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 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."

""USAID has spent about $1.5 billion since the earthquake,' Johnston told Goats & Soda. 'Less than a penny of every dollar goes directly to a Haitian organization.'"

This quote shows the extreme difference in total money donated compared to the money that is being used to help Haiti directly. I was mentioned that their government is hard to trust, so outside companies tend to hold the money, but that means that they can decide how they want to spend it.

"The U.N. and its agents are "absolutely immune from suit in this Court," Oetken ruled."

This quote shows the irony of the situation, by using the word "immune" it brings light to the fact that the UN's actions had major impacts on Haiti, from with the people of Haiti are very much not "immune", as cholera affects so much of the population.

I was very compelled by the entire film. It was very interesting and revealing of all aspects of the ER. Most people only get to see one perspective ever, let alone at one time, so this helps give perspective and show everyone that everyone else is working hard and trying to help.

When community factors such as transportation and insurance status were minimized as factors preventing HIV/AIDs care, the playing field was leveled within a few years. No longer were those issues much more often seen in the patients that did not survive, rather, they were seen more evenly in those that did and did not survive.

Combining clinic treatments with home-visits and prescription drug deliveries has been found to be most effective for treating all people, regardless of social factors, in places from rural Africa to Boston, MA.

Mutli-faceted approach in rural areas were most effective and able to dramatically reduce Mother-to-Infant-Transmission of HIV. This requires more resources and organization, but it takes care of the issue most efficiently in areas that are very poor and have very rudimentary infrastructure, even worse than in poor cities.

Lakoff has a PhD in social anthropology and is an associate professor of sociology at the Univeristy of Southern California. Collier in an associate professor of international affairs at the New School in New York. Both authors have extensive backgrounds in studying people, but not disease, so their stance in this paper is not looking at the biological or emergency response aspects, but more how people plan and react to such.

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?