Itec bioterrorism

Week 8 1. These documents are directly responsible for describing the proper authorities and its best practices in order to properly respond to a large-scale bioterrorist attack. Biological weapons have existed since the 13th century dating back to 1347 when Mongol forces have reported plague-infested bodies over the walls into the Black Sea port of Caffa (Britannica, n.d.). Biochemical warfare is a sense of genocide that aims to eliminate essentially anyone in its path stating a renounced message. Biochemical weapons are indiscipline. Therefore, unlike a tow-missile or heat-seeking artillery ammunition most used in today’s armed forces. The victim lies in the path of the chemical. Precision capable weapons are used in the 20 centuries as means to defeat an overwhelming threat. The threat of unintentional utilization is a huge concern not only for developers but for non-allied parties. Basic scientific information is also within the reach of many researchers at biological laboratories around the world. Unfortunately, it thus seems likely that poisons and disease agents will be used as terrorist weapons in the future (Schneider, n.d.). Most biological weaponry research programs have been forces to cease development as a cause to support treaties between the United Nations and adjacent countries. Schneider, Barry. (n.d.). Biological Terrorism. Britannica. Retrieved from https://www.britannica.com/technology/biological-weapon/Biological-terrorism. 2. One way in contributing to measures in addressing bioterrorism threats is by enforcing the set of rules for the Prohibition of the use in war of asphyxiating, poisonous gases, and bacteriological approaches of warfare; it was endorsed on June 17, 1925. Furthermore, halting the production stockpiling chemical, microbial, toxins or other biological agents regardless of their intended purpose which is said to be described as the first article of the treaty state parties convention (United nations office for disarmament affairs, n.d.). Moreover, in an attempt to address potential EID threat, as stated in article six of the state party’s treaty convention, each state part should and will be contributing in offering support agreeing to the written implementation of the United Nations Charter (United nations office for disarmament affairs, n.d.). Signature from all states is required on the convention treaty which implements certain measure to initiate when responding to the bioterrorism and EID threats in each country whereas copies are archived into the Depositary Government for future reference and use as a code of conduct when initiating responses (United nations office for disarmament affairs, n.d.). Week 9. 1. The wearable sensors are useful indication tools for each person's health condition since many do not usually see the issues with our internal medical conditions until symptoms worsen. For example, I do not usually visit doctors unless I have an illness that affects me to the point it is unbearable. However, this visit may only be once a year, if not at all. This type of lifestyle can be problematic as a person who is not as active or workout develops a long-term health condition. However, having a Fitbit or a wearable technology that can detail or provide me with my health status or alert healthcare officials about a persistent issue needs to test it or look over. Early detection is vital in the cure of many illnesses such as cancers whose treatment mostly depends on the detection stages that have been found. A conundrum to most Americans is healthcare prices, as they can be expensive, and many segments of the population choose not to check their health unless necessary routinely. Having a cheaper, lightly, and easily operated wearable sensors devices would solve that issue. These devices can save lives and help individuals to seek healthcare early for treatments. An example of these monitoring devices is devices that measure human physiological circulation, heart rates, oxygen level, blood pressure, sleep cycle, metabolism, etc. In the study observed by (Dunn, Salins, Zhou, et al., 2017) found the following, “we observed elevated HR during each ill period for all four individuals (eight total events), which suggests that monitoring of HR (and sometimes skin temperature) using a wearable device can detect inflammatory periods.” The wearable sensor devices detect the inflammatory periods in participating, which most of them indicated to not be aware of before the study. Furthermore, there might be concerns about whether these devices' accuracy is creditable, and the study illustrated the similarities of finding between the doctors testing and devices. (Dunn, Salins, Zhou, et al., 2017) There is no doubt applying these devices in our daily lives can be beneficial and remarkable early signals to individuals to alert them about their physical health. The benefit of these devices is they are cheap and accessible in the market. The reason why digital wearable sensors are better than the BioWatch surveillance program is concluded in the committee by the National Academies who were tasked by DHS to assess the program reported the following, “The committee concluded that the current Bio Watch system requires better testing and validation and better collaboration with the public health system.”(P.3). Besides, the BioWatch programs raised several false alarms that disturbed security officials. (Willman, 2015).  On the other hand, the wearable sensors devices are better than Syndromic Surveillance because simply Syndromic Surveillance can help security officials detect against biological terrorism attacks and that why it was initially made off in the first place. However, the value of the system diminishes if there is no attack or disaster outbreak event. (Mandl,2003). Therefore, the best option out of the three is the wearable sensor devices. 2. Between Biowatch, syndromic surveillance, and wearable sensors, I would choose BioWatch as the system to invest in. BioWatch is an environmental detection system against biological agents where several agencies work together in a partnership.  Sampling is conducted by the EPA, analysis is coordinated by the CDC, and response is the responsibility of local jurisdictions (Shea & Lister, 2003). Samples are collected daily and according to the the Institute of Medicine and National Research Council (2011), if a BioWatch Actionable Result (BAR) were ever presented, the BioWatch system would allow for the treatment of those exposed to a biological agent with medical countermeasures as part of the prophylaxis program. This has the potential to save lives as because this can occur soon after detection of a biological agent. On the other hand, syndromic surveillance occurs after people are showing symptoms of a disease. This means the pathogen has completed its incubation period and valuable time has passed since exposure and it might be too late to treat some patients depending on the disease. Syndromic surveillance looks for behavioral patterns of people who are already sick, usually before lab confirmation of a disease (Mandl, 2004). This means the pathogen has had time to spread if it is contagious. Syndromic surveillance is still an effective biodetector, but I don't like that detection can only occur after signs of infectious disease are prevalent. BioWatch is not perfect by any means. It is only installed in eleven cities, initial cost can be high, effectiveness, and reliability of results can be concerns (Mandl et al., 2014), but I do believe that there is great potential in the system if all these issues are addressed.