Jump to content
NovaPlasm

Disease Reps K from BRAG lab

Recommended Posts

Hello,

 

I was reading the Medical Microbes Neg, and in the very beginning, it mentions a "Disease Reps K from BRAG lab."  I've googled around, and checked open evidence, but I can't seem to find it.  Can any of you link me a document of it, or explain to me what it is?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as I know, no such file was put out however, I head that several different cards about disease representation were.  From what I have seen, this is just a security k with different links. 

 

The only card that I could find:

Constructing disease impacts as existential threats causes alarmism and destroys possible solutions

Davies ’08 (Sara E., is a QUT Vice Chancellor Research Fellow at the Health Law Research Centre, Faculty of Law, “Securitizing infectious disease”, International Affairs 84: 2 (2008) 295–313, Journal Compilation © 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd/The Royal Institute of International Affairs, Accessed: 8/1, SD)

In this article I will trace how the international community—in particular, western states and the World Health Organization (WHO)—have combined forces to construct infectious disease as an existential security threat that requires new rules and behaviours for its effective containment. The outcome of this has been the development of international health cooperation mechanisms that place western fears of an outbreak reaching them above the prevention of such outbreaks in the first place. In turn, the desire of the WHO to assert its authority in the project of disease surveillance and containment has led it to develop global health mechanisms that primarily prioritizes the protection of western states from disease contagion. The WHO has a history of seeking to dominate health agendas, and on pre - vious occasions its own health agenda has been dominated by that of its main donor scales.* What is important about the political relationship between the WHO and developed states in this case is that the WHO has been a primary actor in constructing the emerging discourse of infectious disease securitization, and western states in particular have been quick to engage with this discourse. Devel- oping states have been noticeable in this process only by their absence as key actors. Nevertheless, the notification and verification of an infectious disease outbreak relies upon its confirmation by the state, and there has been a collective failure, first, to deal with the possibility that a state or group of states may reject the discourse of securitization and withhold cooperation and second, that the affected state may not be aware of the outbreak. As Checkel argues, the mechanisms by which norms are internalized may result in states acting in very different ways to the same phenomenon.7 The result could be that the WHO becomes locked into one social construction of infectious disease that crowds out alternative, poten- tially more effective, response mechanisms. As has been argued elsewhere, the problem with securitizing infectious disease is that securitization locks agents into the logic of defining a referent object and an external threat source. Security, as Buzan et al. argue, can be best defined as a 'self-referential practice, because it is in this practice that the issue become a security issue—not necessarily because a real existential threat exists but because the issue is presented as such a threat*.9 Therefore, while the WHO ostensibly seeks to fulfill its mandate by securitizing the health of all, states inevitably seek to secure the health of their citizens. The result has been that the WHO has ended up running a global surveillance system that prioritizes western states' concerns. This has occurred, I argue, largely because of the WHO's interest in retaining an authoritative role in the area of global health governance. The conundrum is that in capitulating to western concerns, the WHO may have actually compromised its moral authority and the potential for cooperation with developing states affected by outbreaks.10

Edited by bwils73
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

tbh disease reps bad isnt even the best arg against that aff by a longshot. just read an international cp with a datasharing plank (i.e The European Union should [plan] and agree to share all data as a result of the project.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

tbh disease reps bad isnt even the best arg against that aff by a longshot. just read an international cp with a datasharing plank (i.e The European Union should [plan] and agree to share all data as a result of the project.

 

International actor fiat bad m8. 

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

International actor fiat bad m8. 

 

Controversial theory debate m8 (not that i would know anything about theory debating l0l)

 

 

tbh disease reps bad isnt even the best arg against that aff by a longshot. just read an international cp with a datasharing plank (i.e The European Union should [plan] and agree to share all data as a result of the project.

 

I dunno anything about the aff itself but "disease reps" links to security are the easiest for affirmatives to impact-turn (i.e. "securitizing disease is the only good and necessary kind of securitization and doesn't internal-link to what your impact cards are about"). The cards on that are siick.

Edited by dancon25

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×