Get help from the best in academic writing.

This assignment is from a housing project in Sydney. Your task is to develop a schedule model for this

This assignment is from a housing project in Sydney. Your task is to develop a schedule model for this project in MS Project

Requirements
• Project will start on Monday 3rd October 2022.
• Observe all public holidays as per official holidays in NSW during the project.
• Daily hours for construction workers are from 7AM to 11AM and 11:30AM to 3PM.
• Onsite work is for 6 days in a week, Sunday is a holiday.
• Last Saturday of every month is a day off (non-working time).
• Highlight critical path in a shade of red.
• Tasks should have WBS outline numbers.
• The project should use summary tasks to enable detail to be collapsed or expanded.
• Each phase must have a completion milestone.
• In the Gantt view, summary tasks and milestones must show Name to the left and Duration to the right.
• In the Gantt view, task bars (critical

ENGL 101 Portfolio I Assignment As stated in the course syllabus, the

ENGL 101 Portfolio I Assignment

As stated in the course syllabus, the purpose of this collection of papers to help you develop your college writing, critical thinking, and reading skills. Toward that end, this portfolio consists of two short papers and one peer review: a 250-300-word summary paper on an assigned article from The Norton Reader; and a 750-1000-word strong “blended” response paper on an assigned article from The Norton Reader. These two papers must be written on different articles. Also included is the peer review you perform for a classmate. You are encouraged to do more peer reviews if you wish. Please submit this portfolio as ONE SINGLE WORD FILE when you upload it onto D2L. In other words, cut and paste all your papers and peer review into a single word document, and save it as a word document file.

Paper #1: For the first assignment for this portfolio, please write a 250-300-word summary paper that summarizes one of the assigned articles from The Norton Reader by Solnit, Franklin, Rose, Eighner, Vargas, Douglass, Westover, Truth or Atwood. Your summary should be neutral, concise and direct, giving the original article “balanced and proportional coverage” (Ramage et al 97). You should use attributive tags and signal phrases to indicate that you’re summarizing someone else’s ideas. Also, please integrate a quotation and cite it using an in-text citation (and a paraphrase, if you wish), but quotations should comprise not more than 15% of your paper. Please cite and document quotations using MLA citation guidelines. You do not need to include a Works Cited page unless you prefer to do so.

Paper #2: For the third assignment for this portfolio, please write a 750-1000-word strong “blended” response paper on an assigned article from The Norton Reader by Solnit, Franklin, Rose, Eighner, Vargas, Douglass, Westover, Truth or Atwood. (Please select a different article than the one you choose for Paper #1.) Your paper should combine or “blend” the three types of response writing: rhetorical critique, ideas critique and reflection. You do not have to engage each of these types equally, so the majority of your paper could consist of only one of these types. However, each must still be included. You may mix “reading with and against the grain” in any proportion that you prefer, though it’s advisable to conduct both reading strategies. The paper should follow an outline similar to the one suggested on page 109 in Allyn & Bacon, and it must include a short paragraph-length summary of the original article. As in Paper #1, please integrate a quotation from the essay and cite it using an in-text citation (and a paraphrase, if you wish), but quotations should comprise not more than 15% of your paper. Please cite and document quotations using MLA citation guidelines. You do not need to include a Works Cited page unless you prefer to do so.

Paper Assignment Guidelines: Paper assignments for this class ask you to write formal papers, or what is called “closed-form prose” (Ramage et al 39), which may be defined as writing with a “hierarchical structure of points and details in support of an explicit thesis” (39). As the grading criteria for this class suggests, your formal papers include a knowledge-making question and an explicit thesis statement (with the exception of the summary paper) and, generally, are characterized by focus & organization, unified and coherent paragraphs, topic sentences, and transitions between sentences and paragraphs. The overall structure of your papers includes an introduction, body paragraphs and a conclusion. (The shorter 250-300-word summary paper may be written as one or two paragraphs, but it should still be structured with introductory, body and concluding sentences. Of course, the summary paper does not include your own knowledge-making question or thesis.) Your papers are highly organized to produce a logical and focused development and progression of your ideas.

These papers also may include elements of surprise and tension, other modes of writing, such as storytelling, and creative use of voice and style, but the overall expectation is that your papers follow a formal structure. (See Grading Criteria: Content; Focus & Organization; Accuracy & Understanding; Style & Voice; Grammar, Mechanics, Format)

Follow the Steps of Writing-as-a Process: To produce all your papers you will want to discover a process that works for you. Before you begin to write, make sure that you have read and re-read the relevant sources and assigned essays. You should get in the habit of rhetorical reading, including college reading and outlining the readings. The suggested process of writing begins with brainstorming on a knowledge-making question (using a suggested heuristic, such as freewriting), then constructing a tentative outline and thesis, followed by drafting, then revision and finally polishing the paper.

Format and Turn-In Requirements: To turn in your portfolio on the due date, please upload it onto the D2L folder on the D2L webpage by 11:59pm on 9/20/22. The final version of your portfolio must turned in as ONE SINGLE WORD FILE, double-spaced and written in 12-point Times New Roman font with standard 1 inch margins. Both papers should have titles. Your name and date must appear on the top left or right side of each paper. Please separate the papers with a page break. You should use MLA citation guidelines.

Grading & Grading Criteria: Your portfolio is graded holistically, which means you receive ONE grade for the assignment. A holistic grade allows me to evaluate your growth as a thinker and writer in the development of specific skills and knowledge over two or three papers assigned for each portfolio. All your papers should meet the criteria of a formal paper, which are explained on the grading criteria and in the course syllabus. They are as follows: (1) Content; (2) Focus and Organization; (3) Accuracy and Understanding; (4) Voice and Style. (5) Grammar, Mechanics & Format.

AM Med week 6 instructions This week, with our reading of Michael

This assignment is from a housing project in Sydney. Your task is to develop a schedule model for this Management Assignment Help AM Med week 6 instructions

This week, with our reading of Michael Willrich’s Pox: An American History, we continue our examination of medical history through the lens of specific diseases. Willrich, even more so than Imada, centers the intersections of medicine and law. Willrich, a legal, political, and social historian, examines smallpox at the turn-of-the-twentieth century to explore state power, medical authority, and tensions between civil liberties and public health. Here again, we will see how race, class, and nationality shaped the balance various groups sought between protections of individual liberties and against threats of contagion.

 

What does Willrich’s focus on the smallpox epidemics of turn-of-the-century United States illuminate? In what ways does this particular history give us broader insight into the history of medicine? The United States? What might we miss by focusing on a particular disease? What does his emphasis on the legal, social, and political context add?

Let us return to questions of bodies, access, and authority. Questions about access to bodies and how authority might be asserted over them have been woven through many of our readings and will continue to appear throughout the class. In what ways does this particular history stand out? In what ways does it echo other histories we have examined?

Willrich writes, “On the broadest level, though, the vaccination question revealed a sharp uneasiness toward the authority of medicine and the power of the state at the height of the Progressive Era, a period of time when both institutions were reaching more ambitiously than ever before into American life” (13). How does this response square with what you know about the period? What about with what you have been reading in this class?

Willrich notes that “medical science reinforced the common reflex of human communities everywhere to blame sudden misfortune on their most marginal inhabitants, outsiders and ‘others’” (6). How did this play out in the context of smallpox? What factors shaped this response? How does this history connect with the ongoing theme of medicine blending with existing social structures and ideas?

Antivaccination sentiment took many forms in this period. What were the various shapes? What factors shaped antivaccination sentiment and action?

Willrich asserts that the smallpox epidemics of turn-of-the-century America could be characterized as “a history of violence, social conflict, and political contention” (14)? What evidence does he use to support this claim? What is your assessment of this argument?

He asserts, “The age of AIDS did not invent the notion of ‘Patient Zero.’ Epidemics are dramatic events of cultural as well as scientific meaning, and the hunt for an outbreak’s first case has ever served needs and purposes other than those of medicine” (18). What are those needs and purposes? What cultural meaning can we take from this particular historical moment?

Willrich discusses numerous moments of “conflict between ‘the public health’ as a political ideal and ‘the public’ as a fractious social reality” (88). What was the character of this conflict? What factors shaped it?

AM med week 6 posts Post 1 N.D. Willrich points out in

AM med week 6 posts

Post 1 N.D.

Willrich points out in his book, Pox: An American History, the xenophobic and curtailed civil liberties stance taken by “medical authorities” in earlier America toward “marginalized” groups, including newly arived immigrants, and the socially vulnerable, e.g., the poor and particularly people of color, when it came to the spreading of “dangerous” diseases—smallpox, or as an added example that Willrich briefly touches upon, the outbreak of typhoid (the Irish and Typhoid Mary analogue of the “spreader.”) Obviously, this smacks of class/race bias at its perigee. The real impact of Willrich’s book, I believe, is his addressing this “unfair” medical arrangement, of how it is contextualized, by the immese power of the establishment, toward peripheral groups.  His commentary on local history within the book’s main themes, Kentucky, (Middlesboro) and Lincoln County (my home county), was especially engaging for me. His  “targeted” people of poor, the powerless and other fringe groups who lacked  substantive political power, highlights the social inequalities faced by people who were not only marginalized, but who had the misfortune of acquiring the virus of smallpox, for instance, and were at the mercy of the State’s paternalistic oversight. His book brilliantly delivers on this crucial point, and his explantion of how these indviduals had their role of “patient,” if not fully and “legally” suspended, then radically altered (violated)…something today that is, thank goodness, entirely constructed differently for people aware of their civil liberties and “dangerous” disease status.

     As is often seen, the State’s bureaucracy was more than suspect in how it dealt with a “medical emergency” within the confines of “minority comunnites.” I was ,very much so, struck by the government’s authoritative encroachment on not only “infected” but possibly infected individuals lives with the implementing of a cordon sanitaire.” Examples ranged from the “colony” of Puerto Rico, to the territory of the Philippines… to, of all places, the Eastern Kentucky mountains. Was the strategy more as a containment of the disease or was it more a subtle form of racial/class bias at play? Or was it a combination in some degree of both? My position is that is was a combination of both.

    Forced vaccination on Puerto Ricans through military coordination,through a military directive known as General Order No. 7, became a strategy for combatting the disease, at least outside of the confines of the Untied States. One of the Army’s doctors in charge of overseeing this “qusai-military” vaccination operation, a Major Ames, was given the government’s authority to begin forced vaccinations, and summed up the position toward ethnic Puerto Ricans, in general, when he refers to them as being “mostly ignorant” and “unused to sanitary conditions.” (145) Willrich remarks the same sentiment was also applied to the folk of Eastern Kentucky at the turn of the century. Even Middleboro, Kentucky was encolsed in a cordon sanitaire, as it remained within “an armed quaratine for weeks.” (69)

     Even the names themselves chosen to denote the dreaded smallpox infection complicates the separation of the disease from a purely medical context to a social one. As the public sentiment toward the ones who acquired the disease was often based in derogatory comments, reduced to a racial, ethnic, and even country of orgin epithet: such as “‘Cuban itch,’ Manila scab,’ ‘Nigger Itch,’ ‘Italian Itch,” [or] ‘Manila scab.'” (41) Smallpox (as well as eventually typhoid would become to be known) was viewed as a “filth disease–dangerous to all but spread chiefly by the lower orders…more common among the colred races” (26) and within the newly arrived immigrants communities.  Disease became quickly conflated, regrettably,with social status.

     Instead of positioning the virus within an epidemiological realm, something that comtemporary medicine does, and which is where smallpox should have been stationed concerning its’s causation, “marginalized groups” in earlier America became the go-to scapegoats to be ultimately abused, in one form or another, especially as it concerned their civil liberites. For example, the isolation of patients who had contracted the disease, and were from a lower SES grouping, were forcibly put within the infamous pesthouse. While more advantaged individuals, not suprisingly, were”allowed” to be housed during their illness within their family’s home.This point disturbes the conscience.

     The Progressive Era saw a remarkable change  in direction in the issue of the public’s health, as medical professionals began to take on a more pro-active, authoritarian role in overseeing individuals’ and society’s health as a whole, as the previous era of voluntary vaccination to forestall the spread of “dangerous” diseases, i.e., smallpox, was severly stunted, and madatory vaccination raced to the forefront to take its place. This “forced” health decisions to be made, with or without personal consent, obviously put the political dynamic into play, as  the “public health” ideal was thrust into tremedous conflict with the “public reality” of those who felt violated. This tension was seismic as “No public health measure inspired more ill will than compulsory vaccination.” (91) Resistance to this logic and authority of the “medical profession” was summed up as that the anti-vaxxers had difficulty understanding ther consequences of refusing to be vaccinated…that they were just too ignorant. As Willrich informs, this conflict between the pro-vaxxers and the anti-vaxxers produced violent, and even deadly confrontations. On the other side from the government, “Many antivaccination texts featured photographs of children–defomred, disabled, or lying dead in their coffins–identified by their captions as ‘Victims of Vaccination.'” (267) This “war” between the two groups would last…and is still present today.

Post 2 K.B.

I thoroughly enjoyed this week’s journey through history in relation to smallpox. Where most of our readings up to this point have focused on using the events of a very short time frame to prompt discussion of the way those events shaped the future, Michael Willrich’s Pox widens the lens significantly. The clear exception to this was Bellevue, which approached many events over a longer period, allowing readers to understand the full impact of the events as an ongoing narrative rather than a conclusion being reached by the author. Willrich takes a similar approach here, detailing the dichotomous relationship between social change and history, but rather than arguing the impact of smallpox on history he approaches his work in terms of how social climates and context influenced the response of society to smallpox.

In detailing the response to several outbreaks over a century, Willrich provides a glimpse into how changing values and attitudes can change our reactions to encounters with disease and the issues surrounding it. In analyzing patterns of blame and scapegoating, vaccine/anti-vaccine sentiment, and attitudes of trust or mistrust toward medical professionals we are provided with the necessary details to recognize how seemingly small pieces of information fit into the larger narrative.

Beginning with the concept of “patient zero” Willrich introduces the human desire to be able to explain and rationalize how and why bad things happen (18-20). He even mentions an Alabama health officer’s preoccupation with finding someone to blame, going to the extreme of tracing an outbreak’s roots as far back as Genesis 3:15 (18). This preoccupation with rationalizations circles back to a theme that we have encountered throughout our readings—that of placing blame on those determined to be “unclean” or somehow “inferior” in society. Willrich details how blame was shifted over time from black transient laborers (19) to “filthy” Cubans, Puerto Ricans, and Filipinos during the Spanish-American war (132-133), to other immigrants entering the United States (222-223) and back again. Regardless of which group is being targeted at different points in time, though, the rationalization remains the same and can be simplified to one thing: racism. While we’ve heard this narrative many times, it is still jarring to hear the crude descriptions of minority groups in reference to our conceptualization of disease and its’ spread. I was especially disappointed to see such specific examples coming from Kentucky in particular, which is why Willrich’s work is so important. I know the history of race relations in this country and state, but these uncomfortable reminders are necessary to maintain awareness of this history and recognize the errors in these past ways of thinking.

These anti-minority sentiments have resulted in long-term consequences that we are all familiar with, but I was also very interested in the short-term effects. Most specifically, the resulting mistrust of not only medical professionals but also government and virtually all social institutions on the part of minority groups. The stereotypical and prejudicial comments being made in public ways regarding African Americans (101) were especially noteworthy. Because the white power structure perpetuated these ideas, members of the black community were left with nowhere to turn for safety. Their schools and churches were targeted for quarantine, removing all the community’s resources and humanizing features. Combine that with the prevalence of negative vaccine side effects (which notably was one of the few things that crossed the “color line”) and institutionalized racism begins to become clearer from our position in the future of the historical narrative.

Post 3 V.S.

Pox examines the history of the medical community and the government’s response to smallpox outbreaks and how the public reacted to these responses. The idea of race is raised in this book where Willrich mentioned white people thought smallpox was a non white disease. Even though knowledge increased that white people did get infected, white people still constructed medicine and disease by implementing Jim Crow Era laws in hospitals and society. There were, in fact, times when Willrich discussed that white and black people worked together in one cause, which was anti-vaccination protests. Wilmington was a city in which the government imposed a vaccine mandate, where “In an impressive display of biracial local democracy, the committee appointed a jury-sized delegation of six white men and six black men.” (87) where they “presented the petition” (87) to government officials to dispute the vaccine mandate.

I noticed a similarity between last week’s reading and this reading where Willrich stated, “some rural whites covered their faces before allowing health board photographers to take their pictures.” because they felt “shame” “at being caught with this “loathesome negro disease.”” (97) Leprosy patients were forced to show their scars because they were a different race than white people, but the book from last week discussed how a white woman got to cover her scars and her body because she was white. This pattern of preserving white people as “pure” and “clean” appeared in the social construction of both smallpox and leprosy, and I am sure will continue in our future readings of the course. 

Dr. Jennings noted that Willrich argued that “the smallpox epidemics of turn-of-the-century America could be characterized as ““a history of violence, social conflict, and political contention”” (14) Willrich demonstrates this throughout his work by noting the government’s involvement within health measures such as quarantines and vaccination campaigns. Politics prompted the government to promote the vaccine mandates, especially in schools. Camden families at first embraced the vaccines, until multiple children were ill post vaccination. Willrich described the families responses stating that “Some parents also talked about litigation, considering whether to sue the vaccine company or seek a court order to open the schools to unvaccinated children.” (177) showing that responses to these mandates were met with legal action and social conflict. The government and the public additionally reacted to the smallpox epidemic with violence where government officials held citizens at gunpoint and the anti-vaccine protestors responded to these mandates with violence. In Italian neighborhoods in New York City, police “entered the tenements and rapped on doors, rousing men, women, and children.” (214) where they “inspected their faces for pocks and their arms for the mark of vaccination.” (214) While reading this, it seemed both violent and a violation of privacy for the police to do this, even if they were looking out for the public’s safety. It seems hypocritical to even say that they were looking out for the public’s safety, especially when an Italian man ran from these police officers since he didn’t speak English and understand what was happening. The Italian man obviously did not feel safe during these methods taken by authorities. Some people responded to government control over vaccines by protests, violence, legal action, and even forged their own vaccine scars (228). 

The Camden school crisis was super interesting to read about, especially when Milton Joseph Rosenau investigated the issue of vaccines where he found “the vaccine makers placed too much confidence in the germicidal powers of glycerin.” (195) where the rush for vaccines resulted in the vaccine manufacturers not giving “glycerin sufficient time to work, flooding the market with “green” virus.” (195) I thought this was a fascinating discovery by Milton Joseph Rosenau who wanted answers in order to make vaccines safe, prevent deaths or illnesses post vaccination, and to prevent any more anti-vaccine sentiment from evolving. Rosenau’s discovery, whether it successfully answered why the Camden children got tetanus or not, reveals how medical professionals listened to patients during the Progressive era to ensure protection of citizens, instead of ignoring their concerns. The crises also contributed to laws such as the Biologists Control Act that “established a system of licensing and inspection for all biologics sold in interstate commerce or imported from abroad.” (206) that helped physicians medical reputations within the public. 

 

Finally, I thought Willrich’s chapter on anti vaccinationists super interesting. A theme I noticed while reading this chapter was the rising tensions between physicians and homeopathic doctors. Willrich noted that, “the American Medical Association had strived to drive the irregulars (particularly the homeopaths) from the temple of medicine.” (258) I would have loved for Willrich to have gone into more detail about these tensions within the medical community as a family friend went to both homeopathic school and medical school to find a balanced way to interpret medicine. I find the various ways in which medical professionals determine how they will study medicine and disease fascinating, especially since historians gain different perspectives of each professional’s thought processes. 

Psot 4 R.E.

 One of the aspects of this week’s reading that I found interesting, and also extremely relevant to our current national discourse around vaccines, was, essentially, the birth of the antivaccination movement. However, there are also stark differences between the antivaccination sentiment of the turn of the 20th century and that of today, as well as similarities.

       While smallpox inoculation had been around for centuries, smallpox vaccine was relatively new during the nineteenth century. While there are many cases throughout the US and the wider world of widrspread inovulation, and later vaccination, it was not until the late nineteenth century that the idea of universal and compulsory vaccination rose to the forefront of public health. While the science supported the efficacy of vaccination, the procedure was not without its risks. In the beginning of the antivaccination sentiment that took hold in the late ninteenth and earlier twentieth centuries, this risk was at the heart of peoples reluctance to undergo the vaccine. As Willrich exemplifies in the relation of the horrors of children dieing from tetanus in Camden contracted through tainted smallpox vaccine. In other cases, the reluctance was attributed to a lack of understanding of the science behind vaccine, and a failure of the public health administrations to communicate that science to lay people to assuage their concerns. There was confusion among the population about how smallpox was spread, when a person was contagious, and the best ways to combat the disease. Add to that confusion the rise of a new mild form of the disease, and the situation becomes even more complex and difficult to explain.For those averse to the vaccine on thee grounds one can understand their fear and apprehension. However, it was quickly determined by puvlic health professionals that the easiest and most effective way to combat the disease was to require vaccination, especially for immigrants coming from foreign ports, and anyone who may have been exposed. From this determination, there eventually grew regulations that required compulsory vaccination for a wider segment of society, and this is where much of the other reasons for antivaccination sentiment grew.

        Once vaccinatin became compulsory for segments fo the population that did not exist strictly on the margins of society, ie. children, working class, middle class, etc. there came into the objections a question about civil rights, and ones right to refuse to undergo an invasive procedure. this was argued on many different grounds, from religious liberty, to due process. In each case the right of the state to compel vaccination in times of “present danger” was upheld, the mostfamous, and the one that largely establishes precedent, was that of Jacobson v. Massachussetts. While the Supreme Court ultimately ruled in the state’s favor, the case also succeeded in oitlining some limitations to state authority. For example, the highest court of Massachussetts expicitly stated that the public health administration did not have the authority to vaccinate by force against ones will, something that had been done for decades. In the Supreme Court opinion, while the opinion ultimately ruled against Jacobson and in favor of compulsory vaccination and the power of the state, “In fact, the opinion articulated new limitations on police power… Since 1897, the vaccination cases had nudged state courts toward a more cautious balancing of state power and individual rights appropriate to an era of rapid technological and institutional change.” (Willrich, 328) Harlan echoed the ” present danger” standard that had been established in earlier cases. The power of public health administration was contigent on the needs of the case at hand. If there is imminent danger of an epidemic or one is active, then it is within the powers of the community to compel vaccination, quarantine, etc. However, even in these circumstances, the court acknowledged that there could be cases where the state goes to far, and in those situation it would fall to the courts to intervene. 

        It is hard to read this narrative without making direct connections to recent events in our present century. Sadly, over one hundred years on, many of the same arguments are being made in regards to the power of the state to ensure public health. Equally sad, is that outside of the questions about bodily autonomy, and personal liberty, the same fears and misuderstandings about vaccines exist, except this time around the issue isn’t a lack of access to the science or information, but rather the prevalence of misinformation. I have to admit that I found it surprising how much the antivaccination movement hasn’t changed. So many of the arguments outlined in this narrative were all to familiar becasue they are the same arguments we encounter today. The main difference between the arguments from one hundred years ago and those of today, is that in the case of smallpox, the vaccine could be potentially dangerous, and at times was deadly, as the case in Camden clearly showed. While the vaccines that are used today do not carry the same inherent risks unless someone has an existing underlying condition, such as an allergy to the vaccine, an immune condition, etc. In the end, what the arguments largely boil down to, is what are the limits of individual liberty? At what point does the health and safety of the greater community outweigh the liberty of the individual? 

Post 5 B.L.

In his book, Pox: An American History, Michael Willrich analyzes the spread, treatment, and prevention of smallpox within the context of socially and politically constructed categories such as race, space, and war. Willrich demonstrates the detrimental outcomes of the “common reflex of human communities everywhere to blame sudden misfortune on their most marginal inhabitants, outsiders and others” (6) with an analysis of smallpox in both densely populated areas in the North as well as rural communities in the South. 

The most interesting section of Willrich’s research was his focus in chapters two and three on the spread of smallpox in Southern communities such as Middlesboro, Kentucky. Throughout these chapters, and the book as a whole, I kept thinking back to the readings from week one, specifically Engelhardt Jr’s assertion that disease is “structured by the values and expectations of the time” (246) and David S. Jones’ definition of “populations made vulnerable” (741). Both of these pieces are fundamental to understanding the role of smallpox in areas such as Middlesboro. As Willrich argues, “local governments were slow to respond until someone died or the disease crossed the color line” (41). The early racially-based perceptions of smallpox– and the overall lack of local government response– made way for outbreaks because it was not taken seriously and was viewed as a disease that did not hold direct danger for white southerners. In terms of the ways in which vulnerability is socially-constructed, Willrich points out that the “men of capital” who controlled coal in the area “did not lift a hand to aid the citizens of Middlesboro during their hour of need” (73) which is an interesting example of the long-history of those in power, both politically and financially, failing to protect citizens in Eastern Kentucky. Those in the South were also chastised by public health officials who “marveled at the practices of local institutions, recorded (or mocked) local dialects, and cataloged medical folkways. For these state experts, the unruly subjects of their inquiry were not just the (by their lights) primitive mountain folk but also their “ignorant” physicians” (107). 

Willrich writes,“as indifferent as smallpox was to such political and ephemeral boundaries, they did shape how Southerners and their governments experienced and battled the disease” (46-47). Although there was no clear racial difference in the severity of smallpox, the cultural norms surrounding race determined how those with smallpox were viewed. Because of the nature of infection of smallpox, along with the distrust many had in the government, racial power structures became a vocal point of the process of vaccinating for smallpox. Leading to public health and medical officials, such as McCormack, to use police and government force to “control the movement of African Americans” (72). 

When thinking of what Willrich’s analysis of smallpox illuminates about United States history more broadly, I was reminded of the importance of analyzing the social-constructions of medicine. Larger questions– such as who was viewed as carrying disease? Who is considered worthy of treatment?– speak to what can be discovered about social and cultural contexts when medicine and disease are the focal point of American history.