This page is intended to present a small idea of my short response writing style.

Q: “As the pandemic surged across the world in the past several months, scientists and scientific organizations have been sharing their recommendations with the public over various media and their guidelines have been received with varying degrees of enthusiasm regarding such key topics as mask-wearing, social distancing and economic policy, and vaccination. Some people point to inconsistencies from one week to the next regarding these guidelines. Evaluate this tension between the public and health professionals and offer some solutions to what can be described, at times, as a lack of trust between the two.”

A : “As citizens of the United States, its said that we have a protected right to criticize our government and the policies it enforces among its people. This pandemic has awakened a lot of new perspectives amongst the general public: perspectives that doubt, perspectives that anger, perspectives that unite. These past few months, our boards of health have served as a sort of makeshift face for the government to act on; the word of a health organization likely becomes a word of law. This becomes conflicting with the public when inconsistencies in policy begin to pile up in such a short time. This is one of the largest reasons behind the frustration that citizens feel in regards to the public, they get the notion that they are simply being strewn along. The fear around the virus has greatly laxed since its initial spike in relevance- this change in public opinion is greatly aided with the mixed signals and restrictions sent by officials that are responsible for our general safety. All this being said, it’s entirely understandable why there is a blatant distrust between the health officials and the populous. Truthfully, I don’t think there is a remedy for this rift in relations. Communication is essentially what has gotten us into this issue, I doubt people will be as willingly receptive to further contact. The best we can do is try and accelerate out of the issues we face today.”

Q:”How is the intended audience for the report by Guo, Desmet, and Powdie different from the intended audience for, say, a New York Times science article? Are there any similarities or overlap between these audiences? Are you a member of this intended audience? Try and frame your answer in terms of narrative information versus data and the purpose that the balance between the two might serve.”

A:”Being able to effectively communicate with your audience is an important part of writing because it helps to convey a message fluently. The manner in which words are spoken may be just as important as the words themselves, perhaps more so. When looking at the scientific writings  done by Guo, Desmet, and Powdie; it’s easy to see that these individuals are catering to a more professional audience rather than the general public. They utilize graphs, statistics, and vocabulary consistent with researchers. This contrasts what could be read in a New York Times article, which is more catered to the common man. A Times article would most likely simplify a concept such that its understandable by a larger audience.”