Assignment Prompt & Instructions
please use the attached info, APA format, use the rubrics, engage with real life experience
**files (3)**
– ## wk9epidiscERADICATIONOFSMALLPOX.docx
– ## wk9epidiscrubrics.docx
– wk9epimateria.pdf
**## wk9epidiscERADICATIONOFSMALLPOX.docx**
ERADICATION OF SMALLPOX, POLIO, AND HOW THEY MAY HELP IN APPROACHING COVID-19
Some of the most notable epidemics include the bubonic plague in the 14th century, smallpox in the 18th century, influenza in the 20th century, and SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) in the 21st century. It is estimated that the bubonic plague caused 25 million deaths in Europe in the 14th century alone, and up to 200 million total deaths across centuries (Glatter & Finkelman, 2021). The COVID-19 pandemic spread at an unprecedented pace due to globalization and the mobility of society, killing millions worldwide. These are dramatic examples of the kinds of acute outbreaks that make epidemiology such an important field of study.
At the beginning of the 21st century, many epidemiologists and healthcare professionals were concerned about the next potential pandemic or epidemic—and then it arrived in early 2020. Globalization means that when these infectious outbreaks occur, they can spread quickly, but we also have more knowledge and better tools (e.g., vaccine technology) to fight them. For this Discussion, you will compare lessons learned from two successful eradication efforts, that of smallpox and polio, and consider how they may be applied to COVID-19.
**Reference**
Glatter, K. A., & Finkelman, P. (2021). History of the plague: An ancient pandemic for the age of COVID-19.
_American Journal of Medicine, 134_ (2), 176–181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjmed.2020.08.019
RESOURCES
Be sure to review the Learning Resources before completing this activity.
Click the weekly resources link to access the resources.
[**WEEKLY RESOURCES**](https://waldenu.instructure.com/courses/215573/modules/items/9000277)
TO PREPARE:
· Review the Learning Resources, focusing on the smallpox and polio epidemics and how health organizations applied principles of epidemiology to eradicate (or in the case of polio, nearly eradicate) these diseases.
· In light of these examples, consider the benefits of addressing smallpox and polio at the population level. What were the population health strategies that were used in the efforts to eradicate smallpox and polio?
· Consider similarities and differences from an epidemiologic perspective among the smallpox and polio epidemics and that of COVID-19.
· Think about how principles of epidemiology are being applied—or could be applied—to address COVID-19.
· What lessons from the use of infectious disease epidemiology in the past might be applicable to controlling COVID 19?
· What are the benefits of addressing this issue at the population level as opposed to the individual level?
BY DAY 3 OF WEEK 9
**Post** a cohesive response that addresses the following:
· Briefly summarize the epidemiologic differences among the three diseases and how principles of epidemiology are being applied—or could be applied—to address COVID-19.
· Are there any lessons learned from the use of epidemiology in the eradication of smallpox and polio that could be applied to COVID-19?
· Evaluate the benefits of addressing this health problem at the population level versus the individual level. Support your Discussion with information from this week’s Learning Resources and articles you have located in the Walden Library.
## image1.jpeg
**## wk9epidiscrubrics.docx**
**URS_8310_Week9_Discussion_Rubric**
| | | |
| — | — | — |
| NURS_8310_Week9_Discussion_Rubric |
| **Criteria** | **Ratings** | **Pts** |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeRESPONSIVENESS TO DISCUSSION QUESTION (20 possible points): Discussion posts minimum requirements: The original posting must be completed by Day 3 at 11:59pm ET. Two response postings to two different peer original posts, on two different days, are required by Day 6 at 11:59pm ET. Faculty member inquiries require responses, which are not included in the peer posts. Your Discussion Board postings should be written in Standard Academic English and follow APA 7 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 library and other credible online resources (guidelines, expert opinions etc.) | **20 to >19.0 ptsExcellent**• Discussion postings and responses are responsive to and exceed the requirements of the Discussion instructions. • The student responds to the question/s being asked or the prompt/s provided. Goes beyond what is required in some meaningful way (e.g., the post contributes a new dimension, unearths something unanticipated) • Demonstrates that the student has read, viewed, and considered a variety of learning resources, as well as resources available through the Walden University library and other credible online resources (guidelines, expert opinions etc.) • Detailed response to faculty.<br> <br>**19 to >15.0 ptsGood**• Discussion postings and responses are responsive to and meet the requirements of the Discussion instructions. • The student responds to the question/s being asked or the prompt/s provided. • Demonstrates that the student has read, viewed, and considered a variety of learning resources, as well as resources available through the Walden University library and other credible online resources (guidelines, expert opinions etc.) • Appropriate reply to faculty.<br> <br>**15 to >12.0 ptsFair**• Discussion postings and responses are somewhat responsive to the requirements of the Discussion instructions. • The student may not clearly address the objectives of the discussion or the question/s or prompt/s. • Minimally demonstrates that the student has read, viewed, and considered a variety of learning resources, as well as resources available through the Walden University library and other credible online resources (guidelines, expert opinions etc.) • Brief response to faculty with minimal effort.<br> <br>**12 to >0 ptsPoor**• Discussion postings and responses are unresponsive to the requirements of the Discussion instructions. • Does not clearly address the objectives of the discussion or the question/s or prompt/s. • Does not demonstrate that the student has read, viewed, and considered a variety of learning resources, as well as resources available through the Walden University library and other credible online resources (guidelines, expert opinions etc.) • Fails to respond to faculty inquiries. | 20 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCONTENT REFLECTION and MASTERY: Initial Post (30 possible points) | **30 to >29.0 ptsExcellent** Initial Discussion posting: • Post demonstrates mastery and thoughtful/accurate application of content and/or strategies presented in the course. • Posts are substantive and reflective, with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings and current credible evidence. • Initial post is supported by 3 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings.<br> <br>**29 to >23.0 ptsGood** Initial Discussion posting: • Posts demonstrate some mastery and application of content, applicable skills, or strategies presented in the course. • Posts are substantive and reflective, with analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings and current credible evidence. • Initial post is supported by 3 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings.<br> <br>**23 to >18.0 ptsFair** Initial Discussion posting: • Post may lack in depth, reflection, analysis, or synthesis but rely more on anecdotal than scholarly evidence. • Posts demonstrate minimal understanding of concepts and issues presented in the course, and, although generally accurate, display some omissions and/or errors. • There is a lack of support from relevant scholarly research/evidence.<br> <br>**18 to >0 ptsPoor** Initial Discussion posting: • Post lacks in substance, reflection, analysis, or synthesis. • Posts do not generalize, extend thinking or evaluate concepts and issues within the topic or context of the discussion. • Relevant examples and scholarly resources are not provided. | 30 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCONTRIBUTION TO THE DISCUSSION: First Response (20 possible points) | **20 to >19.0 ptsExcellent** Discussion response: • Significantly contributes to the quality of the discussion/interaction and thinking and learning. • Provides rich and relevant examples and thought-provoking ideas that demonstrates new perspectives, and synthesis of ideas supported by the literature. • Scholarly sources are correctly cited and formatted. • First response is supported by 2 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings. • Posts on separate day.<br> <br>**19 to >15.0 ptsGood** Discussion response: • Contributes to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Provides relevant examples and/or thought-provoking ideas • Scholarly sources are correctly cited and formatted. • First response is supported by 2 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings. • Posts on separate day.<br> <br>**15 to >12.0 ptsFair** Discussion response: • Minimally contributes to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Provides few examples to support thoughts. • Information provided lacks evidence of critical thinking or synthesis of ideas. • There is a lack of support from relevant scholarly research/evidence. • Posts on separate day.<br> <br>**12 to >0 ptsPoor** Discussion response: • Does not contribute to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Lacks relevant examples or ideas. • There is a lack of support from relevant scholarly research/evidence. • Posts on same day. | 20 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCONTRIBUTION TO THE DISCUSSION: Second Response (20 possible points) | **20 to >19.0 ptsExcellent** Discussion response: • Significantly contributes to the quality of the discussion/interaction and thinking and learning. • Provides relevant examples and thought-provoking ideas that demonstrates new perspectives, and extensive synthesis of ideas supported by the literature. • Second response is supported by 2 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings. • Scholarly sources are correctly cited and formatted. • Posts on separate day.<br> <br>**19 to >15.0 ptsGood** Discussion response: • Contributes to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Provides relevant examples and/or thought-provoking ideas • Second response is supported by 2 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings. • Scholarly sources are correctly cited and formatted. • Posts on separate day.<br> <br>**15 to >12.0 ptsFair** Discussion response: • Minimally contributes to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Provides few examples to support thoughts. • Information provided lacks evidence of critical thinking or synthesis of ideas. • Minimal scholarly sources provided to support post. • Posts on separate day.<br> <br>**12 to >0 ptsPoor** Discussion response: • Does not contribute to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Lacks relevant examples or ideas. • No sources provided. • Posts on same day. | 20 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeQUALITY OF WRITING (10 possible points) | **10 to >9.0 ptsExcellent** Discussion postings and responses exceed doctoral level writing expectations: • Use Standard Academic English that is clear, concise, and appropriate to doctoral level writing. • Make few if any errors in spelling, grammar, that does not affect clear communication. • Uses correct APA 7 format as closely as possible given the constraints of the online platform. • Are positive, courteous, and respectful when offering suggestions, constructive feedback, or opposing viewpoints.<br> <br>**9 to >8.0 ptsGood** Discussion postings and responses meet doctoral level writing expectations: • Use Standard Academic English that is clear and appropriate to doctoral level writing • Makes a few errors in spelling, grammar, that does not affect clear communication. • Uses correct APA 7 format as closely as possible given the constraints of the online platform. • Are courteous and respectful when offering suggestions, constructive feedback, or opposing viewpoints.<br> <br>**8 to >6.0 ptsFair** Discussion postings and responses are somewhat below doctoral level writing expectations: • Posts contains multiple spelling, grammar, and/or punctuation deviations from Standard Academic English that affect clear communication. • Numerous errors in APA 7 format • May be less than courteous and respectful when offering suggestions, feedback, or opposing viewpoints.<br> <br>**6 to >0 ptsPoor** Discussion postings and responses are well below doctoral level writing expectations: • Posts contains multiple spelling, grammar, and/or punctuation deviations from Standard Academic English that affect clear communication. • Uses incorrect APA 7 format • Are discourteous and disrespectful when offering suggestions, feedback, or opposing viewpoints. | 10 pts |
Total Points: 100
**wk9epimateria.pdf**
This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/wk9epimateria-pdf)
**wk9epimateria.pdf**
This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/wk9epimateria-pdf)
**## wk9epidiscERADICATIONOFSMALLPOX.docx**
ERADICATION OF SMALLPOX, POLIO, AND HOW THEY MAY HELP IN APPROACHING COVID-19
Some of the most notable epidemics include the bubonic plague in the 14th century, smallpox in the 18th century, influenza in the 20th century, and SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) in the 21st century. It is estimated that the bubonic plague caused 25 million deaths in Europe in the 14th century alone, and up to 200 million total deaths across centuries (Glatter & Finkelman, 2021). The COVID-19 pandemic spread at an unprecedented pace due to globalization and the mobility of society, killing millions worldwide. These are dramatic examples of the kinds of acute outbreaks that make epidemiology such an important field of study.
At the beginning of the 21st century, many epidemiologists and healthcare professionals were concerned about the next potential pandemic or epidemic—and then it arrived in early 2020. Globalization means that when these infectious outbreaks occur, they can spread quickly, but we also have more knowledge and better tools (e.g., vaccine technology) to fight them. For this Discussion, you will compare lessons learned from two successful eradication efforts, that of smallpox and polio, and consider how they may be applied to COVID-19.
**Reference**
Glatter, K. A., & Finkelman, P. (2021). History of the plague: An ancient pandemic for the age of COVID-19.
_American Journal of Medicine, 134_ (2), 176–181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjmed.2020.08.019
RESOURCES
Be sure to review the Learning Resources before completing this activity.
Click the weekly resources link to access the resources.
[**WEEKLY RESOURCES**](https://waldenu.instructure.com/courses/215573/modules/items/9000277)
TO PREPARE:
· Review the Learning Resources, focusing on the smallpox and polio epidemics and how health organizations applied principles of epidemiology to eradicate (or in the case of polio, nearly eradicate) these diseases.
· In light of these examples, consider the benefits of addressing smallpox and polio at the population level. What were the population health strategies that were used in the efforts to eradicate smallpox and polio?
· Consider similarities and differences from an epidemiologic perspective among the smallpox and polio epidemics and that of COVID-19.
· Think about how principles of epidemiology are being applied—or could be applied—to address COVID-19.
· What lessons from the use of infectious disease epidemiology in the past might be applicable to controlling COVID 19?
· What are the benefits of addressing this issue at the population level as opposed to the individual level?
BY DAY 3 OF WEEK 9
**Post** a cohesive response that addresses the following:
· Briefly summarize the epidemiologic differences among the three diseases and how principles of epidemiology are being applied—or could be applied—to address COVID-19.
· Are there any lessons learned from the use of epidemiology in the eradication of smallpox and polio that could be applied to COVID-19?
· Evaluate the benefits of addressing this health problem at the population level versus the individual level. Support your Discussion with information from this week’s Learning Resources and articles you have located in the Walden Library.
## image1.jpeg
**## wk9epidiscrubrics.docx**
**URS_8310_Week9_Discussion_Rubric**
| | | |
| — | — | — |
| NURS_8310_Week9_Discussion_Rubric |
| **Criteria** | **Ratings** | **Pts** |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeRESPONSIVENESS TO DISCUSSION QUESTION (20 possible points): Discussion posts minimum requirements: The original posting must be completed by Day 3 at 11:59pm ET. Two response postings to two different peer original posts, on two different days, are required by Day 6 at 11:59pm ET. Faculty member inquiries require responses, which are not included in the peer posts. Your Discussion Board postings should be written in Standard Academic English and follow APA 7 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 library and other credible online resources (guidelines, expert opinions etc.) | **20 to >19.0 ptsExcellent**• Discussion postings and responses are responsive to and exceed the requirements of the Discussion instructions. • The student responds to the question/s being asked or the prompt/s provided. Goes beyond what is required in some meaningful way (e.g., the post contributes a new dimension, unearths something unanticipated) • Demonstrates that the student has read, viewed, and considered a variety of learning resources, as well as resources available through the Walden University library and other credible online resources (guidelines, expert opinions etc.) • Detailed response to faculty.<br> <br>**19 to >15.0 ptsGood**• Discussion postings and responses are responsive to and meet the requirements of the Discussion instructions. • The student responds to the question/s being asked or the prompt/s provided. • Demonstrates that the student has read, viewed, and considered a variety of learning resources, as well as resources available through the Walden University library and other credible online resources (guidelines, expert opinions etc.) • Appropriate reply to faculty.<br> <br>**15 to >12.0 ptsFair**• Discussion postings and responses are somewhat responsive to the requirements of the Discussion instructions. • The student may not clearly address the objectives of the discussion or the question/s or prompt/s. • Minimally demonstrates that the student has read, viewed, and considered a variety of learning resources, as well as resources available through the Walden University library and other credible online resources (guidelines, expert opinions etc.) • Brief response to faculty with minimal effort.<br> <br>**12 to >0 ptsPoor**• Discussion postings and responses are unresponsive to the requirements of the Discussion instructions. • Does not clearly address the objectives of the discussion or the question/s or prompt/s. • Does not demonstrate that the student has read, viewed, and considered a variety of learning resources, as well as resources available through the Walden University library and other credible online resources (guidelines, expert opinions etc.) • Fails to respond to faculty inquiries. | 20 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCONTENT REFLECTION and MASTERY: Initial Post (30 possible points) | **30 to >29.0 ptsExcellent** Initial Discussion posting: • Post demonstrates mastery and thoughtful/accurate application of content and/or strategies presented in the course. • Posts are substantive and reflective, with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings and current credible evidence. • Initial post is supported by 3 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings.<br> <br>**29 to >23.0 ptsGood** Initial Discussion posting: • Posts demonstrate some mastery and application of content, applicable skills, or strategies presented in the course. • Posts are substantive and reflective, with analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings and current credible evidence. • Initial post is supported by 3 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings.<br> <br>**23 to >18.0 ptsFair** Initial Discussion posting: • Post may lack in depth, reflection, analysis, or synthesis but rely more on anecdotal than scholarly evidence. • Posts demonstrate minimal understanding of concepts and issues presented in the course, and, although generally accurate, display some omissions and/or errors. • There is a lack of support from relevant scholarly research/evidence.<br> <br>**18 to >0 ptsPoor** Initial Discussion posting: • Post lacks in substance, reflection, analysis, or synthesis. • Posts do not generalize, extend thinking or evaluate concepts and issues within the topic or context of the discussion. • Relevant examples and scholarly resources are not provided. | 30 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCONTRIBUTION TO THE DISCUSSION: First Response (20 possible points) | **20 to >19.0 ptsExcellent** Discussion response: • Significantly contributes to the quality of the discussion/interaction and thinking and learning. • Provides rich and relevant examples and thought-provoking ideas that demonstrates new perspectives, and synthesis of ideas supported by the literature. • Scholarly sources are correctly cited and formatted. • First response is supported by 2 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings. • Posts on separate day.<br> <br>**19 to >15.0 ptsGood** Discussion response: • Contributes to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Provides relevant examples and/or thought-provoking ideas • Scholarly sources are correctly cited and formatted. • First response is supported by 2 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings. • Posts on separate day.<br> <br>**15 to >12.0 ptsFair** Discussion response: • Minimally contributes to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Provides few examples to support thoughts. • Information provided lacks evidence of critical thinking or synthesis of ideas. • There is a lack of support from relevant scholarly research/evidence. • Posts on separate day.<br> <br>**12 to >0 ptsPoor** Discussion response: • Does not contribute to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Lacks relevant examples or ideas. • There is a lack of support from relevant scholarly research/evidence. • Posts on same day. | 20 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCONTRIBUTION TO THE DISCUSSION: Second Response (20 possible points) | **20 to >19.0 ptsExcellent** Discussion response: • Significantly contributes to the quality of the discussion/interaction and thinking and learning. • Provides relevant examples and thought-provoking ideas that demonstrates new perspectives, and extensive synthesis of ideas supported by the literature. • Second response is supported by 2 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings. • Scholarly sources are correctly cited and formatted. • Posts on separate day.<br> <br>**19 to >15.0 ptsGood** Discussion response: • Contributes to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Provides relevant examples and/or thought-provoking ideas • Second response is supported by 2 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings. • Scholarly sources are correctly cited and formatted. • Posts on separate day.<br> <br>**15 to >12.0 ptsFair** Discussion response: • Minimally contributes to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Provides few examples to support thoughts. • Information provided lacks evidence of critical thinking or synthesis of ideas. • Minimal scholarly sources provided to support post. • Posts on separate day.<br> <br>**12 to >0 ptsPoor** Discussion response: • Does not contribute to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Lacks relevant examples or ideas. • No sources provided. • Posts on same day. | 20 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeQUALITY OF WRITING (10 possible points) | **10 to >9.0 ptsExcellent** Discussion postings and responses exceed doctoral level writing expectations: • Use Standard Academic English that is clear, concise, and appropriate to doctoral level writing. • Make few if any errors in spelling, grammar, that does not affect clear communication. • Uses correct APA 7 format as closely as possible given the constraints of the online platform. • Are positive, courteous, and respectful when offering suggestions, constructive feedback, or opposing viewpoints.<br> <br>**9 to >8.0 ptsGood** Discussion postings and responses meet doctoral level writing expectations: • Use Standard Academic English that is clear and appropriate to doctoral level writing • Makes a few errors in spelling, grammar, that does not affect clear communication. • Uses correct APA 7 format as closely as possible given the constraints of the online platform. • Are courteous and respectful when offering suggestions, constructive feedback, or opposing viewpoints.<br> <br>**8 to >6.0 ptsFair** Discussion postings and responses are somewhat below doctoral level writing expectations: • Posts contains multiple spelling, grammar, and/or punctuation deviations from Standard Academic English that affect clear communication. • Numerous errors in APA 7 format • May be less than courteous and respectful when offering suggestions, feedback, or opposing viewpoints.<br> <br>**6 to >0 ptsPoor** Discussion postings and responses are well below doctoral level writing expectations: • Posts contains multiple spelling, grammar, and/or punctuation deviations from Standard Academic English that affect clear communication. • Uses incorrect APA 7 format • Are discourteous and disrespectful when offering suggestions, feedback, or opposing viewpoints. | 10 pts |
Total Points: 100
**wk9epimateria.pdf**
This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/wk9epimateria-pdf)
**## wk9epidiscERADICATIONOFSMALLPOX.docx**
ERADICATION OF SMALLPOX, POLIO, AND HOW THEY MAY HELP IN APPROACHING COVID-19
Some of the most notable epidemics include the bubonic plague in the 14th century, smallpox in the 18th century, influenza in the 20th century, and SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) in the 21st century. It is estimated that the bubonic plague caused 25 million deaths in Europe in the 14th century alone, and up to 200 million total deaths across centuries (Glatter & Finkelman, 2021). The COVID-19 pandemic spread at an unprecedented pace due to globalization and the mobility of society, killing millions worldwide. These are dramatic examples of the kinds of acute outbreaks that make epidemiology such an important field of study.
At the beginning of the 21st century, many epidemiologists and healthcare professionals were concerned about the next potential pandemic or epidemic—and then it arrived in early 2020. Globalization means that when these infectious outbreaks occur, they can spread quickly, but we also have more knowledge and better tools (e.g., vaccine technology) to fight them. For this Discussion, you will compare lessons learned from two successful eradication efforts, that of smallpox and polio, and consider how they may be applied to COVID-19.
**Reference**
Glatter, K. A., & Finkelman, P. (2021). History of the plague: An ancient pandemic for the age of COVID-19.
_American Journal of Medicine, 134_ (2), 176–181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjmed.2020.08.019
RESOURCES
Be sure to review the Learning Resources before completing this activity.
Click the weekly resources link to access the resources.
[**WEEKLY RESOURCES**](https://waldenu.instructure.com/courses/215573/modules/items/9000277)
TO PREPARE:
· Review the Learning Resources, focusing on the smallpox and polio epidemics and how health organizations applied principles of epidemiology to eradicate (or in the case of polio, nearly eradicate) these diseases.
· In light of these examples, consider the benefits of addressing smallpox and polio at the population level. What were the population health strategies that were used in the efforts to eradicate smallpox and polio?
· Consider similarities and differences from an epidemiologic perspective among the smallpox and polio epidemics and that of COVID-19.
· Think about how principles of epidemiology are being applied—or could be applied—to address COVID-19.
· What lessons from the use of infectious disease epidemiology in the past might be applicable to controlling COVID 19?
· What are the benefits of addressing this issue at the population level as opposed to the individual level?
BY DAY 3 OF WEEK 9
**Post** a cohesive response that addresses the following:
· Briefly summarize the epidemiologic differences among the three diseases and how principles of epidemiology are being applied—or could be applied—to address COVID-19.
· Are there any lessons learned from the use of epidemiology in the eradication of smallpox and polio that could be applied to COVID-19?
· Evaluate the benefits of addressing this health problem at the population level versus the individual level. Support your Discussion with information from this week’s Learning Resources and articles you have located in the Walden Library.
## image1.jpeg
**## wk9epidiscrubrics.docx**
**URS_8310_Week9_Discussion_Rubric**
| | | |
| — | — | — |
| NURS_8310_Week9_Discussion_Rubric |
| **Criteria** | **Ratings** | **Pts** |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeRESPONSIVENESS TO DISCUSSION QUESTION (20 possible points): Discussion posts minimum requirements: The original posting must be completed by Day 3 at 11:59pm ET. Two response postings to two different peer original posts, on two different days, are required by Day 6 at 11:59pm ET. Faculty member inquiries require responses, which are not included in the peer posts. Your Discussion Board postings should be written in Standard Academic English and follow APA 7 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 library and other credible online resources (guidelines, expert opinions etc.) | **20 to >19.0 ptsExcellent**• Discussion postings and responses are responsive to and exceed the requirements of the Discussion instructions. • The student responds to the question/s being asked or the prompt/s provided. Goes beyond what is required in some meaningful way (e.g., the post contributes a new dimension, unearths something unanticipated) • Demonstrates that the student has read, viewed, and considered a variety of learning resources, as well as resources available through the Walden University library and other credible online resources (guidelines, expert opinions etc.) • Detailed response to faculty.<br> <br>**19 to >15.0 ptsGood**• Discussion postings and responses are responsive to and meet the requirements of the Discussion instructions. • The student responds to the question/s being asked or the prompt/s provided. • Demonstrates that the student has read, viewed, and considered a variety of learning resources, as well as resources available through the Walden University library and other credible online resources (guidelines, expert opinions etc.) • Appropriate reply to faculty.<br> <br>**15 to >12.0 ptsFair**• Discussion postings and responses are somewhat responsive to the requirements of the Discussion instructions. • The student may not clearly address the objectives of the discussion or the question/s or prompt/s. • Minimally demonstrates that the student has read, viewed, and considered a variety of learning resources, as well as resources available through the Walden University library and other credible online resources (guidelines, expert opinions etc.) • Brief response to faculty with minimal effort.<br> <br>**12 to >0 ptsPoor**• Discussion postings and responses are unresponsive to the requirements of the Discussion instructions. • Does not clearly address the objectives of the discussion or the question/s or prompt/s. • Does not demonstrate that the student has read, viewed, and considered a variety of learning resources, as well as resources available through the Walden University library and other credible online resources (guidelines, expert opinions etc.) • Fails to respond to faculty inquiries. | 20 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCONTENT REFLECTION and MASTERY: Initial Post (30 possible points) | **30 to >29.0 ptsExcellent** Initial Discussion posting: • Post demonstrates mastery and thoughtful/accurate application of content and/or strategies presented in the course. • Posts are substantive and reflective, with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings and current credible evidence. • Initial post is supported by 3 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings.<br> <br>**29 to >23.0 ptsGood** Initial Discussion posting: • Posts demonstrate some mastery and application of content, applicable skills, or strategies presented in the course. • Posts are substantive and reflective, with analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings and current credible evidence. • Initial post is supported by 3 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings.<br> <br>**23 to >18.0 ptsFair** Initial Discussion posting: • Post may lack in depth, reflection, analysis, or synthesis but rely more on anecdotal than scholarly evidence. • Posts demonstrate minimal understanding of concepts and issues presented in the course, and, although generally accurate, display some omissions and/or errors. • There is a lack of support from relevant scholarly research/evidence.<br> <br>**18 to >0 ptsPoor** Initial Discussion posting: • Post lacks in substance, reflection, analysis, or synthesis. • Posts do not generalize, extend thinking or evaluate concepts and issues within the topic or context of the discussion. • Relevant examples and scholarly resources are not provided. | 30 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCONTRIBUTION TO THE DISCUSSION: First Response (20 possible points) | **20 to >19.0 ptsExcellent** Discussion response: • Significantly contributes to the quality of the discussion/interaction and thinking and learning. • Provides rich and relevant examples and thought-provoking ideas that demonstrates new perspectives, and synthesis of ideas supported by the literature. • Scholarly sources are correctly cited and formatted. • First response is supported by 2 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings. • Posts on separate day.<br> <br>**19 to >15.0 ptsGood** Discussion response: • Contributes to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Provides relevant examples and/or thought-provoking ideas • Scholarly sources are correctly cited and formatted. • First response is supported by 2 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings. • Posts on separate day.<br> <br>**15 to >12.0 ptsFair** Discussion response: • Minimally contributes to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Provides few examples to support thoughts. • Information provided lacks evidence of critical thinking or synthesis of ideas. • There is a lack of support from relevant scholarly research/evidence. • Posts on separate day.<br> <br>**12 to >0 ptsPoor** Discussion response: • Does not contribute to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Lacks relevant examples or ideas. • There is a lack of support from relevant scholarly research/evidence. • Posts on same day. | 20 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCONTRIBUTION TO THE DISCUSSION: Second Response (20 possible points) | **20 to >19.0 ptsExcellent** Discussion response: • Significantly contributes to the quality of the discussion/interaction and thinking and learning. • Provides relevant examples and thought-provoking ideas that demonstrates new perspectives, and extensive synthesis of ideas supported by the literature. • Second response is supported by 2 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings. • Scholarly sources are correctly cited and formatted. • Posts on separate day.<br> <br>**19 to >15.0 ptsGood** Discussion response: • Contributes to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Provides relevant examples and/or thought-provoking ideas • Second response is supported by 2 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings. • Scholarly sources are correctly cited and formatted. • Posts on separate day.<br> <br>**15 to >12.0 ptsFair** Discussion response: • Minimally contributes to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Provides few examples to support thoughts. • Information provided lacks evidence of critical thinking or synthesis of ideas. • Minimal scholarly sources provided to support post. • Posts on separate day.<br> <br>**12 to >0 ptsPoor** Discussion response: • Does not contribute to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Lacks relevant examples or ideas. • No sources provided. • Posts on same day. | 20 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeQUALITY OF WRITING (10 possible points) | **10 to >9.0 ptsExcellent** Discussion postings and responses exceed doctoral level writing expectations: • Use Standard Academic English that is clear, concise, and appropriate to doctoral level writing. • Make few if any errors in spelling, grammar, that does not affect clear communication. • Uses correct APA 7 format as closely as possible given the constraints of the online platform. • Are positive, courteous, and respectful when offering suggestions, constructive feedback, or opposing viewpoints.<br> <br>**9 to >8.0 ptsGood** Discussion postings and responses meet doctoral level writing expectations: • Use Standard Academic English that is clear and appropriate to doctoral level writing • Makes a few errors in spelling, grammar, that does not affect clear communication. • Uses correct APA 7 format as closely as possible given the constraints of the online platform. • Are courteous and respectful when offering suggestions, constructive feedback, or opposing viewpoints.<br> <br>**8 to >6.0 ptsFair** Discussion postings and responses are somewhat below doctoral level writing expectations: • Posts contains multiple spelling, grammar, and/or punctuation deviations from Standard Academic English that affect clear communication. • Numerous errors in APA 7 format • May be less than courteous and respectful when offering suggestions, feedback, or opposing viewpoints.<br> <br>**6 to >0 ptsPoor** Discussion postings and responses are well below doctoral level writing expectations: • Posts contains multiple spelling, grammar, and/or punctuation deviations from Standard Academic English that affect clear communication. • Uses incorrect APA 7 format • Are discourteous and disrespectful when offering suggestions, feedback, or opposing viewpoints. | 10 pts |
Total Points: 100
**wk9epimateria.pdf**
This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/wk9epimateria-pdf)