Click a star to vote!
Course Number and Name
I would like to express my appreciation for the insightful synopsis of the film about the effect infectious diseases have on the brain development of children. Based on the film, fighting communicable illnesses in children will increase the nation's general intelligence quotient (IQ). Multiple studies have demonstrated that pervasiveness of transmittable ailments has an impact on cognitive ability. Infectious diseases impede the cognitive development of children, resulting in low IQs in adulthood. For instance, Fernandez (2018) found that regions with high malaria prevalence had low intelligence quotients and slow economic growth. In such areas, the vast majority of available resources are devoted to disease prevention and control rather than other economic activities, such as education.
Another crucial point brought up during the discussion is the fact that the body expends a lot of energy fighting infections, leaving the brain with little energy for development. Therefore, any infection will have an immediate effect on a child's growth. Additionally, the educational background of the parents affects the IQ scores and cognitive growth of the children. Youngsters in areas with high literacy rates tend to have higher IQ scores because their parents are more aware of the value of early diagnosis and treatment of infectious diseases. In conclusion, the response sought to draw attention to the link between communicable diseases and low IQ levels in underprivileged areas. Future research could, therefore, focus on the social modifications required to improve children's cognitive development in countries with low economic growth rates. Future initiatives should concentrate on ways to enhance living conditions in communities that are struggling economically to aid in the eradication of preventable infectious diseases.
Discussion Forum responses and discussion should be geared to the following: Your professional opinion of the point mentioned Why you hold that opinion? What you see wrong with the point mentioned? How you see the point consistent/inconsistent with what you have learned so far? What are the implications for the future? Are there consistencies/inconsistencies within the case or reading itself, and so forth?