Our focus group goals were to learn about UConn’s students’ perspectives on the outbreak itself and what sources of information contributed to their knowledge and attitude towards the disease and the region affected. A constraint of our focus group was the fact that the outbreak took place while UConn students were in high school so it was not as familiar to them. Additionally, UConn students are among the educated population in the northeast which may not reflect the knowledge and views of the entire United States. 

There were some inconsistencies with how students believed the disease to be spread, the nature of the disease, and what causes the disease. The widespread information about the disease came mostly from the media or from our respondents’ classmates in school. There was a desensitization among half the group rather than a fear of Ebola in the group, because the majority believed the likelihood of the virus affecting them was very slim. This falls in line with many anthropologists’ research, including Dr. Paul Farmer, who has stated that developed countries like the United States have the “four S’s”: stuff, staff, space, and systems, to combat epidemics (Morris 542). West Africa in particular lacked these “four S’s”; they did not have the resources, the trained staff, the proper facilities to manage patients, and the structures in place to adequately contain the outbreak. A history of colonialism, government corruption, conflict, and economic experimentation are pointed out as the upstream determinants contributing to the lack of these elements.

 

The responses we received reflect an observation made in Sell et al.’s “Media Messages and Perception of Risk for Ebola Virus Infection, United States,” where news media perpetuated both risk-elevating and risk-minimizing messages (53% of coverage included both types), with a higher frequency of risk-elevating messages present in the media. This contributed largely to the social amplification of risk of the disease. Additionally, the findings were in line with the scientifically inaccurate responses we received from our focus group; only 32% of news media they surveyed had information on how the disease was spread (Sell 109), which indicates that the inaccuracies are due to the correct knowledge not being conveyed to the public. This is significant because this can mitigate unnecessary fear, prejudices, and the potential spread of disease in the case of Ebola, as well as other outbreaks. 

 

Along the lines of prejudicial thought, such as when one of our respondents caste a rather unsavory light on the traditional practices of West Africans as being “unsanitary”, we found that the media often twisted the element of culture in regards to the spread of Ebola, such as the consumption of bushmeat or the resistance and riot against quarantine and treatment due to belief in “sorcery” (Moris 542). Anthropologists state, however, that resistance is more so due to fear of aid workers given a history of inequality and abuse from foreigners that have come into their region. Given this misinformation circulating through the media, Americans are further given the wrong impression of factors that exacerbate disease.

​

Overall, it was clear that any knowledge that was gained through media and peer interaction were generally the first and last sources that the respondents, and by extension, the average UConn student, would be in contact with. Based on the reports from our respondents, they did not pursue their own investigation into the outbreak or the disease, and we can assume that the average American would do the same as well, making the in depth, first-line communication of health issues and disparities all the more important. If populations are more educated on the actual risks on a disease rather than hyperbolic or incomplete information, the containment of outbreaks and reduction of health disparities can be accomplished.