Search

The report consists of the main article followed by a response from Andrea Binder of the Global Public Policy Institute.

The main point of the article was that despite $13.5 billion in monetary dontions to Haiti, the country is not much better than before the earthquake. The article notes Haiti's ongoing political turmoil, a cholera epidemic (which the U.N. is underfunding and not taking credit for causing), and the system which stifles foreign aid to Haiti as factors for the lack of actual improvements to Haiti even with the large amount of donations they received. 

The authors are Stephen J. Collier and Andrew Lakoff. They both have PhDs in anthropology and are professors are educational institutions. Collier is a professor of International Affairs at The New School and Lakoff is a professor of sociology at USC. They are professionally situated to discuss emergency response as they have done research in biosecurity and biothreats.

The components of the report are a timeline of the ebola outbreak, MSF's actions in response, a conclusion regarding future outbreaks similar to ebola, and a map of the region affected by ebola.

The organization has done research and generated fact sheets on statistics like injuries, behavior health, and environmental safety.

The main argument is that previous disasters involving burning buildings in US history and the subsequent investigations affected emergency response, policy making, and disaster investigation today. These past events can be applied to the 9/11 terrorist attack and investigation of the buildings afterward.

1. “Chronic disaster syndrome” thus refers in this analysis to the cluster of trauma-and posttrauma-related phenomena that are at once individual, social, and political and that are associated with disaster as simultaneously causative and experiential of a chronic condition of distress in relation to displacement.

2. Most efforts to rebuild health care facilities focused on emergency care, routine care, and surgical services rather than psychiatry.

3. For many people, the idea that they had to stay in a state of heightened response to the pending “crisis”—a state they had already been in for over two years—produced huge anxiety and exhaustion.

4. Instead, the notion that New Orleanians themselves were a threat to public or national security circulated and became a rationale for the efforts the government did take to effect change in New Orleans. This change, in effect, targeted the poor. The poor, it seems, were to be evicted from New Orleans as a way to “clean up” the city and help it recover once and for all.