Ebola virus
One of the major past debates that have shaped public discussion on my topic is the Ebola virus debate. After the Ebola virus outbreak in West Africa in 2014, the international community became concerned about the welfare of the region and the entire world if the virus were to spread internationally. Hence, a debate commenced about who should take charge of controlling the virus. Another past debate that has shaped public discussion on my topic is the debate on Hurricane Katrina’s mental health impact. The hurricane affected many Americans’ mental health in the City of New Orleans due to the devastating damage it had on property and the lives it cost. Many people from the City of New Orleans struggled to recover after Hurricane Katrina.
The first outbreak of the Ebola virus occurred in 1976 in the Democratic Republic of Congo (then referred to as Zaire). During this outbreak, that lasted only 11 weeks, 318 cases were recorded, and 280 people perished from the virus (Rosello et al. 4). In 2014, however, the virus was even stronger. It affected at least 29,000 people and caused the deaths of 11,310 people. Hurricane Katrina was a category five hurricane that started in New Orleans and then spread to surrounding areas. It caused the deaths of 1,800 Americans, and property worth $125 billion was damaged (LaJoie et al. 1031).
Different disciplines and traditions from the aforementioned debates have approached my topic differently. Regarding the Ebola virus, the health discipline approached the virus in the required manner by helping the infected recover and trying to control the spread of the virus through quarantine. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the health discipline has also reacted in the same way. However, unlike the Ebola outbreak period, health organizations during the COVID-19 pandemic have sought to explore the mental health effects that COVID-19 has had on the American public.
The political discipline has approached the COVID-19 epidemic differently than how it responded to Hurricane Katrina and the Ebola outbreak. During the Ebola outbreak, the virus affected a foreign country greatly in need of support. Therefore, the American government and other governments responded by declaring their support for the people of West Africa. During Hurricane Katrina, the American government reacted in the same way it reacts to any hurricanes in the country. Although late, Congress allocated all the required funding while the senator for Louisiana mobilized rescue operations in her state. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the political discipline has responded by putting in place measures to prevent the virus’s spread. The measures have, in part, impacted the mental health of Americans. For instance, certain businesses’ closure has left many workers with no means of livelihood and consequential stress. The government has recognized the effect that the epidemic has had on the mental health of Americans. So, to appeal to a majority of the public, the government has responded by relaxing some of the measures.
In the different disciplines, different language and evidence have been used to promote different perspectives. From the health discipline, experts have used reassuring and cautionary language to assure and warn Americans of the virus’s impending spread if people do not follow restrictions. The health discipline has used evidence from the number of cases reported daily and the number of deaths to support their argument on the need to take caution. The political discipline has used authoritative and cautionary language as well in its COVID-19 discussion. For instance, the executive has authorized certain containment measures such as lockdowns and curfews. In its cautionary language, the government has urged all Americans to follow restrictions and take responsibility to prevent the virus’s spread. Using evidence from daily COVID statistics, the government has supported its argument for the need to put in place containment measures. Also, the government has used evidence from the declining state of the economy and how this has affected various households to support its argument for the need to ease COVID-19 measures.
The approaches used by the different disciplines have had different effects on different audiences. For instance, the approach used by the health discipline has had positive effects on the general public. Americans are reassured about the country’s future status because, in addition to applying their skills to help prevent the spread of the virus, health experts have been at work trying to come up with a vaccine for the virus. Among those infected, the approach of health professionals has also had a different effect. At first, COVID-19 patients were uncertain about the healthcare professionals’ ability to handle the virus. Over time, however, this has changed as healthcare workers have shown their ability to handle the virus.
Also, the approach of political discipline has had different effects on different audiences. For instance, many working Americans have had to stay away from their jobs, and some have not been receiving salaries for a significant period of time. Among students, COVID-19 measures have led some of them to miss school since they cannot afford online services. Among other audiences such as musicians and sportspersons, the government approach through COVID-19 restrictions has meant the interruption of their various career activities.