NURS 8310 Discussion: Investigating Pandemics and Epidemics Essay

NURS 8310 Discussion: Investigating Pandemics and Epidemics Essay

Discussion: Investigating Pandemics and Epidemics

The aftermath of bubonic plaque is still felt to date. The plague is mainly spread among humans by infected fleas that travel on rodents. The pandemic has been emerging and re-emerging in the recent past, but the rate at which it causes death is lower than the rate that the plague used to kill in the 14^th century (Dean et al., 2019). The disease killed millions of Europeans in the Middle age. Some countries that faced the original outbreak include Africa, South America, and North America.

ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

Bubonic plague starts with sudden high fever and chills with a series of headaches. The symptom may include blackened tissue from gangrene that involves the toes or the fingers. These are the main signs that would show that one is suffering from the plague. The disease can be transmitted from one person to another (Sichone et al., 2020). The high rate of death from the bubonic plague resulted from the spread of the disease among people. The disease was rampant in Europe and North America, where the disease was at its pinnacle. However, the traces of the disease were even high among people close to or raring rodents in North America. The plague takes between 2-8 days after infection. This implies that the affected people would transmit the diseases a week after contracting the disease.

A bite transmits the plague bacteria from an infected flea. During the bubonic plague epizootics, many rodents die, causing the angry fleas to seek other sources of blood in their niche. The people and animals that visit their habitat would fall victim and would be at a high risk of infection from the flea bites (Spyrou et al., 2018). Identifying this triangle resulted in the major measures of controlling the measures before the effective treatment measures were found about the infection.

The health care fraternity developed antibiotics that have been effective in treating plaque. In most cases, people diagnosed with the plague would be isolated from the normal population to limit the spread of the disease. Ineffective treatment of the disease might affect the lungs (Rasoanaivo et al., 2021). The diseases could have been mitigated by isolation and quarantinedof affected people in the 13^th and 14^th centuries. However, effective treatment using antibiotics has been effective in treating the disease in the recent past.

References

Dean, K. R., Krauer, F., & Schmid, B. V. (2019). Epidemiology of a bubonic plague outbreak in Glasgow, Scotland in 1900. Royal Society open science, 6(1), 181695. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.181695

Rasoanaivo, T. F., Bourner, J., Randriamparany, R. N., Gamana, T. M., Andrianaivoarimanana, V., Raherivelo, M. H., … & Randremanana, R. V. (2021). The impact of COVID-19 on clinical research for Neglected Tropical Diseases (NTDs): A case study of bubonic plague. PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases, 15(12), e0010064. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0010064

Sichone, J., Simuunza, M. C., Hang’ombe, B. M., & Kikonko, M. (2020). Estimating the basic reproduction number for the 2015 bubonic plague outbreak in Nyimba district of Eastern Zambia. PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases, 14(11), e0008811. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0008811

Spyrou, M. A., Tukhbatova, R. I., Wang, C. C., Valtueña, A. A., Lankapalli, A. K., Kondrashin, V. V., … & Krause, J. (2018). Analysis of 3800-year-old Yersinia pestis genomes suggests Bronze Age origin for bubonic plague. Nature Communications, 9(1), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-04550-9

BUY A CUSTOM- PAPER HERE

Discussion: Investigating Pandemics and Epidemics

Some of the most notable epidemics include the bubonic plague in the 14th century, smallpox in the 18th century, and influenza in the 20th century. Reportedly, the bubonic plague caused over 137 million deaths, whereas the death toll associated with influenza was 25 million (Ernst, 2001). These are dramatic examples of the kinds of acute outbreaks that led to the practice of epidemiology.

Many epidemiologists and health care professionals are concerned about the next potential pandemic or epidemic. With the increased mobility of society, the spread of infectious diseases continues to pose a serious threat. For this Discussion, you will investigate pandemics and epidemics using epidemiological tools, and you will consider strategies for mitigating disease outbreaks.

To prepare:

Using the Learning Resources, consider examples of emerging or reemerging infectious diseases that are occurring locally, nationally, or abroad. Then, select one example on which to focus.
Explore the epidemiological investigative process used to identify the emerging or reemerging infectious disease or outbreak.
Examine your selected infectious disease using the epidemiologic triangle and vector theory.
Consider how health care interventions may reduce the emergence or reemergence of infectious diseases.

By Day 3

Post a cohesive response that addresses the following:

Identify the emerging or reemerging infectious disease you selected.
Discuss the investigative process used to identify the outbreak, and describe its effect using descriptive epidemiology (person, place, and time).
Apply the epidemiologic triangle and vector theory to your selected outbreak.
Evaluate how prior health care interventions, or lack thereof, created the conditions that allowed this infectious disease to emerge.
Discuss how the disease outbreak might have been avoided or mitigated. Include agencies, organizations, and resources that could have supported these efforts. If appropriate, consider ongoing efforts to control the outbreak.

Read a selection of your colleagues’ responses.
By Day 6

Respond to at least two of your colleagues in one or more of the following ways:

Ask a probing question, substantiated with additional background information, evidence, or research.
Share an insight from having read your colleagues’ postings, synthesizing the information to provide new perspectives.
Offer and support an alternative perspective using readings from the classroom or from your own research in the Walden Library.
Validate an idea with your own experience and additional research.
Make a suggestion based on additional evidence drawn from readings or after synthesizing multiple postings.
Expand on your colleagues’ postings by providing additional insights or contrasting perspectives based on readings and evidence.

Note: For this Discussion, you are required to complete your initial post before you will be able to view and respond to your colleagues’ postings. Begin by clicking on the “Post to Discussion Question” link and then select “Create Thread” to complete your initial post. Remember, once you click on Submit, you cannot delete or edit your own posts, and you cannot post anonymously. Please check your post carefully before clicking on Submit!
Week 9: Emergence and Reemergence of Infectious Disease

As you have examined in this course, the scope of epidemiology has broadened over the years to include the global investigation of chronic, environmental, and genetic diseases and other health-related conditions. Yet, the practice of epidemiology has its roots in the study of infectious disease, global epidemics, and pandemics. Perhaps you recall the widely reported concerns about the H1N1 virus, SARS, or the reemergence of measles, tuberculosis, or whooping cough. The emergence and reemergence of infectious disease has long held the attention of epidemiologists, as well as the general public.

This week, you will explore the investigative process epidemiologists use to examine infectious diseases. You will also submit Assignment 4.
Learning Objectives
Students will:

Analyze the investigative process for disease outbreaks
Evaluate the application of health care interventions on emerging or reemerging infectious diseases
Formulate an evaluation plan for a population health intervention

Learning Resources

Required Readings

Friis, R. H., & Sellers, T. A. (2021). Epidemiology for public health practice (6th ed.). Jones & Bartlett.

Chapter 12, “Epidemiology of Infectious Diseases”

In this chapter, the authors examine the epidemiology of infectious diseases, one of the most familiar applications of epidemiology.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2011).CDC says “Take 3” actions to fight the flu. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/flu/protect/preventing.html

This page contains the CDC’s most up-to-date recommendations regarding the prevention of seasonal flu. In addition to this page, you may wish to explore the CDC’s Seasonal Influenza home page, http://www.cdc.gov/flu/

World Health Organization. (2012).Disease outbreak news. Retrieved from http://www.who.int/csr/don/en/

The World Health Organization (WHO) provides information on the most recent disease outbreaks around the world. Stay up to date by visiting this site.

HealthMap. (2007). Retrieved from http://www.healthmap.org/en

Explore this interactive map that lists disease outbreaks around the world.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2011). Morbidity and mortality weekly report: Summary of notifiable diseases. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/mmwr_nd/index.html

Review the most current report on infectious diseases as reported by health care providers to state or local authorities. According to the CDC, “A disease is designated as notifiable if timely information about individual cases is considered necessary for prevention and control of the disease.” This report highlights infectious diseases reported in 2009.

Required Media

Laureate Education (Producer). (2012). Epidemiology and population health: Infectious disease: Two case studies [Video file]. Baltimore, MD: Author.

 

Note: The approximate length of this media piece is 8 minutes.

 

In this week’s program, the presenters discuss HIV and AIDS.

Optional Resources

Ghosh, T. S., Patnaik, J. L., Alden, N. B., & Vogt, R. L. (2008). Internet-versus telephone-based local outbreak investigations. Emerging Infectious Diseases, 14(6), 975–977.

Seto, E. Y.W., Soller, J. A. & Colford, J. M. Jr. (2007). Strategies to reduce person-to-person transmission during widespread Escherichia coli O157:H7 outbreak. Emerging Infectious Diseases, 13(6), 860–866.

BUY A CUSTOM- PAPER HERE

Name: NURS_8310_ Week9_Discussion_Rubric

Grid View
List View

Excellent Good Fair Poor
RESPONSIVENESS TO DISCUSSION QUESTION

Discussion post minimum requirements:

*The original posting must be completed by Wednesday, Day 3, at 11:59pm MST. Two response postings to two different peer original posts, on two different days, are required by Saturday, Day 6, at 11:59pm MST. Faculty member inquiries require responses, which are not included in the minimum number of posts. Your Discussion Board postings should be written in standard edited English and follow APA style for format and grammar as closely as possible given the constraints of the online platform. Be sure to support the postings with specific citations from this week’s Learning Resources as well as resources available through the Walden University online databases. Refer to the Essential Guide to APA Style for Walden Students to ensure your in-text citations and reference list are correct.
Points Range: 8 (26.67%) – 8 (26.67%)
Discussion postings and responses exceed the requirements of the Discussion instructions. They: Respond to the question being asked or the prompt provided; – Go beyond what is required in some meaningful way (e.g., the post contributes a new dimension, unearths something unanticipated); -Are substantive, reflective, with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings and current credible evidence. – Demonstrate significant ability to generalize and extend thinking and evaluate theories or concepts within the topic or context of the discussion. -Demonstrate that the student has read, viewed, and considered the Learning -Resources as well as additional resources and has read, viewed, or considered a sampling of colleagues’ postings; -Exceed the minimum requirements for discussion posts*.

Points Range: 7 (23.33%) – 7 (23.33%)
Discussion postings and responses meet the requirements of the Discussion instructions. They: -Respond to the question being asked or the prompt provided; -Are substantive, reflective, with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings and current credible evidence.re -Demonstrate ability to generalize and extend thinking and evaluate theories or concepts within the topic or context of the discussion. -Demonstrate that the student has read, viewed, and considered the Learning Resources and has read, viewed, or considered a sampling of colleagues’ postings -Meet the minimum requirements for discussion posts*.

Points Range: 6 (20%) – 6 (20%)
Discussion postings and responses are minimally responsive to the requirements of the Discussion instructions. They: – do not clearly address the objectives of the discussion or the question or prompt; and/or -May (lack) lack in depth, reflection, analysis, or synthesis but rely more on anecdotal than scholarly evidence; and/or -Do not adequately demonstrate that the student has read, viewed, and considered the Learning -Resources and/or a sampling of colleagues’ postings; and/or has posted by the due date at least in part. – Lack ability to generalize and extend thinking and evaluate theories or concepts within the topic or context of the discussion. -Do not meet the minimum requirements for discussion posts*.

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 5 (16.67%)
Discussion postings and responses are unresponsive to the requirements of the Discussion instructions. They: – do not clearly address the objectives of the discussion or the question or prompt; and/or – Lack in substance, reflection, analysis, or synthesis but rely more on anecdotal than scholarly evidence. – Lack ability to generalize and extend thinking and evaluate theories or concepts within the topic or context of the discussion. -Do not demonstrate that the student has read, viewed, and considered the Learning Resources and/or a sampling of colleagues’ postings; and/or does not meet the minimum requirements for discussion posts*.
CONTENT KNOWLEDGE
Points Range: 8 (26.67%) – 8 (26.67%)
Discussion postings and responses: -demonstrate in-depth understanding and application of concepts and issues presented in the course (e.g., insightful interpretations including analysis, synthesis and/or evaluation of topic; – are well supported by pertinent research/evidence from a variety of and multiple peer- reviewed books and journals, where appropriate; -Demonstrate significant mastery and thoughtful/accurate application of content, applicable skills or strategies presented in the course.

Points Range: 7 (23.33%) – 7 (23.33%)
Discussion postings and responses: -demonstrate understanding and application of the concepts and issues presented in the course, presented with some understanding and application of concepts and issues presented in the course (e.g., insightful interpretations including analysis, synthesis and/or evaluation of topic; -are supported by research/evidence from peer-reviewed books and journals, where appropriate; and · demonstrate some mastery and application of content, applicable skills, or strategies presented in the course.

Points Range: 6 (20%) – 6 (20%)
Discussion postings and responses: – demonstrate minimal understanding of concepts and issues presented in the course, and, although generally accurate, display some omissions and/or errors; –lack support by research/evidence and/or the research/evidence is inappropriate or marginal in quality; and/or lack of analysis, synthesis or evaluation of topic – demonstrate minimal content, skills or strategies presented in the course. ——-Contain numerous errors when using the skills or strategies presented in the course

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 5 (16.67%)
Discussion postings and responses demonstrate: -A lack of understanding of the concepts and issues presented in the course; and/or are inaccurate, contain many omissions and/or errors; and/or are not supported by research/evidence; and/or lack of analysis, synthesis or evaluation of topic -Many critical errors when discussing content, applicable skills or strategies presented in the course.
CONTRIBUTION TO THE DISCUSSION
Points Range: 8 (26.67%) – 8 (26.67%)
Discussion postings and responses significantly contribute to the quality of the discussion/interaction and thinking and learning by: -providing Rich and relevant examples; discerning and thought-provoking ideas; and stimulating thoughts and probes; – -demonstrating original thinking, new perspectives, and extensive synthesis of ideas supported by the literature.

Points Range: 7 (23.33%) – 7 (23.33%)
Discussion postings and responses contribute to the quality of the discussion/interaction and thinking and learning by -providing relevant examples; thought-provoking ideas – Demonstrating synthesis of ideas supported by the literature

Points Range: 6 (20%) – 6 (20%)
Discussion postings and responses minimally contribute to the quality of discussion/interaction and thinking and learning by: – providing few and/or irrelevant examples; and/or – providing few if any thought- provoking ideas; and/or -. Information that is restated from the literature with no/little demonstration of critical thinking or synthesis of ideas.

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 5 (16.67%)
Discussion postings and responses do not contribute to the quality of interaction/discussion and thinking and learning as they do not: -Provide examples (or examples are irrelevant); and/or -Include interesting thoughts or ideas; and/or – Demonstrate of critical thinking or synthesis of ideas
QUALITY OF WRITING
Points Range: 6 (20%) – 6 (20%)
Discussion postings and responses exceed doctoral -level writing expectations. They: · Use grammar and syntax that is clear, concise, and appropriate to doctoral level writing; · Make few if any errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax; · Use original language and refrain from directly quoting original source materials; -provide correct APA · Are positive, courteous, and respectful when offering suggestions, constructive feedback, or opposing viewpoints.

Points Range: 5 (16.67%) – 5 (16.67%)
Discussion postings and responses meet doctoral -level writing expectations. They: ·Use grammar and syntax that is clear and appropriate to doctoral level writing; ; · Make a few errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax; · paraphrase but refrain from directly quoting original source materials; Provide correct APA format · Are courteous and respectful when offering suggestions, constructive feedback, or opposing viewpoints;.

Points Range: 4 (13.33%) – 4 (13.33%)
Discussion postings and responses are minimally below doctoral-level writing expectations. They: · Make more than occasional errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax; · Directly quote from original source materials and/or paraphrase rather than use original language; lack correct APA format; and/or · Are less than courteous and respectful when offering suggestions, feedback, or opposing viewpoints.

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 3 (10%)
Discussion postings and responses are well below doctoral -level writing expectations. They: · Use grammar and syntax that is that is unclear · Make many errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax; and –use incorrect APA format · Are discourteous and disrespectful when offering suggestions, feedback, or opposing viewpoints.
Total Points: 30
Name: NURS_8310_ Week9_Discussion_Rubric