made in the article as well as the findings of a steel expert who investigated the collapse of the towers.

Emergency response is not directly addressed, but the policy of allowing otherwise ineligible people to full access to the emergency medical system indirectly is effected and has its own challenges, disputes, and implications.

The arguments are supported by data from the National Institute of Health and beyond as well as interviews with people on the ground.

The assessments that patients take are not visible to the public so I can not elaborate on it. This is what is quoted from the company’s website about the “Easy Clinical Screenings”:

“Patients take digital, gamified mental health assessments conveniently on their mobile device to learn their actual diagnosis and become more self aware. Providers can deploy customized assessment questions specific to each patient. Patients can see their charted progress over time. Assessments are reimbursable by insurers.”

The claims are supported by personal interviews/surveys by the author as well as external data from the state and other sources and studies. 

The way that countries and the world address nuclear emergencies is addressed in this article. Currently there is no central international response resources or authority. Because of the rarity of nuclear catastrophic nuclear emergencies, there are few pockets of professionals with field experience with dealing with these types of emergencies. Japan greatly lacked the assistance of these people during this disaster. These things all contribute to a less optimal emergency response. By addressing these issues the quality of response to nuclear emergencies can be greatly increased.

Dr. Kramer refers to various people in various medical cases but redacts their names.

The Journal of the American Medical Association and the medical community as a whole embraced “evidence based medicine” back in the 90s and claimed that individual case stories were inferior, antiquated, and a thing of the past.

Oxford University press and the New England Journal of Medicine started writing case reports embracing stories.