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?

The program is located at the Hiroshima university campus. It involves common coursework for all tracks of the program (at the Hiroshima Phoenix Training Center), specialized courses in different professional subjects, fieldwork in Fukushima, and internships with a Japanese company and an international organization. 

It is not addressed, but public health and the system of healthcare as a whole is discussed.

The study was published in BMC Infectious Diseases, a peer-reviewed journal on the prevention, diagnoisis, and management of infectious disease. The journal seems to be genrally well respected.

Following the attacks on 9/11/2001, a number of health issues arose in the population of residents and workers present. Dust and other toxins inhaled from the rubble created a number of respiratory issues. The need for monitoring of these, and other, health conditions is what lead to the need for such a policy. Without the policy in place, victims would need to fund their own healthcare, and with the large number of affected people, the price would be more or less ridiculous to force on people. 

The film gave a lot of instances where the providers were more or less just having fun. For example, nearly every interview invoved the guys sitting down and drinking a beer while joking. While this proved their humanity, it also showed that the doctors spent much of their free time having fun rather than getting sleep. I would assume that they weren't drinkng while still "on call" or planning on giving care, and thus had the time to get proper rest. The amount of luxury afforded to the doctors after the trip also was a bit less compelling. At the end, the doctors were swimming at a nice pool and just relaxing, which is understandable for destressing. But it also seemed to take away some perspective. These doctors go on about how little resources they have to give and how the wish they could stay on their mission, but immediately turn back to luxury. Its just a bit hypocritical. And I understand that they cannot directly contribute to the people they care for in terms of wealth, but I found it was a bit unnecessary to include in the film.

The article addresses the lack of unity in the decision making proceess during emergencies. Lots of life-or-death decisions are left up to a doctor's judgemnet, which causes ambiguity as a result. One can argue that doctors are given this right to judgment as a sign of their training and the trust we put in them. However, when the trust is perceived as betrayed by affected individuals, the judgement is called into question. 

Another point is the lack of evacuation preparadness in hospitals.

The author addresses emergency response in the context of the workers who responded to and continue to work at the site of the chernobyl nuclear disaster. These workers were monetarily compensated in high ammounts, but left physically injured and disabled by the exposure to radioactivity at the site.