Cole Fox

Julia Crisler

Writing 2

November 27, 2020

The Different Lenses on a Global Disaster

The coronavirus pandemic, or COVID-19, has and continues to leave a devastating mark

on our world, with over 60 million reported cases and 1.43 million deaths worldwide.1 Although

the virus has taken the lives of many, it has also disrupted many aspects of life, causing experts

from several academic disciplines, including medicine and the interdisciplinary of socio-

economicssocioeconomics and environmental science, to conduct research analyzing the impact

of the virus. Concerning these disciplines, the medical article “Coronavirus Infection Prevention

by Wearing Masks,” from the Eurasian Journal of Medicine, focuses on the medical aspect of

the virus, including the impact of person-to-person transmission, while the socio--economic and

environment article “Global socio-economic losses and environmental gains from the

Coronavirus pandemic,” from PLOS One, explores how the virus has affected both the global

economy and environment. Both articles examine the Coronavirus pandemic but approach the

topic from different disciplinary perspectives, therefore differing in discourse communities,

overall arguments, evidence employed, and the type of academic language used. These

differences showcase the separate goals and methodological approaches to research within two

separate genres of writing. , therefore differing in discourse communities, overall arguments,

evidence employed, and the type of academic language used.

The first difference between these articles comes from each the fact that academic

disciplines each havinge its their own discourse community and approaches to research.
1
“WHO Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) Dashboard,” World Health Organization, (November 2020): 1.
Pertaining to the medical article, it is clear that the discourse community is specifically for

medical professionals and researchers. This is represented in that the article was published in the

Eurasian Journal of Medicine, which is a peer-reviewed scientific periodical that publishes

original medical research papers of high scientific value.2 The primary audience of this journal

are professionals and those who are knowledgeable in medicine, therefore giving the journal’s

published authors the assumption that whoever reads their work will have prior knowledge of the

material. Due to this fact, the The primary audience of this journal are professionals and those

who are knowledgeable in medicine, for the level of writing published is far too advanced for the

average person, .and the discourse community shrinks significantly. Due to this fact, the authors

of this article published medical research with the assumption that whoever reads it will have

prior knowledge of the material.

In comparison to the medical article, the interdisciplinary article of socio-economics and

environmental science has a separate discourse community made up of economists and

environmental scientists. This article, similarly to the medical article, is written directly for

people who are professionals or have prior knowledge on the subject matter, in this case,

economics and environmental science. What is interesting about this articlepiece is that it

pertains to two different discourse communities, yet the article successfully presents both topics

to their respective audience. Firstly, economists write information that applies pertains to the

economy, and while any educated person could understand the basics of the economy, the

information presented is, this article presents information far beyond the basic level. Secondly,

eEnvironmental scientists present factual information on the deteriorating climate, to raise

awareness or create policy change to save our planet y. Yet once again, the information

presented in this article is more than just the simple statement of “climate change is real.”
2
“AIMS AND SCOPE,” The Eurasian Journal of Medicine, (n.d): 1.
Specific They present specific and detailed material regarding both topics that requires a greater

understanding of environmental scienceis discussed, limiting the discourse community the those

who are knowledgeable or professionals in these fields. as a whole.

The second difference between these articles is the argument being presented. The

medical article specifically focuses on the science behind how the virus is transmitted and

presents the argument that the spread of the coronavirus is caused mainly by respiratory

droplets.3 In addition to this, they argue that every person should wear masks“the influenza

spread could occur by coughing or sneezing where infectious particles could be inhaled with a

range of 0.1–100 μm [50–55]; thus, the personal respiratory protective equipment is really

needed to prevent or limit the influenza virus outbreak.”4. Rather than conduct a new study, tThis

article article does not introduce a new study but analyzes recent studies to formulate a medically

supported argument for that others to use as a resource.can act as a resource for others.

In contrast to the medical article, the socio-economic and environmental science article

argues that the implementation of lockdowns and travel bans due to the pandemic hass caused a

significant decrease in economic activity and environmental pressures.5 Although economic

activity and environmental pressures are separate genresdon’t seem related, the authors connect

them both genres by proving that there is an intrinsic link between socio-economic and

environmental dimensions.6 “Apart from profound social and economic implications, there was

however a silver lining: the grounding of planes and shutdown of factories due to the

3
Thi Sinh Vo et al., “Coronavirus Infection Prevention by Wearing Masks,” the Eurasian Journal of Medicine 52,
no. 2 (June 2020): 197.
4
Thi Sinh Vo et al., “Coronavirus Infection Prevention by Wearing Masks,” the Eurasian Journal of Medicine 52,
no. 2 (June 2020): 197.
5
Manfred Lenzen et al., “Global Socio-Economic Losses and Environmental Gains From the Coronavirus
Pandemic,” Plos One 15, no.7 (June 2020): sec. 1.
6
Manfred Lenzen, “Global Socio-Economic Losses and Environmental Gains From the Coronavirus Pandemic,”
sec. 2, para. 4.
implementation of travel bans and lockdowns had a beneficial effect on air pollution.”7 In this

case, They make this argument by first analyzing how the decrease in economic activity has

threatened global economies. They then go on to say that there is, however, a “silver lining” to

this decrease in activity, for it has been beneficial towards air pollution. tThe authors conducted

their own study to present and verify their argument, which contributes a discovery to the

collective knowledge of both socio-economicssocioeconomics and environmental science -

individually and together.

The next difference lies in the way each discipline useds evidence to support their

arguments. In the medical world, evidence-based medicine is exceptionally important, for it

provides the best reasoning for doctors to make decisions on how to best treat an issue.8 Some

experts publish their findings, yet this medical article referreds to secondary sources, or clinical

research done by other medical professionals. For instance, this article referencess to a recent

study that shows the effects of the virus in the chest and lungs through a tomography (CT) scan.9

To further support the experiments, the authors visually present the results by incorporating

direct images of the CT scan, as shown below.

7
Manfred Lenzen, “Global Socio-Economic Losses and Environmental Gains From the Coronavirus Pandemic,”
sec. 2, para. 4.
8
Izet Masic et al., “Evidence based Medicine -- New Approaches and Challenges,” PubMed Central 16, no. 4
(2008): 219.
9
Thi Sinh Vo et al., “Coronavirus Infection Prevention by Wearing Masks,” 197.
as well as an experimental table.10 11

Data visualization is crucial for medical professionals because it helps because it allows them to

identify patterns, andpatterns and makes data analysis more efficient and understandable.12 For

this reason, visual data is necessary for a medical article, and Aalthough the evidence may be too

complex for an average person to understand, it is successful in creating a linear image for the

medical discourse community to evaluate.

On the other hand, the socio-economic and environmental science article mainly uses

primary sources, for the entirety of this piece is based around a study that the authors conducted.

They refer to outside evidence, such as impacts of the Coronavirus, to gather initial data, yet

beyond that, the results calculated they find are their own. TThe types of evidence presented in

this article also contrasts the medical article, for it areis heavily mathematical, involves

sophisticated models and formulas, and are is backed up by numerical results. For example,

“Following Leontief’s calculus, the economic and environmental impacts for F of the disaster

10
Thi Sinh Vo et al., “Coronavirus Infection Prevention by Wearing Masks,” 198.
11
Thi Sinh Vo et al., “Coronavirus Infection Prevention by Wearing Masks,” 198.
12
Erin McCoy, “How Data Visualization Is Transforming the HealthCare Industry,” Medium, (Dec 2019): para. 2.
can be computed from consumption losses—the difference of pre-and post-disaster consumption

possibilities -- as . We carry out uncertainty analysis to

accompany our results with reliability estimates.”13 Additionally, three highly sophisticated

models are attached to the results, which helps readers visually conceptualize them. the authors

use many different complex formulas that are used by economists and environmental scientists to

specifically show how their results were calculated.14 Once the results are calculated, direct

values and percentages are used to describe those results in detail. Three highly sophisticated

models are also attached to the article, which serves as a way for the readers to visually

conceptualize the results at hand. The Once again, the evidence presented is extremely difficult

to comprehend, yet for the formulas and results are meant for those with prior knowledge of the

discipline. However, makes sense this type of evidence does make sense considering the target

discourse communities, , for they each collect data and perform mathematical calculations to

find their results that canand use them to ignite create change within their field.

In addition to the contrasting use of evidence, the articles differ in how they are

structured. Both articles contain an abstract and introduction, yet what follows is presented

differently. Specifically, the socio-economicssocioeconomics and environmental science article

presents information similar to a scientific experiment, which is separated into steps. In this case,

theeach “steps” are “is separated into four sections: Materials and Methods, Results, Discussion,

and Supporting Information.”15 ThisThis order of separation is intentional, for it organizes the

results and guides the reader through each part of each step taken during their experiment. and

13
Manfred Lenzen, “Global Socio-Economic Losses and Environmental Gains From the Coronavirus Pandemic,”
sec. 3.
14
Manfred Lenzen, “Global Socio-Economic Losses and Environmental Gains From the Coronavirus Pandemic,”
sec. 3.
15
Manfred Lenzen, “Global Socio-Economic Losses and Environmental Gains From the Coronavirus Pandemic,”
sec. 1-4.
organizes their results. It is important that this information is organized, for this article is long,

and when pieces of writing are long readers can easily get lost. For this reason, the construction

of thoughts is extremely important, and this article is constructed well.

The authors of the medical article separate their thoughts into sections, however, do not

follow a step-by-step path.Contrastly, the medical article does not follow a step-by-step path.

However The sections in this article are “, the authors do also separate the different aspects of

their argument into sections, those being Cthe characteristics of COVID-19, Influence of

Ddroplet Ttravel in Pperson-tto-Pperson Trtransmission, and Effect of Wearing Masks in

COVID-19 Infection Prevention.”16 This article is presenting results of recent studies, and The

biggest difference lies in the fact that one article is detailing a new experiment, and the other is

summarizing previously conducted experiments. wWith no need to describe specific aspects the

specifics of a new experimentinformation, certain sections such as “Materials and Methods” are

neither necessary nor included in the medical article.

Lastly, each article varies in the type of language they use. Both articles are written in a

very formal language that is catered specifically to their discourse communities. The medical

article uses terminology that only medical experts can understand, such as “single-stranded RNA

b-coronavirus genome with enveloping and positive-sense”, “bilateral multiple lobular”, and

“multifocal ground-glass changes.”17 In the medical world, this type of jargon is common, yet

with With no background or further explanation on these terms, it is extremely difficult for

anyone outside of the medical discourse community to understand.

the general public to understand. The author's argument is written in clear words, yet the

specifics as to why are challenging to comprehend.

16
Thi Sinh Vo et al., “Coronavirus Infection Prevention by Wearing Masks,” 197-201.
17
Thi Sinh Vo et al., “Coronavirus Infection Prevention by Wearing Masks,” 197-198.
 Similarly, the socio-economic and environmental science article uses specific academic

language, but in this case the language caters to the discourse community of economists and

environmental scientists. This used only in economics or environmental science. Examples

includese “MRIO analysis,” “constrained non-linear optimisation,” and “Leontief’s calculus.”18

This article is not any easier to understand, in fact, it is, it is harder more difficult to understand

due to the incorporation of mathematical formulas and processes such as “

.”19 that are not described beforehand. This further proves that

economists and environmental scientists use highly quantitative language and data that allows for

successful communication between their peers, and their peers only.

In conclusion, these two articles from the discipline of medicine and the interdisciplinary

of socio-economicssocioeconomics and environmental science both researched the same topic of

the Coronavirus outbreak, yetoutbreak, yet discussed itapproached it from different perspectives.

Each academic discipline has its way of approaching research and discussing information, which

is shown through their separate discourse communities, overall argument, use of evidence, and

type of academic language. The medical article focused on the characteristics of the virus, and

the science behind how it is spreads, while the socio-economic and environmental science

article focused on how the pandemic hasis affecteding the global economy and air pollution.

These articles discuss opposite aspects of the virus, as well as contain differences in how the

information is presented, for the medical article used already existing studies to support their

argument, while the socio-economics and environmental science article put forth their study. The

differences in how these articles approach their research and discuss information are shown

18
Manfred Lenzen, “Global Socio-Economic Losses and Environmental Gains From the Coronavirus Pandemic,”
sec. 1-3.
19
Manfred Lenzen, “Global Socio-Economic Losses and Environmental Gains From the Coronavirus Pandemic,”
sec.3.
through their separate discourse communities, overall argument, use of evidence, and type of

language used. These differences prove how the academic discipline in which a piece of writing

is under affects how the scholars within those disciplines write about their findings and

conclusions. Although All in all, these articles are far too advanced for anthe average person like

myself, but as a pre-medical student, I now have a better understanding of how my future

research will be presented. prove successful in showcasing the specific ways in which their

academic discipline approaches research.

 Works Cited:

“AIMS AND SCOPE.” n.d. The Eurasian Journal of Medicine. Accessed November 28, 2020.

https://www.eajm.org/en/aims-and-scope-105.

Lenzen, Manfred, Mengyu Li, Arunima Malik, Francesco Pomponi, Ya-Yen Sun, Thomas

Wiedmann, Futu Faturay, et al. n.d. “Global Socio-Economic Losses and Environmental

Gains from the Coronavirus Pandemic.” PLOS ONE. Public Library of Science.

Accessed November 20, 2020. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/j

ournal.pone.0235654.

Lenzen, Manfred, Mengyu Li, Arunima Malik, Francesco Pomponi, Ya-Yen Sun, Thomas

Wiedmann, Futu Faturay, et al. “Global Socio-Economic Losses and Environmental

Gains from the Coronavirus Pandemic.” PLOS ONE. Public Library of Science, 2020.

journal.pone.0235654.

Masic, Izet, Milan Miokovic, and Belma Muhamedagic. “Evidence Based Medicine - New

Approaches and Challenges.” Acta informatica medica : AIM : journal of the Society

for

Medical Informatics of Bosnia & Herzegovina : casopis Drustva za medicinsku

informatiku BiH. AVICENA, d.o.o., Sarajevo, 2008. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/

pmc/articles/PMC3789163/.
McCoy, Erin. “How Data Visualization Is Transforming the Healthcare Industry.” Medium.

Modus, December 16, 2019. https://modus.medium.com/how-data-visualization-

is-transforming-the-healthcare-industry-6761d7293dd2.

Vo, Thi Sinh. “Coronavirus Infection Prevention By Wearing Masks.” The Eurasian Journal of

Medicine.Coronavirus Infection

Prevention by Wearing Masks, 2020. https://www.eajm.org/en/coronavirus-infection-

prevention-by-wearing-

masks-1618744.

“WHO Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) Dashboard.” World Health Organization. World

Health Organization, 2020.

https://covid19.who.int/?gclid=CjwKCAiA5IL-

BRAzEiwA0lcWYl9gAAMUNj2HEdyaz

w5bHEdzTjPzUGmFnO7QkFjLxK4ZUy2dBb

w42RoCqFsQAvD_BwE.