Article Critique
Melissa. “Occupational Safety and Health Protections against Ebola Virus Disease.” American Journal of Industrial Medicine 1 April 2015. Web. 31 March 2016.
The problem that this article addresses is the potential for transmission of the Ebola virus in the workplace. The authors point out that, when the virus briefly came to the United States, the public health system responded on the basis of assumptions formed during prior outbreaks, specifically the conclusion that transmission could only happen if one came into direct contact with patients who were already infected. However, the most recent Ebola outbreak did not require the same level of contact for transmission. Given the dangers involved, and given the requirements put in place by the International Labor Conventions for employers to have comprehensive safety programs, this is a valid problem that is worth exploring in an article of this scale, as this is a problem that affects anyone who has a job in a facility where one comes into contact with other people, particularly in manufacturing and industrial environments.
The justification for the article is the apparent difference between the assumptions about the virulence and contagion associated with the Ebola virus on the basis of prior exposure to it in the United States and the virulence and contagion associated with the most recent outbreak. The fact that the prior assumptions had not taken into account all of the possible modes of transmitting the Ebola virus made this article necessary, as it points out some of the different modes of transmission so that public policy planners, employers and employee groups can become aware of the full potential associated with this disease. Given the swiftness with which it spreads and can kill, even in countries where vaccines are in plentiful supply and general hygiene is the cleanest in the world, it is definitely worth taking a look at the most recent research in this area to find out what the best practices are and the best way to implement those practices in the workplace.
This paper is more of a qualitative paper than a quantitative paper. As such, there are no tables to present statistical findings. Instead, it contains more of a qualitative presentation of the best practices in managing exposure to the Ebola virus in the workplace. There are several subheadings in the paper that go through the recommended best practices: The Organization of Work / Work Practices, Principles of Personal Protective Equipment Use, Requirements for Respiratory Protection, and Hazard Pay, Isolation of Workers at Risk, Protection of Benefits, and Compensation. These sections give a clear and detailed view on the best ways to protect workers from Ebola virus in their employment setting on the basis of the most recent research in the field. Each section is necessary as it details a distinct part of the recommended protocols for keeping employees safe in the workplace. Given the fact that Ebola has apparently become more contagious in its mutations (or our earlier assumptions were simply wrong), the general conclusions that the authors make about the virus are justified.
In general, this is an effective and necessary article. Whether it is the nation’s drinking water, the nation’s sewage management, the nation’s implementation and enforcement of rules involving safety in new construction (particularly in dealing with natural resources) it is fairly clear that those costly elements of the plan – the ones that benefit public health and/or the environment but only detract from the bottom line of the companies involved. This is the area in which corners are cut and in which lives are either impaired or lost because companies wanted to save money and either bill false invoices to the public entity that contracted them to do the work in the first place or simply save money on their own budgets if they are handling the work and the financial planning themselves. The managers of these organizations make precautions to ensure that they are far from the area where exposure might take place, leaving their workers to bear the brunt of the risk in the workplace. This is an outrage because it takes what should in American society be a concern for the needs of all and turns it into yet another example of distinctions between the haves and the have-nots, between Capital and Labor. The article is concise and outlines its findings on the basis of solid research in the current practices with Ebola virus management (and infectious disease control) and the existing body of knowledge about how the Ebola virus spreads. As such, it is an article that contributes most helpfully to the body of knowledge that policy planners, occupational safety and health administrations, employers and employee groups need to know when they are setting the parameters for conditions in the workplace and planning public policies for the ways that public health organizations can operate when an outbreak hits. The hope is that no more Ebola virus outbreaks would take place in the United States, but we know that these hopes are hardly ever borne out.
