Read the following news article:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/inside-ebola-hell-mirrorman-witnesses-4067533
Answer the following questions:
1. In what African country is this story set?
2. What has the World Health Organization said about the toll that the Ebola virus has taken on the country?
3. From what or who's point of view is the article written? Does this point of view affect how you read the story? How would it be different if the story were written from the point of view of Oliver Wilson?
4. What does the journalist say is most shocking about the Red Cross workers?
5. Why do you think that this journalist chose to focus on one victim of the Ebola virus in order to recount how far-reaching the effects of the illness are rather than simply reporting the facts of what is happening in the entire country?
6. A few weeks ago, the United States decided to allow a person with the Ebola virus to re-enter the country and go into an isolation unit at Emory University in Atlanta for study and treatment. Should the government have allowed this to happen? Or should the infected patient have been denied re-access to the country? Explain your opinion.
***Please note: If, after posting your comment, you do not see a yellow box appear that says "Your comment is pending approval," then your comment did not post, and you will not receive credit for your blog post. Make sure to look for this affirmation of your blog post.
Also, PLEASE TYPE YOUR NAME at the beginning of your comment.
Kat Phillips 3rd period
ReplyDelete1.monrovia
2. That the numbers vastly underestimate the magnitude oF the outbreak
3.it is written on the point of view from an outsider if this were to be from the point of view of Oliver I think that it would have had the affect as if you knew Layson and watched the horrible situation unfold right before your very eyes
4. It is shocking that the workers seem to be oblivious of the situation that is happening Round them as they seem to have no remorse for the victims of this terrible disease and their loved ones
5. I think the journalist choose to focus on one victim to show how this virus affects someone's family and all of there surrounding and to show how terribly tragic this is and also to provide a visual representation of the horrible affects of this virus.
6. I believe that he should have been allowed in because if he was isolated he could not have infected anyone and also we should have the resources and knowlage about this disease if it makes it's way to the united sates . We also have more resources here than the very unapplicale country of Africa and could possibly find a cure and send it over to the very many infected areas of Africa
Sydney Emmons 3rd pd.
ReplyDelete1.The story is set in Liberia.
2.They said the death toll was 1,145 and that it, "vastly underestimates the magnitude of the outbreak".
3.The story is written from Tom Parry's point of view. This point of view greatly affects how I read the story. If it was written by Oliver Wilson then it probably would've been more emotional. Also, it would've explained everything in detail and gave us more of a feel for being in these people's shoes.
4.He describes to us how emotionless and heartless these Red Cross workers are. Because these workers are just throwing these bodies and not taking this situation seriously and not in a polite manner.
5.Because this way it tells us how an individual dealt with this situation and it gave us a real feel for what is actually going on. Personal experiences help us understand the victims emotional state and these people's feelings.
6.Personally, I think that was extremely idiotic. Because that puts America at a risk for Ebola and that is frightening to think about. We should keep the infected victims together in one setting rather than spreading them. The doctors should go to Africa and put on safety gear and find a cure rather than risking our entire country.
Riley Holmes
ReplyDelete1) liberia
2) 1,145 people are dead
3) A journalist. yes Oliver's article would have more emotion.
4)They laugh and chat like there are not dead bodies
5) It makes the situation more real. The reader see an actual life being affected not just statistics.
6) I understand that this could scare people because it could cause an outbreak in the states. I personally believe it was the right choice. This person could be the one they use to find the cure and it would help the world along with this sick person. The good would outweigh the bad.
Leigh Davis:
ReplyDelete1.) This story is set in Liberia, Africa
2.) The toll has taken 1,145 people in the area, but that vastly underestimates the power of the outbreak.
3.) The story is written from the writer or journalists point of view. In some ways it effects my mind set of how I'm reading the article. I think that if the story was written from Oliver Wilson's point of view it would of been more kind of heartfelt I guess you could say and it might've been more "real" as i would say.
4.) The most shocking about the Red Cross workers is the unmentionable, unemotional, professional mood they have when they dump the bodies.
5.) In my opinion I think that the writer chose to focus on one victim and one case to make it more interesting and so that people might take more precaution as to looking out for themselves and other people and read the article rather than stating monotonous facts.
6.)My opinion on the government letting the Ebola stricken person into the US is this, I do think that they should've allowed the person in, but I think that they need to take extreme precautions when doing so. Yes, personally i agree with their decision to let the person in the country for helpful reasons so that possibly they could find a cure but also if someone were to be contaminated and deliver the disease to another human because precautions were not taken, The government should be punished fully on that particular account.
Alex Turner
ReplyDelete1. Monrovia
2. "Underestimates the magnitude of the out break
3. The journalist of this article. Yes, it affects how I read the story because it's not personal enough. It doesn't give the reader a heart twisting story that it deserves. It is just stating facts. It would be different from Oliver Wilson's point of view because it would help all readers want to spead awareness of this virus and help those who suffer from it because someone who had lost another because of it is telling us his story.
4. The journalist is disgusted by the fact that those workers make no effort to show emotion to the bodies they are carrying with no respect.
5. To make it a personal matter and to show how the effects of this disease are horrendous.
6. Yes, they were right to let this happen because we need to help cute this virus. And that works best when the patient is in the room and not outside the country in quarantine.
Alex Turner
ReplyDelete1. Monrovia
2. "Underestimates the magnitude of the out break
3. The journalist of this article. Yes, it affects how I read the story because it's not personal enough. It doesn't give the reader a heart twisting story that it deserves. It is just stating facts. It would be different from Oliver Wilson's point of view because it would help all readers want to spead awareness of this virus and help those who suffer from it because someone who had lost another because of it is telling us his story.
4. The journalist is disgusted by the fact that those workers make no effort to show emotion to the bodies they are carrying with no respect.
5. To make it a personal matter and to show how the effects of this disease are horrendous.
6. Yes, they were right to let this happen because we need to help cute this virus. And that works best when the patient is in the room and not outside the country in quarantine.
MacKenzie Jones
ReplyDelete1.) the story is set in West Africa
2.) they said it vastly underestimates the magnitude of the outbreak
3.) This articles point of view is from reporter Tom Parry. Yes, in a way this point of view of the story could have effected me differently because it just came from the point of view of someone who was told many details but only used ones important to him & pertaining to the article. If it had been told/written from Oliver's point of view it probably would have more of an impact & emotional toll on me, because he probably would have gone more in depth to the loss & etc.
4.) He said the most shocking thing about the red cross workers were the way they disposed the (deceased) bodies with such carelessness.
5.) I think that they chose to focus on one specific persons story rather than just the facts is because they want people to realize not only how deadly the disease is but how I emotionally affects their loved ones and what not.
6.) I don't think the government should have let the patient re-enter the country by any means what so ever because, they're putting so many people at risk (That just shows how much our government truly cares). I don't care how isolated they are there's still possibility that it could infect others just from one mistake because its happened before, & once one person gets it so do many more and so on. The researchers simply could've flown out to Africa if it was that important to them to study it instead of putting yet another country and even more people at risk but, they obviously don't realize nor care about how easily it spreads.
Kayla Fincher
ReplyDelete1. Liberia
2.They said that the virus was spreading and the 1,145 deaths in the region vastly underestimates the magnitude of the outbreak.
3.The point of view was from a reporter. It would have been much different if the view would have been from Oliver it would have probably been a lot harder to read because it would be sadder and more devastating
4. The workers seemed emotionless about disposing the bodies
5. To show that Ebola is killing people and hurting if not killing their families also
6. I do not believe they should have let the person into the country because its very dangerous it could easily spread to someone else even if they're really careful.
James Smelley
ReplyDelete1. Liberia.
2. They said that the official death toll of 1,145 in Liberia "vastly underestimates the magnitude of the outbreak."
3. It is written from the journalist Tom Parry's point of view. Yes, it does affect the way the story is read. If it were written from Oliver's point of view, the home life described would be more vivid and the article would be more intimate.
4. The way they dispose of the infected bodies, how they act like nothing important is going on.
5. The journalist chose to show it from one person's point of view because it would show the reader how bad it truly is for people as opposed to the statistics.
6. I think as long as the virus is contained safely enough, it is fine. It allows people to learn more about the virus and eventually find a cure and maybe even an immunization in the near future.
Lorenzo B. Winston:
ReplyDelete1. Liberia is the African country is this story set in.
2. The World Health Organization said the Ebola virus death toll of 1,145 "underrates the enormity of the outbreak.
3. The articles point of view is coming from the journalist, Tom Parry. This point of view does affect how I read the story. I feel that there would've been more than enough detail and information for the article if it came from Oliver Wilson's point of view.
4. What the journalist says is the most shocking about the Red Cross workers is the unemotional professionalism of the Red Cross workers hired to dispose of Ebola bodies.
5. I think that the journalist chose to focus on one victim because he wanted to hear from a person that has been affected by the Ebola virus the most and they would have the most information about the Ebola virus.
6. I think that the infected patient should have been denied re-access to the country. In my opinion it doesn’t matter how safe, secure, or isolated the person with the Ebola virus is, the virus can somehow still spread. Something can go wrong during the experiment and the virus can spread throughout the whole country just by that one experiment. It is just safe to keep the person that has the Ebola virus out of the country.
Abbye Blocker
ReplyDelete1- This story is set in the African country of Liberia.
2- The World Health Organization said the toll the Ebola virus has taken is 1,145.
3-The point of view that the article is written from is a journalist named Tom Parry.
4- The point of view that the story is written from does affect how you read it because Parry does not write his personal thoughts or emotions, but the facts and emotions from the victims of the Ebola virus. It would be different if the story were written from Oliver Wilson's point of view because it would tell how it affected his life and his thoughts and emotions on the actions of the World Health Organization.
5- I think that the journalist chose to focus on one victim of the Ebola virus because it would show how it actually affected one persons life and how it affected them physically and emotionally. If he had chosen how it affected the country as a whole, then all he would have was facts.
6- I believe that the government should allow this to happen under the circumstances of the individual being completely isolated and that there is no chance of the virus spreading. By the individual being in a facility where they are being treated, there is a possibility that the doctors would find a cure for that individual and the rest of the infected people in the other countries.
Grace Singley
ReplyDelete1. Monrovia
2. The World Health Organization has said that the official death toll of 1,145 in the region vastly underestimates the magnitude of the outbreak.
3. This article is written by, Tom Perry. Yes, this point of view affects how I read the story because it's just someone talking about the virus, not someone who is actually suffering a loved one through it. The article would have a different meaning to the reader if it was from the point of view of Oliver Wilson because he had lost a loved one from the virus, so it would help the reader understand more about how bad the virus is.
4.The journalist is most shocked about how the red cross workers showed no expression or emotion about the horrible sights of disposing Ebola bodies.
5. I think the journalist focused on one victim to show how awful and how much bad the virus can do to just one person.
6. I think they were right to let a person with the virus to re-enter the country because they need to find a cure for this virus and it's best for the victim get studied to try to discover a cure for the virus.
Ke-Anna' Rich: 1. Liberia
ReplyDelete2. The world Health Organization said that the toll "vastly underestimates the magnitude of the outbreak"
3. The point of view of a reporter. I think it does effect how I read the story, because if it was written by Oliver I think it would have a more emotional feel to it.
4. They showed no emotion.
5. I think the journalist decided to focus on one victim to show it could happen to anyone and to warn people to be cautious, and to show how quickly the disease affected an individual.
6. I believe the victim shouldn't have been allowed back into the country. It is bad enough that the disease is spreading all over Liberia, we do not need something this dangerous in the states. If any mistakes are made he disease could be passed all around America and then what would we do? If it spreads to America then it'll likely be passed around the globe due to traveling, if it hasn't already, and we'd be completely overcome by it. It would have been safer to leave him over there while we gained information about the disease over here, in hopes of inventing a cure.
Jessica Lewis
ReplyDelete1. This story is set in Liberia.
2. They said that the official death toll of 1,145.
3. The article is written by Tom Parry's POV. He made this seem more like a situation report than an emotional issue, which is what Oliver Wilson might have done.
4. The shocking thing about the Red Cross workers is how unemotional they are when disposing the bodies.
5. The journalist probably picked one victim of the disease to try and emphasize each side of the crisis, from the illness itself to the impacted lives.
6. The infected person should not have been allowed back into the United States. He/she could have brought the virus to the states and have more people infected and killed. Instead of allowing him/her back into the country, the US should have sent a few licensed doctors and/or biologists to study and treat the patient while still in Liberia to prevent further spread of the virus.
Emily Keller
ReplyDelete1) Liberia
2) they said that the official death toll is 1,145 but that it "vastly underestimates the magnitude of the outbreak"
3)its written from the authors point of view. If it was written from Oliver's p.o.v. I think it would be more emotional and detailed
4)he said that the Red Cross workers were really unemotional
5)I think he only used one Ebola victim case because it shows how infectious the virus is.
6)I think that they shouldn't have let her back in. they risked the whole countries health.
Morgan Burroughs:
ReplyDelete1) Monrovia
2) They said that the ebola virus toll “vastly underestimates the magnitude of the outbreak”.
3) The point of view of this story was from the journalist who wrote it. If it had been written from the point of view of Oliver Wilson, believe that the story would have been much more emotional and heart-breaking compared to the perspective of media, who have to watch a lot of what they say so they do not offend anybody.
4) The journalist thought it was shocking that the red cross workers were so unemotional while they were putting dead bodies on a truck.
5) Although the journalist only talked about one case, I believe it had the same impact (if not more) than an entry about how the virus affects the whole country. Because this journalist only talked about one case instead of a thousand, they were able to get much more emotional with it. They got to go through Layson's final days through the eyes of her husband, Oliver, and write about his feelings and what exactly was going on in her life as the virus slowly began to kill her. This to me seems very personal, which is what makes it such an amazing story to publish on a website that people might actually read.
6) I believe that they did the right thing for letting the patient back into the country. I think what they did was right because America has much better technology than some 3rd world countries like Africa. America can run more accurate tests with better computers, and this way Americas brightest medical minds can all get together to discuss what a cure for this virus might be. Even though we could take some equipment over to Africa, they would probably get the older stuff because the newest technology would not be very portable yet and would probably not stand the heat in Africa. This way, doctors and such can track the progression of the patient closely, and they have access to the newest technology to try and find a cure for this awful virus.
Lynsey Simpson
ReplyDelete1.Liberia
2. "the official death toll of 1,145 in the region"
3. a journalist named Tom Parry. Yes, because if Oliver would have written this article then it wouldn't have had as many statistics and facts and it would have been more of a grief story than a factorial story.
4. How unemotional they are towards their patients.
5. it is more informational and touching to talk about one persons recount of Ebola, and how easily a single person could get it.
6. The government should have allowed this to happen because in order for Ebola to be cured, they have to do research and work with actual Ebola patients so its easier and faster to find a cure.
Troy Banks
ReplyDelete1.The story is set in Liberia.
2.They said that the death toll may cause people to vastly underestimate the severity of the outbreak.
3.The article is written from the point of view of the reporter. I think the point of view does affect how you read the story, because if it were written from the point of view of Oliver, it would probably be even more dark and depressing than the one that was written.
4.The journalist said that the unemotional professionalism was shocking to see in the Red Cross workers.
5. I think the reporter chose to focus on one family because it helps people relate to whats going on better than feeding them statistics.
6. I don't think that they should have granted them access. Even though they were isolated, willfully putting your citizens in any risk is never a good idea. I think that there were other suitable areas that could have been used as substitute.
-Joy Hill
ReplyDelete1.The setting of this tragic story is in West Africa.
2. The World Health Organization said that the death toll of "1,145 in the region 'vastly underestimates the magnitude of the outbreak'."
3. The story is told from the perspective if what I assume is a journalist of some sort named Tom Parry. The point of view that the story is told affects the way I read it because its not as emotional as how it would be if it was told from the perspective of the husband of the deceased woman. Because it's told by someone else the way its told is a kind of straight forward way.
4. The unemotional professionalism of the Red Cross workers hired to dispose of Ebola bodies is a shocking sight.
5.I believe that the journalist focused on this one situation because of the fact that it is so special in itself. Also he might have wanted to showcase how extreme the situation is. The situation itself actually shows facts about the disease. It showed that it is a quick killing disease, that it can be contracted by any bodyfluids, and also the symptoms someone with it can have.
6. I DEFINITELY, 100% Believe that the person should have been denied re-access into the country. We have seen and heard about how easily and quickly the disease can be spread. We have seen and heard about how quickly and swiftly it kills too. We shouldn't take any chances. Because someone could do what Layson Wilson did and contract the disease. If the person has the disease and doesn't know it could be a major health problem for everyone in the south and america in general. Its reckless to even allow that person back in.
Keniece Johnson
ReplyDelete1. It was in West Africa places such as Libra
2. They say that the toll is extremely high and rapid spreading
3.Tom Parry is the author and it's told from his point of view
4.
5. The focus on one person to show how one illness can effect more than the person it is killing especially the victim and the victims family that he is focused on now.
6. I feel as if the government should have allowed this. As long as the patient is in a safe place and not in contact with no other people but the doctors then it's okay. Doctors have to find the source of the problem, and by operating on someone else could save lived
1. In the west part of Africa such as Libra.
ReplyDelete2. They say that the toll has affected the country as a whole.
3. The article is written by Tom Parry and is told by his point of view.
4.
5. The focus one one victim is putting empathizes on how one disease not only effects the person it's killing but the people around them.
6. In my opinion the government made a good decision by allowing re-entering to the country acceptable for test work. One step of finding a cure is working on someone who has the disease. As long as the patient is away from other people except the doctors
Olivia LeComte
ReplyDelete1. Liberia
2.They said that the official death toll “vastly underestimates the magnitude of the outbreak”.
3.This story is written from the point of view of a sympathetic reporter. If it had been written from the point of view of Oliver we probably would have seen through a slightly more personal light.
4. He says that the most shocking part was how cold and detached the red cross workers were when dealing with the bodies.
5. He used this single person to hit closer to home because, as humans, we tend to find it difficult to put large numbers into perspective. But one person, we can relate to.This woman could be our mother, our daughter, our wife, or our sister.we feel so much more inclined to stop more tragedies.
6.I think that the government made the right decision. They could have risked an out break here in the US but, they probably understood that threat and made absolutely sure that this virus was contained. Plus, with this research we could save thousands of lives.
Tyler Dempsey
ReplyDeleteI- Liberia
II- That the death toll is underestimated for the virus.
III- The journalist Tom Parry.
IV- Their lack of caring of what is happening around them.
V- I think he honed in one one family in particular so he could add a personal feel that went deeper than mere facts would.
VI- I mean, I don't see a problem with it, if they're trying to study the virus to gain a cure or research or whatever from it. As long as he's kept under a watchful eye, I have no "beef" with it.
Melody Ashcraft
ReplyDelete1. Liberia
2. They said it "underestimates the magnitude of the outbreak"
3. This story is written by Tom Parry. This affects how we read the story because he has no connection with the people he is writing about. If the story was written by Oliver Wilson's point of view, we would have heard more about his wife and we would have felt more of a connection as a result of this.
4. Their unemotional professionalism
5.I think he did this because he wanted to show how much this disease affected one person and to show the struggle he/ she goes through and how much his or her's family struggles.
6. I do think the government should have allowed this to happen. Dr. Kent Brantly was overseas helping the people with the virus when he contracted it, and this is why we should have let him come back to America. As a result of being able to come back and receive proper treatment, he was declared free from the virus and was released from the hospital.
Carter Billings 3rd Period. (1 The story is set in the African country of Liberia. (2 They said that the "official" death toll of 1,145 "vastly underestimates the magnitude of the outbreak." (3 The point of view is from the Mirrorman who witnessed the act, yes from this point changes how we read the story as we are reading it we fell we are witnessing the horror. It would be different because we can see more of the tragedy of having the loved one with Ebola and the overall toll it takes on the family. (4 The Red Cross workers are talking and laughing as bodies are loaded. (5 Focusing on one victim and their family makes the story more personal and you get feelings for them, opposed to just hearing the facts which just gives you an overview of the situation. (6 Yes, the man is an American citizen and we need to treat him like one. He should not be denied because he is an opportunity to help us, we can also learn more about Ebola through test we run.
ReplyDeleteWill Harpole
ReplyDelete1.The story is set in Liberia.
2. The disease is very devastating with a climbing death toll right now at 1145
3. The story is taken from the point of view of a journalist recounting the events of the Wilson family's encounter with the disease. If the story have been from oliver Wilson's point of view, it would be more powerful emotionally but take away from the facts of the story.
4. Parry thought the unemotional professionalism of the workers was the most shocking.
5. The author tries to show how awful this disease is by instead of using facts to appeal to logos, he uses Wilson's morbid recounts of his wife's death to appeal to pathos.
6. I believe that the United states did the right thing due to the fact that, as a civilization, it is our duty to improve and evolutionize our self as human beings.we must do all that we can to improve the human condition, as members of the same species, even if that means putting some at risk. As long as the situation is handled with great caution, it is a great way to move forward and begin to rid the earth of this horrific disease.
Emily Perry:
ReplyDeleteI believe that if Oliver Wilson had told the story that he would have described it better from a personal standpoint.
1. The story is set in Liberia.
ReplyDelete2. The WHO says that the toll "underestimates the magnitude of the outbreak".
3. The story is written from an interviewer's perspective.The perspective reinforces the fact that I am observing what is happening. If the story was written from Wilson's perspective, it would feel more personal and emotional.
4.The journalist is shocked by the stoic nature and attitudes of the Red Cross workers.
5. focusing on on victim makes it an easier and more personal story that you can relate to
6.I believe this was the right thing to do. Instead of shutting the borders complete we should allow a few victims in to live in complete isolation in order to study and understand the virus. Only when and if we discover a cure or method of fighting this disease should we actually allow more of the infected into the country.
Josie Parham
ReplyDelete1- Monrovia
2- That the death of 1,145 "underestimates the magnitude of the outbreak"
3- The author, yes a bit because the author not really showing direct emotion he is basing off Oliver's emotion. The story would be more emotional because he wouldn't be answering by questions, he could really get his emotions out there.
5- To get real emotions, things that will reach people instead of facts.When your read the pain hes going through you don't just brush it off it stays.
6- I think it was fine for the patient to come to America because we need to figure out more about this disease and they had him in isolation. Hes already bound to die he shouldn't have to have unfair treatment like that.
Makenzie Taylor
ReplyDelete1. The story's setting is Liberia.
2. The World Health Organization admitted that the official death toll of 1,145 in the region "vastly underestimates the magnitude of the outbreak".
3. The story is written from Tom Parry's point of view. His point of view does not affect how I read the story. He based his story on facts, interviews, and observations. Had the story been written by Oliver Wilson, it would have affected how I read the story because it would probably be filled with a lot of emotions.
4. The journalist stated that it was a shocking sight to see the Red Cross workers display unemotional professionalism while disposing the bodies.
5. I think that the journalist chose an effective way of telling the story by choosing 1 victim because this way you are able to connect to the family by following step-by-step details of the Ebola journey from start to finish.
6. I agree and disagree with allowing infected persons back into the country. I agree with it because it allows the United States to study the disease, find a cure, and save lives. I disagree with it because now there is a big chance of the disease spreading in the United States, killing thousands.
Amber
ReplyDelete1) Liberia
2) there was a death toll of 1145 but it is underestimated
3) tom perry, mirror news
-it didnt happen to tom perry he just accounting the story.
-it would have been emotionally stronger because it would be his personal account of his.wifes death.
4) they laughed and.joked and.just threw the bodies on the.truck. not taking things seriously when these people have just died from a disease and their families are watching.
5) centering on one account with multiple details gives the story a more personal and real feel to readers.
6) yes. As long as the sick are isolated the disease won't spread.also America is more adequate than Africa and have a better chance of funding a cure.and.treating people