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?
I'm interested in better understanding the ongoing geological processes that shape St. Louis and the Mississippi Valley region. So far, I've been looking into the history of seismicity in the region, focusing on the fascinating but little known history of the New Madrid earthquakes of 1811 and 1812 -- the most devastating earthquakes to have hit the US east of the Rockies. I've also been exploring how St. Louis and surrounding areas are dealing with the possibility of another earthquake occurring in the future. According to one article I read, one of the biggest uncertainties is what would happen to the heavily engineered Mississippi River in the case of another major tremblor. The shaking could break the levees, flooding wide areas along the river and creating cascading effects. The flow of the river might also reverse completely, as occurred during the New Madrid earthquakes.
On these possibilities and the lack of scientific consensus surrounding intraplate seismicity in this zone, see this article in The Atlantic.
On current efforts to create earthquake hazard maps in St. Louis, see this overview on the US Geological Survey site.
For a deeper dive into the history of the New Madrid earthquakes, see this book by historian of science Conevery Bolton Valencius.
No bibliography was given, but the citations that are used in the article are likely from medical records or government records of some sort.
It is difficult to determine where this document comes from. It deals with medicaid, so it is related to the government and healthcare.
It is supported by the 1992 and 2003 General Conference Resolutions, which provided the basis or understanding that there was a need for programs like this one.
Most of the data was collected through the stories that the people told the researchers. This was the best way for them to collect data, since most conditions are best told through stories. They were then able to pull numbers out or ask specific questions catered to the story.
This article is not about a disaster. Just allow more medical stories to circulate.
The author compares existing and previous nuclear regulation/safety/etc committees, analyzing differences between them and various shortcomings. This information is used to develop the author's idea of a more effective and safe oganization to enforce regulations and train an emergency response team.
The author also looked at how previous emergencies were handled and what new regulations stemmed from each, as well as how those have worked since their implementation, and what more can be done.
The film has a lot of emotional appeal by introducing each patient and their family situation. The doctors show their frustrations and humanity too - they want to help everyone and they can't give everyone everything. All of the narritive is made through following patients and doctors through their interactions. Scientific information is given through listening to the doctors, and a lot of family information is seen through direct infomation from the families and patients, as well as their interactions with each other.
They have lots of data on the diseases and causes of death in children, since children die at an alarming rate from preventable causes. The Partners in Health uses this data to channel their resources to help the most children. They provide hot lunches to help kids focus in school, Toms helps them give closed-toe shoes required for schools, they give hens to families to produce eggs for a higher-protein diet and to increase the family's income. These solutions, among others, are fueled by data and are now trying to help keep more kids alive.