Name: Meshal Alduaig Healthy Sleep Website Evaluation The name of the selected website is Healthy Sleep: Understanding the Third of Our Lives We So Often Take for Granted. Its URL is http://healthysleep.med.harvard.edu/. This website seeks to educate visitors about: sleep, the importance of sleep, and how to get needed sleep. Considering that it was created by Harvard Medical School’s Division of Sleep Medicine in collaboration with the WGBH Educational Foundation, this website is mainly meant for scholars. This is because the creators primarily cater for the informational needs of academics. Since the website does not require visitors to input login data, the general public could as well use its content. On the homepage, the website clearly outlines the three main sleep aspects that it discuses. Underneath these macro issues are underlying smaller matters. Upon clicking, the hyperlinked items readily open and reveal detailed information. Such organization makes the website easy to navigate. Background items and graphics do not distract users; these entities in fact enrich visitors’ experiences. Since the items are relevant to the theme of the website, they psychologically prepare visitors for the experiences ahead. The website does not feature obvious grammar or spelling errors. It does not also have advertisement content from third parties. Content for this website is created by a team of professionals under the supervision of physicians and researchers at the Division of Sleep Medicine. For this administrative work, the Division has set up an Editorial Board that comprises eight members who are all physicians. The website enumerates the Board members and their respective physical contact addresses. Since these credentials and contact information is provided by a third-party (the Division), the Board members are whom they claim to be. The site is jointly sponsored by the WGBH Educational Foundation and the Harvard Division of Sleep Medicine. The writers are straightforward about their motives; they clearly explain that their mandate is to educate visitors about sleep, its benefits and ways of acquiring needed sleep. These authors cite sources and recognize persons from whom information for the website has been obtained. The site lists professionals who have been interviewed while collecting information. Given that it seems to have been gathered after 2008, the provided information is rather current. Nevertheless, the website does not seem to have a regular update scheme in place, meaning that outdated data may not be rectified in time. The content does not suggest bias on the part of the writers. This is because the authors appear to simply relay information from interviewees and sources without altering it. Nevertheless, the sponsors’ bias is apparent; a particular section of the website’s title illustrates this partiality. The “Understanding the Third of Our Lives [Sleep] We so Often Take for Granted” phrase within the title r.

1. Name: Meshal Alduaig
Healthy Sleep Website Evaluation
The name of the selected website is Healthy Sleep:
Understanding the Third of Our Lives We So Often Take for
Granted. Its URL is http://healthysleep.med.harvard.edu/. This
website seeks to educate visitors about: sleep, the importance of
sleep, and how to get needed sleep.
Considering that it was created by Harvard Medical School’s
Division of Sleep Medicine in collaboration with the WGBH
Educational Foundation, this website is mainly meant for
scholars. This is because the creators primarily cater for the
informational needs of academics. Since the website does not
require visitors to input login data, the general public could as
well use its content.
On the homepage, the website clearly outlines the three main
sleep aspects that it discuses. Underneath these macro issues are
underlying smaller matters. Upon clicking, the hyperlinked
items readily open and reveal detailed information. Such
organization makes the website easy to navigate. Background
items and graphics do not distract users; these entities in fact
enrich visitors’ experiences. Since the items are relevant to the
theme of the website, they psychologically prepare visitors for
the experiences ahead. The website does not feature obvious
grammar or spelling errors. It does not also have advertisement
content from third parties.
Content for this website is created by a team of professionals
under the supervision of physicians and researchers at the
Division of Sleep Medicine. For this administrative work, the
Division has set up an Editorial Board that comprises eight
members who are all physicians. The website enumerates the
Board members and their respective physical contact addresses.
Since these credentials and contact information is provided by a

2. third-party (the Division), the Board members are whom they
claim to be. The site is jointly sponsored by the WGBH
Educational Foundation and the Harvard Division of Sleep
Medicine.
The writers are straightforward about their motives; they clearly
explain that their mandate is to educate visitors about sleep, its
benefits and ways of acquiring needed sleep. These authors cite
sources and recognize persons from whom information for the
website has been obtained. The site lists professionals who
have been interviewed while collecting information. Given that
it seems to have been gathered after 2008, the provided
information is rather current. Nevertheless, the website does not
seem to have a regular update scheme in place, meaning that
outdated data may not be rectified in time.
The content does not suggest bias on the part of the writers.
This is because the authors appear to simply relay information
from interviewees and sources without altering it. Nevertheless,
the sponsors’ bias is apparent; a particular section of the
website’s title illustrates this partiality. The “Understanding the
Third of Our Lives [Sleep] We so Often Take for Granted”
phrase within the title represents this bias. Based on these
words, the sponsors would seek to convince visitors that sleep is
extremely essential. This bias is however implicit since readers
would not see the possible benefits that could accrue to the
sponsors if the supplied information is accepted. Considering
that visitors would not suffer harm if readers take in the
provided information, this bias is not likely to affect the utility
of the offered data.
Works Cited
The Division of Sleep Medicine at Harvard Medical School.
“Healthy Sleep: Understanding the Third of Our Lives We so
Often Take for Granted.” The Division of Sleep Medicine at
Harvard Medical School, n.d. Web. 22 Oct. 2014

3. PMAP 3311: CRITICAL POLICY ISSUES
Fall 2014
Prof. Reynold V. Galope
Department of Public Management and Policy
Andrew Young School of Policy Studies
Georgia State University
Policy Memo Reminders
December 1, 2014
1. REMINDER FOR THE
POLICY MEMO
Submission
Date: December 8 (Monday)
Hard copy – follow recommended outline and
minimum and maximum number of pages (use 11
or 12 font size)
− I will also require a comparative
matrix
1. REMINDER FOR THE
POLICY MEMO
Outline

4. To: [Enter name, position, and organization of the recipient]
Thru: [Enter name and position of endorsing authority]
(optional)
From: [Enter your name and organization here]
Re: [Type in what the policy paper is about]
Date:[Type in complete date here]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Executive Summary
1. Policy Problem
2. Framework of Analysis/ Evaluation Criteria
3. Evaluation of Policy Options
4. Policy Recommendation
References/Citations
Appendices
1. REMINDER FOR THE
POLICY MEMO
Executive Summary
one single-spaced page
represents the whole paper by providing a synopsis
of all main parts and findings of the paper
main function is to satisfy the needs of readers who:
1. will not read the entire paper, or
2. are interested only in the paper’s findings and
recommendations
1. REMINDER FOR THE
POLICY MEMO

5. Part 1: The Policy Issue/Problem
1-2 single-spaced pages
demonstrates that an urgent problem exists and your paper is
worth reading
identifies, defines, and elaborates on the problem that the
paper seeks to address
(1) background of the problem – history of the problem, its
causes, past policies and their outcomes
(2) current state of the problem – current extent and impact of
the problem, who is (adversely) affected, current policy and
its successes and failures
1. REMINDER FOR THE
POLICY MEMO
Part 2: Framework of Analysis/ Evaluation
Criteria
1-2 single-spaced pages (1 page preferred)
established prior to the identification and discussion of policy
alternatives
a statement of the ideals and values (e.g. efficiency, equity) that
will guide the evaluation of policy alternatives
commonly used evaluation criteria:
− effectiveness, efficiency, social equity, individual liberty and
economic freedom
− legal feasibility, political and social acceptability,

6. administrative operability
1. REMINDER FOR THE
POLICY MEMO
Part 3: Evaluation of Policy Options
2-3 single-spaced pages (maximum of 4 pages)
main part of the paper
first, identify policy options to address the problem
elaborated in part [1]
1. include status quo (or current policy)
2. at least two serious policy alternatives to the
status quo
describe each policy option
1. REMINDER FOR THE
POLICY MEMO
Part 3: Evaluation of Policy Options Continued
second, present an argument for and against each
policy option based on the framework of analysis
established in part [2]
show how each policy option compares to other
alternatives (e.g. policy option 1 is more effective
than policy option 2 but may be more costly to
implement) -- use a comparative matrix to
summarize your analysis
confront the trade-offs

7. 1. REMINDER FOR THE
POLICY MEMO
Part 3: Evaluation of Policy Options Continued
CRITERIA Option 1
(Land Sharing)
Option 2
(Construction of On-site
Collective Houses)
Option 3
(In-situ Upgrading excluding
relay -outing, housing dev’t)
Fiscal Feasibility High
(Cost: $ 50 million)
Moderate
(Cost: $ 70 million)
High
(Cost: $ 40 million)
Avenue for Greater Community
Participation
High (if resistance is
managed)
Moderate (if unmanaged)

8. High High
Ability to Minimize Dislocation High Moderate High
Land Use Efficiency Moderate High Low
1. REMINDER FOR THE
POLICY MEMO
Part 3: Evaluation of Policy Options Continued
absence of a dominant policy alternative
OPTIONS Efficiency Equity Political
Acceptability
Administrative
Operability
NB: P50 B
(Low)
NB: P200B
(High)
POLICY GOALS/CRITERIA
Policy Option 1 High High Low
Policy Option 2 Low Low High
1. REMINDER FOR THE
POLICY MEMO

9. Part 3: Evaluation of Policy Options Continued
absence of a dominant policy alternative
remedies:
1. Define a “higher-level” objective or criteria
2. Get the client/superior to rank objectives/criteria. Then
determine which alternative/s satisfy the top objective.
3. Don’t optimize but “SATISFICE” – select a solution that
may not be the best, but one that is good enough and can be
agreed upon.
1. REMINDER FOR THE
POLICY MEMO
Part 4: Policy Recommendation
one single-spaced page
state your preferred policy option
succinctly and clearly lay out the argument for why that
option is better than each of the others
a “call to action”
if possible, also provide practical steps to implement your
preferred policy (e.g. do you need a communications plan,
secure
additional budget, restructure units within the agency, partner
with other agencies and organizations)
1. REMINDER FOR THE

10. POLICY MEMO
Citations/References
at least 3 good citations for your problem
analysis
at least 1 good citation for each policy
alternative (solution analysis)
1. REMINDER FOR THE
POLICY MEMO
Executive Summary (1 single-spaced page)
1. Policy Problem (1-2 pages)
2. Framework of Analysis/ Evaluation Criteria (1-2
pages) 1 page preferred
3. Evaluation of Policy Options (2-3 pages) maximum of
4 pages
4. Policy Recommendation (1 page)
References/Citations
Appendices (comparative matrix, other relevant tables and
figures)
Important: Text (excluding references and appendices)
beyond 10 single-spaced pages will not be read
1. REMINDER FOR THE
POLICY MEMO

11. Grading Criteria
1. Is the policy problem clearly and convincingly defined?
Does your
problem description convince the reader that an urgent problem
exist?
15%
2. Is the basis on which the policy options (that can potentially
address the
problem) will be evaluated clearly defined and explained? Are
these the
appropriate evaluation criteria?
10%
3. Are serious policy options identified and evaluated? Is the
evaluation of
each of these options convincing and logically argued?
50%
4. Do you demonstrate that your chosen policy alternative
represents the best
solution to the problem? Do you outline a course of action to
facilitate
policy adoption and implementation?
25%
TOTAL 100%
2. OTHER REMINDERS

12. I’m cancelling class on Wednesday (Dec 3)
− use the extra time wisely
− use it to revise/finalize/strengthen your policy
memo and/or meet/correspond with the CTW
consultant
feedback on Lyle (CTW consultant)
− how many students have consulted Lyle?
− experience working with him?
− do you recommend hiring 2 CTW consultants
(instead of 1) for next spring
2. OTHER REMINDERS
Course synthesis and final exam review on
December 8 (Monday)
Students who are missing issue papers (or
submitted out-of-topic papers)
− are encouraged to submit for partial credit
− each issue paper (position paper) is worth
6.25% (6.25% * 4 papers = 25%)
GLOBAL HEALTH POLICY: EMERGING INFECTIOUS
DISEASES
David Gijon
PMAP 3311

13. Georgia State University
TO: THE GLOBAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT
THROUGH: THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT
FROM: DAVID GIJON
RE: GLOBAL HEALTH POLICY – EMERGING INFECTIOUS
DISEASES
SYNOPSIS
Health is a very important factor in any economy and therefore
a central issue in all social policies. Emerging infectious
disease is one that is newly discovered to occur in human
beings, newly occurring in a different population than the first
time, newly affecting more people(mostly fatal) or a disease
that has developed new strains that are resistant to drugs.
Examples include, Ebola Virus, Malaria, HIV/AIDS and
Influenza etc. All these have been a pandemic at one point in
history; it is even shocking to learn some of them are emerging’
and still killing many more people. It was therefore important
for the US government to come up with a policy to deal with
these pandemics. Although the ‘hot spots’ for these diseases
are Sub Sahara Africa and Asia, Americans continue to be
affected directly and indirectly. It is the reason why the
government, multilateral institutions and organizations decided
to address this issue in the Global Health Policy. The most
recent touch up on this policy was on May5, 2009 when
President Obama announced the Global Health Initiative. This is
a six year $63 billion initiative that will provide a
comprehensive health strategy to dealing with Emerging
infectious diseases and other health care targets. The key focus
on this policy is the shift from focus on processes to more focus
on outcomes in which case the United States will only invest
where outcome will be achieved.
However, most recently the Ebola virus emerged in West Africa

14. and statistics say the number of fatalities continues to double
every 24 hours. Thousands of children are still dying in Africa
from Malaria infections, the HIV/AIDS prevalence rate is still
very high and statistics show that every second that passes
someone is infected with tuberculosis. Why are Americans and
the whole world still living in fear of these very infectious
diseases? Technology levels have advanced, the world has
basically changed yet these diseases that killed people in the
70s are still taking livelihoods to date. The world needs to know
why there has not been any development in dealing with these
diseases in this time and age.
The developing countries are most affected. Their health
infrastructure is poor, the population growth is high, poverty
levels are still getting high and their standards of living are not
improving. What can be done to stop these pandemics in these
already frail nations? Is this a problem for the American
government seeing as most of the outbreaks are taking place in
Africa and Asia? Yes, with globalization effecting easy travel
across borders these infections can easily spread and enter the
United States of America.
There is urgent need to encourage micro management of
emerging infectious disease pandemics. Each and every country
should take up the responsibility of protecting the whole world
from the infection and spread of these diseases. Adequate
training of personnel on response, planning and execution;
setting up lab facilities for screening, researching for vaccines
and drugs development; setting up Disease Intelligence systems
for surveillance and to train the public on behavior change, how
to prevent and effectively manage the spreading of these
diseases.
Policy makers and scholars have gone back to research and are
trying to come up with effective ways to deal with these
pandemics. The Global Health policy is not sufficient and there
is urgent need to either improve it or completely change it. In
my opinion, there is need to incorporate a reality touch to the

15. existing policy. The policy talks about improving existing
systems, however, this horizontal expansion at the expense of
vertical management of this issue will not help the problem. For
instance, instead of carrying out a random campaign to
vaccinate against diseases e.g. polio, first focus on treating the
existing disease that the people are ailing from that includes
malnutrition.
The United State government takes the health of its citizens
very seriously hence the need to protect their citizens living
abroad with a global health policy.
Despite the world’s wealth of information, technology and
resources; Emerging Infectious diseases continue to conquer
and kill millions of people globally. Since 1980, new Emerging
Infectious diseases are discovered whilst the old ones are
reemerging. This is a problem because in this age and time, with
all the available technology and resources, Americans should
not lose their livelihoods to diseases that can be prevented or
avoided. Emerging Infectious Diseases are slowly turning out to
be global killers. The biggest problem is they are unforeseen
attacking previously very healthy people in a very short period
of time. They attack and kill so fast that by the time they are
reported as an epidemic so many lives are already lost.
Examples include the avian strain of influenza that attacked
Hong Kong in 1997; the most recent case is the Ebola virus that
is currently spreading in West African countries killing
hundreds; it is reported that every second someone in the world
is infected with Tuberculosis Bacilli; Malaria is still a killer
disease with 85% of its victims being children; HIV/AIDS is
still a killer disease with millions of people dying annually.
More shocking is how these diseases are evolving into strains
that are resistant to drugs, for example there is a strain of
Tuberculosis that is multi-resistant to drugs. There is also a
case where two of these infectious diseases attack a community
simultaneously. For example in the 70s Tuberculosis attacked a
US city and there were people whose immune system had been

16. lowered by the HIV/AIDS infection and a case where influenza
patients are easily susceptible to the pneumonia bacteria and
although this bacteria is easily treated by antibiotics when
another flu epidemic hits, it might just evolve into a multi-
resistant bacteria and we will have pneumonia as another killer
disease.
The outbreak of one infectious disease in any part of the world
should send the whole world into a cautious state because for
example the multi-resistant tuberculosis microbes can very
easily move from one country to another within hours. Others
like HIV/AIDS, once it starts in a small town the chances of it
spreading to the whole world are very quick. Currently the
Ebola virus outbreak in West Africa has the whole world
alarmed.
These Emergence Infectious Diseases can be said to have
emerged from various factors; increased contact between people
and animals, trade and travel due to interglobal connections,
high world population growth and poor health facilities,
services and infrastructure. There are some countries/ regions
that have all these factors combined and are therefore the most
adversely affected by these diseases. Although EIDs are found
mostly in Asia and Africa, the fact that they are infectious
means that everyone is at risk, including America. Most of this
EIDS are as a result of poverty, and inequality. The IMF and
World Bank’s structural Adjustment Programs in the 80s and
the pharmaceutical companies keen on making profits, are some
of the reasons developing countries can not access quality
healthcare; hence the quick spread of these diseases as well as
their reemergence. The pharmaceutical companies that tried to
provide generic medicines that were cheaper were faced with
law suits and even threatened sanctions. Most people access
health services through paying cash, insurance companies are
too expensive for them, when they walk in and find expensive
health care they go back home. They are nursed by relatives and
caregivers who due to lack of knowledge do not know how to

17. avoid infection and by the time this first patient passes on, the
care giver is in a critical condition to and the cycle continues.
Infections from contact with animals have been attributed to
lack of knowledge and ignorance. Globalization has enabled
exchange of information, resources and people across borders.
This has helped improve trade, networking and exchange of
cultures; it has however exposed regions to infections. The
emergency infectious diseases are spread mostly through
contact of body fluids with an infected person who puts
everyone at high risk.
Table showing Emerging Infectious diseases since 1975 to July
2014
EMERGING DISEASE
YEAR IDENTIFIED
GLOBAL IMPACT
CASES REPORTED
NO. OF DEATHS
Human Immunodeficiency Virus/ Acquired Immune Deficiency
Syndrome
1981
77 million
40 million
H5N1 Influenza (bird flu)
1997
667
393
H7N9 Influenza (bird flu)
2013
460
168
H1N1 (2009) Influenza ( swine flu)
2009

18. 284,500
Ebola Virus Disease
1976
3800
2350
Malaria
243 million annually
863,000 annually
The global health policy shifted its focus from disease specific
approach to a population based approach. This is highlighted in
the Global Health Initiative launched by the President that
proposed six year $63 billion fund that will help to develop a
comprehensive U.S global health strategy with most of the EIDS
in focus as well as other health issues. The main strategy of this
policy is to strengthen existing health systems. The six
parameters that will be used to evaluate this strategy dubbed
from WHO include service delivery, health workforce,
information, medical products, vaccines & technologies,
financing and leadership & governances. However, this policy
deals with the horizontal approach to the problem at the expense
of the vertical approach.
There is immense pressure on the US to come up with measures
to control these infectious diseases immediately they occur.
When the Ebola virus first struck in Zaire it took months before
it was discovered after so many health workers and patients had
lost their lives and the hospitals had become contagious regions
killing scores of clueless citizens. When HIV/AIDS emerged, it
took a while before surveillance was done and reported hence so
many people were already infected and continued to infect many
others. That is why health problems are still global killers, the
policy is does not fully address the issue of its implementation.
The response to an epidemic is still very poor, for instance,
Ebola being disease that was discovered in the 70s still has not
been able to be controlled through vaccines and treatments and
will not be anytime soon until next year (2015) January. This is

19. horrific considering the available technology and resources
livelihoods are going to continue being lost until 2015.Malaria
continues to kill many children who still cannot access proper
health services due to financial constraints and lack of
information. In summary, the reason why EIDs continue to be
global killers is because the policy has been presented but the
implementing process has failed.
Global healthcare is very important to the US government,
whether it is to promote health equity and achieve humanitarian
benefits or for their own ulterior interests; these interests
include protecting trade, preventing epidemics, preventing
bioterrorism or both. The US government has been seen to take
a few steps to help deal with these global killers. For example,
the Presidential Directive on emerging diseases that created
huge awareness on EIDs and their impacts on livelihood;
PEPFAR which was a also another presidential plan that set to
provide millions of needy HIV/AIDS patients with antiretroviral
treatment; following the SARS outbreak the US government
came out very strongly to support the revision of the existing
IHRs among so many others.
The biggest challenge in dealing with EIDs in most developing
countries (which are adversely affected) is the lack of basic
public health surveillance for timely detection and response
plans. Technological challenges, inadequate resources and lack
of capacity to develop and distribute diagnostics, drugs,
vaccines and other treatment and prevention tools and
information. Political inhibitions by corrupt government
officials, poor leadership has also led to problems in accessing
funds to deal with these emerging diseases. The HSS focuses
more on general needs than specific needs, in most developing
countries prone to these EIDs; they rely on donor funded help.
By providing for the general needs i.e. funding for specific
diseases or building hospitals the focus ends up on the general
needs yet there are people dying with very specific needs that
should be addressed first. It is therefore important to focus on
horizontal aspect but it is more helpful to these people if the

20. focus was vertical, specific and personalized.
The US should continue to engage in efforts to manage and
control EIDs so that it can protect its citizens both at home and
abroad. More effort, resources and technology should be
involved in a bid to reduce the threat of these global killers.
The global connection is growing and very soon, if not dealt
with thoroughly, the EIDs will sneak into the America.
Mechanisms to detect report and respond to EID threats need to
be enhanced and improved. This can be done through; constant
follow up on commitments laid in the Global Health Security
Agenda, improving the existing global health investments to
improve health systems, encouraging countries to fulfill their
IHR obligations and encouraging scientific and technical
cooperation between countries to ensure fast and effective
detection and response.
Alternatively, the whole world should come together to form a
global fund. It is imperative that the US incorporates the whole
world on this issue. The global fund created will be for ‘social
protection’ i.e. this fund will provide a safety net to finance all
health related cost. Each country contributes according to their
financial capacity and withdraws based on the needs. The most
affected by these diseases are developing and undeveloped
nations who basically do not have enough resources to handle
these pandemics. It was observed that in most cases the foreign
aid provided in during emergency outbreaks is barely enough to
handle the magnitude of the problem. It will therefore be easier
for a country to withdraw any amount of money they need based
on the magnitude of the problem. This will help reduce global
health inequalities because most of the contributed funds go
towards the poorest nations. Similarly as middle income
countries improve and grow their economies, the high income
countries could decrease their contributions.
Another alternative would be the US government involves more
organizations in fighting these pandemics. A holistic approach
to handling this problem by incorporating more organizations,
institutions and citizens should be applied. The success of a

21. program depends on the human resource available to the
program. In this case adequate resources should be put in place
to facilitate the training of personnel to work globally.
Epidemiologists and laboratorians needs to be trained to prepare
and respond to threats at any time regardless of where they are.
US should set up a central lab testing unit that will carry out
regular testing and experiments all year round and not just as
need arises. This lab should include a program to train foreign
students from all over the world on health approaches to
diagnosis and molecular epidemiology. A disease intelligent
service should also be set Up in ‘hot spots’ of these diseases to
ensure constant monitoring of the citizens and rapid response.
The US government and other countries as well should avail
their citizens with information on healthy interaction with
various animals seeing as many of these infectious diseases are
contracted from animals i.e. Mad Cow Disease, bird flu, Ebola
etc.
Considering the magnitude of the problem established from the
analysis, the suggestion to establish a global fund is very
viable. Adversely affected countries have very poor health
infrastructure and can benefit greatly from this approach.
However, the poor leadership and governance in these countries
raises the question of doubt on whether giving these same
governments the mandate to withdraw money from this account
will be effective in dealing with these issues. It is easier when
donors and foreigners take the initiative to implement these
programs themselves other than leaving the money to the
corrupt leaders.
By involving the whole world in effort to fight these diseases,
the US relieves itself of the pressure to carry out research,
analyze, and implement on their own which is not cost
effective. It is also important that the most affected countries
are involved in the exercise to increase awareness. It becomes
easier to micro manage the problem and hence it is easier to
detect and manage the diseases when they happen. The only
challenge with this would be lack of resources in some

22. countries to run the programs suggested. Some countries already
have a problem implementing basic education and providing
health facilities to all their citizens. Therefore suggesting that
they sponsor citizens to take up courses on Epidemiology and
set up laboratories might be a big problem for them.
The second policy is more effective and realistic than policy
two. Most countries in Africa are in debts, can barely sustain
their economy and others are very unstable hence do not have
any money left to contribute. However if these countries can get
donors to help them set up laboratories, provide trained
personnel and set up Disease Intelligence Surveillance then they
will be on track on handling and managing these diseases. What
the first policy does not say is in what ways will these countries
use this money? Do they have adequate technology and
personnel to help invest this money?
Policy two is costly but can once effected is the best. It states
that each country micro manages its own health policy on
Emergence Infectious Diseases. Every country sets up their
strategies and plans on how to research, detect, respond and
manage an infectious disease. It may borrow from the US
government HSS plan on the six parameters and use them to
build their own policy. However, some countries might need
donor support in setting up and maintaining these programs. The
first step in helping the people is by educating them on the
problems they are facing. Once they have the knowledge and
information then they will help in reducing the risks of these
infectious diseases. Given that we have already established that
these diseases mainly affect the poor, then it is important also
to equip them with resources to improve their livelihoods.
Provision of laboratories and hospitals will also help in
detection and rapid response.
I therefore call to action all the Health Agencies, donor
programs, Non Governmental Organizations to help the less
developed countries that also happen to be the hot spots of the

23. Emergence Infectious Diseases to set up training facilities,
laboratories, Intelligence services and public training on the
management of these diseases. Equip the society with
information, human resource and facilities to facilitate
detection, rapid response and management when these pandemic
strikes.
In partnership with the HSS, USAID and WHO we can carry out
research and draw a budget on what is required to set up this
resources and carry out the training. The communication plan
would basically be using the media to reach out to the people in
areas adversely affected to come out and help in the research on
what is required to manage this pandemics.; reach out to the
governments of countries and states to help implement this
policy by providing logistical support and reach out to the
professional in this field to attend these trainings and become
part of these global movement to fight Emerging Infectious
Diseases.