 |
| Photo By: Carlos Bravo |
Outbreaks in disease and other major negative health factors that originate in countries can be very frightening and troublesome. Especially depending on how that country runs their political and social-structure system. Major factors that can contribute to the elimination of disease outbreak include a country’s government health system, fiscal policies and technology. Take for example of this past summer’s outbreak of Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) in South Korea. In my opinion South Korea did handle some of the fear-faced factors to their citizens correctly, but they could also of instilled some tactics that would of made this MERS panic over the summer less hectic. South Korea handled their MERS outbreak in the wrong manner, and I will show you how South Korea and other countries (including the U.S.) can improve on handling these matters smooth and successfully for future references.
According to www.nature.com in the article Realistic Risks, the only real risk of infection for the disease was to the people that had shared a hospital area with someone who already had MERS. At the outbreak of this disease's peak, South Korean government officials immediately shut down thousands of schools along with public events to help eliminate further outbreak. Yes, this did prevent the disease from spreading more drastically, but South Korea’s tourist numbers dropped by 41%. This caused a U.S. $10 billion dollar loss in gross domestic product growth. From an economical standpoint, I think that South Korea could have eliminated the schools that showed the most correlation with MERS and kept the remaining schools running in the meantime, unless they too contracted the disease soon after. This would keep South Korea’s employment percentage rate higher than it initially dropped. Also, the public events held in South Korea could’ve been limited to strict medical examination entry to those people who wished to participate in them. This would encourage more U.S. tourists to not hold back from visiting during this period of disease outbreak. So not only would South Korea’s economy benefit from this plan of overcoming the outbreak of MERS, but the U.S. would also.
When cases of MERS initially broke out in South Korea, people were shocked because cases of it were only endemic to camels in the middle east region of the world. Questions of how and where the disease was carried that made an outbreak in Asia left government officials in panic. South Korea also would not publicly reveal the affected hospitals that patients were treated with MERS. The article Realistic Risks makes a good standpoint on how the government should’ve revealed the locations of the hospitals that patients were treated with MERS with so that social media rumors wouldn’t cause fear in the citizens of South Korea. The author of this article states that a disease outbreak should be handled understandably and in control, not dismissed as irrational. I believe that public news and social media communication should have a large effect on the citizens of the country of the disease outbreak. The main reason is because it is better to be safe and informed on a serious topic that can affect a country in many ways, rather than the government hiding, in general, why and where the disease outbreak is occurring. Yes, sometimes television can over exaggerate the potential hazardous effects that some diseases can live up to (Ebola). But it is all up to the viewer to use his/her own discretion to make sure they can effectively prevent themselves from coming into contact with the disease.
Another point the author makes in Realistic Risks was when political figures were suggesting “extreme” ideas that would eliminate Ebola from outbreaking in the U.S. when cases of the disease first started to pop up here and there. For example, New Jersey governor Chris Christie suggested that our nation should quarantine U.S. healthcare workers when returning from West Africa. Another statement was from Donald Trump, that our nation should seal off the U.S. borders at that time, even not letting U.S. healthcare workers in. I would first like to elaborate on how political party figures like Chris Christie and Donald Trump jumped to worst case scenarios and tried to take full preventative action towards the disease. Yes, they are both Republicans, but the author is trying to make false claims of how government decisions can turn into partisan shots being fired at current opposite sides of political parties. Specifically of how the Obama Administration was in charge at the time Ebola broke out. The great leaders of this nation do not “fire shots” at other political party members saying they’re the ones in the right and everyone else is in the wrong. Instead they try to take affirmative action for our country so that we can come out of any predicament as a whole. In this case it was facing the potential downfalls of Ebola if major outbreaks would start to occur.
 |
| Photo By: European Commission DG ECHO |
Yes, at the time Ebola to the U.S. was a non-existent threat, but why mess around and keep letting healthcare workers who currently were treating West African patients with the disease back into the U.S.? Why not keep them quarantined at least for an extended period of time before scientists came to a conclusion that the disease did not live in any of those health care workers anymore. We simply just did not have the time, money or resources to realistically eradicate threats of the disease from the source such as ending Ebola in Africa. Therefore, at this time last year when current medicine in the U.S. was not fully able to treat, cure, or handle an outbreak of disease such as Ebola in the U.S it is again better to be safe than sorry and close off borders and quarantine health care workers. I agree 100% on the two statements Chris Christie and Donald Trump made to eliminate possible outbreaks of Ebola that could shipwreck our country socially and economically.
The outbreak of Ebola for a period of time dramatically rose in the United States, but eventually the control of the disease was capped. Preventative measures that politicians implemented even before the “major” outbreak of Ebola occurred could've been the ideas that South Korea could've taken into action to contain MERS and not let it last longer than it carried on to be. In my opinion, poor communication is the source of all failure when making vital decisions. Jurgen Habermas, one of the most famous philosophers who is still alive today, claims group communication always leads to a more positive outcome. If South Korea would’ve just came to a conclusion that they should've released the hospitals that came in contact with patients who carried MERS, the citizens of that country could of been more cautious on which hospitals to be treated at in the future. Overall, this could have lead to a more short-term nightmare of MERS instead of it dwindling from May to late August.
Another preventative step that South Korea could of implied in their government that would have put an immediately halt to MERS would be informing step-by-step ways for citizens of that country to prevent catching the disease. For example, when the outbreak of swine flu swarmed to the United States, news channels and social media daily reminded their citizens of ways they could have prevented catching and spreading the swine flu. Simple routines like washing your hands after every time you sneezed, not going to work that week if you were experiencing flu-like symptoms, and eating your daily vitamins could increase the odds of you not catching the swine flu. To me, a constant reminded and information being kindly reiterated to people daily helps them engrave a mindset to achieve positive goals. That is another reason why the United States didn’t fall under to the swine flu either.
In conclusion, I think the communication of risk in disease outbreaks shouldn’t be increased. They come off as overhyped, too informative, or to come across as exaggeration. Yes, every country has different economical barriers, but in order to successfully overcome a downfall like a disease outbreak, one shouldn’t hide information either or overdo an explanation. Instead, to take full impact on successfully communicating with disease outbreaks, I suggest a government should take affirmative action to eliminate potential spreading of diseases. Especially if that country does not have the money or resources to overcome the disease immediately. Kindly reiterating steps to citizens to prevent disease outbreak can make the small tasks for conquering an outbreak go the furthest, not increasing the ways and types of communication.
Works Cited
http://www.nature.com.prox.lib.ncsu.edu/news/realistic-risks-1.18082
http://www.nature.com.prox.lib.ncsu.edu/nature/journal/v459/n7245/full/459322a.html
http://www.csudh.edu/dearhabermas/publsbm01.htm
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/423405/donald-trump-communications-style-republicans
No comments:
Post a Comment