| Course | NU733 Ethics, Policy, and Advocacy for Population Health |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 2 |
| Paper type | Discussion board post |
| Length | About 570 words, 3 pages double-spaced |
| Format | APA 7 discussion post |
| School | Purdue University Global |
| Program | Doctor of Nursing Practice (DNP) |
| Updated | September 2026 |
Free sample paper for NU733 Unit 2
Forty-Six Tents in Twenty-Four Hours: A Discussion Post on Who Paid for Clearing a Riverside Encampment After Five Hepatitis A Cases in Composite Port Hadley
NU733 · Unit 2 Discussion Board Post
Posted by [Student Name]
Port Hadley, its officials and every figure are composite; numbers are bracketed placeholders.
Initial Post
The choice I want to examine was made in [October]. After [five] linked cases of hepatitis A were traced to a riverside encampment, the county health officer sent the city a written recommendation to clear the site to reduce transmission. The city manager then ordered the [46] tents removed within [24] hours under the city's camping ordinance.
The benefits were real, and I want to grant them first. Park users regained a public space. Nearby businesses stopped reporting sanitation problems. And residents of the encampment and the surrounding area faced a genuine risk of infection. Hepatitis A outbreaks among people experiencing homelessness and people who use drugs have spread widely in several states, and public health responses have relied on vaccination, sanitation and outreach (Foster et al., 2018).
But others paid for the decision. Residents lost tents, identification and medications; one man lost his insulin, and several lost buprenorphine. The outreach nurses had been halfway through a two-dose vaccine series, and their list of who needed the second dose scattered with the camp. It took them [three] weeks to find most people again, and [11] were never found. The county hospital saw [four] of the displaced residents in its emergency department that week. A modeling study of repeated involuntary displacement of people experiencing homelessness who inject drugs in 23 US cities projected substantial increases in overdose deaths, hospitalizations and serious infections over ten years compared with no displacement (Barocas et al., 2023). One clearance is not continual displacement, but the direction of the harm is the same.
The clearance moved the risk of infection away from the park and moved the loss of care onto the people who had been receiving it.
My conclusion is not that the clearance was wrong, but that its costs were not counted when it was ordered. The health officer's recommendation named the benefits; nothing in writing named what residents would lose, or how the vaccine series would be completed. I would ask classmates: should a public health recommendation to clear a site be required to include a plan for the people displaced?
Reply to [Classmate L.]
[Classmate L.], you argued that the health officer had no choice because hepatitis A can spread quickly and cause deaths. I agree the risk was serious. I wonder, though, whether clearing within twenty-four hours was the only way to reduce it. Could the city have brought portable toilets and hand-washing stations and completed the vaccine series first, with a later clearance if cases continued? Your point about speed is strong, and I would like to know whether you think the delay needed to vaccinate would have cost more than the displacement did.
Reply to [Classmate V.]
[Classmate V.], you wrote from the perspective of the business owners, several of whom you know, and described their losses during the months the encampment was there. I underplayed that cost in my post, and it does belong in the count. What would it take, in your view, for a decision like this to count both groups' losses at the same time rather than one after the other?
References
Barocas, J. A., Nall, S. K., Axelrath, S., Pladsen, C., Boyer, A., Kral, A. H., Meehan, A. A., Savinkina, A., Peery, D., Bien, M., Agnew-Brune, C., Goldshear, J., Chiang, J., Linas, B. P., Gonsalves, G., Bluthenthal, R. N., & Mosites, E. (2023). Population-level health effects of involuntary displacement of people experiencing unsheltered homelessness who inject drugs in US cities. JAMA, 329(17), 1478-1486. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2023.4800
Foster, M., Ramachandran, S., Myatt, K., Donovan, D., Bohm, S., Fiedler, J., Barbeau, B., Collins, J., Thoroughman, D., McDonald, E., Ballard, J., Eason, J., & Jorgensen, C. (2018). Hepatitis A virus outbreaks associated with drug use and homelessness: California, Kentucky, Michigan, and Utah, 2017. MMWR. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 67(43), 1208-1210. https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm6743a3
NU733 Unit 2 instructions, in plain terms
For Unit 2 you examine a public health decision by asking who benefited and who bore its costs. A strong post names the decision and the decision maker, grants the benefits fairly, describes the costs in concrete units, supports the analysis with evidence, and draws a conclusion the facts can bear. An initial post of about 350 to 450 words and two replies of around 150 words each is typical. Faculty reward posts that treat both sides seriously, count costs even when totals are unknown, and conclude about the decision process when the evidence cannot settle whether the decision itself was right. Replies should add a party, cost or alternative the classmate missed, and ask a question the classmate can actually answer.
Inside the NU733 Unit 2 example
The post opens with the recommendation, the order and the timeline. The second paragraph grants the benefits and cites a federal report on hepatitis A outbreaks among people experiencing homelessness and people who use drugs. The third counts the costs, from lost medications to the scattered vaccine list and emergency visits, and cites a national model projecting harms from repeated displacement of people who inject drugs, noting that one clearance is not continual displacement. The highlighted sentence describes the risk moving from the park to the people. The closing paragraph concludes that costs were not counted and asks classmates a question. One reply asks whether sanitation and vaccination could have come first; the other accepts a business owner's losses as a cost.
Where the points sit in the NU733 Unit 2 rubric
Discussion posts in NU733 are commonly assessed on the analysis of benefits and burdens, fairness to all sides, use of evidence, the strength of the conclusion and peer engagement. Analysis earns credit when benefits and costs are specific and assigned to identifiable groups. Fairness rewards a post that grants the benefits before weighing the costs. Evidence points go to sources that support claims about disease risk or harms of displacement. For the conclusion, instructors check that it claims no more than the facts allow. Engagement rewards replies that extend or test a classmate's argument with a new party, cost or alternative. APA citation and a post near the word limit are expected in most sections as well.
Common NU733 Unit 2 mistakes, and how to avoid them
A frequent problem is describing only the costs, which makes the post read as advocacy rather than analysis. Another is describing costs in general terms, such as disruption, without concrete examples. Some posts claim a decision was wrong when the evidence only shows that its costs were not considered. Others cite a study of repeated displacement as if it measured a single event. Many replies simply agree. And some writers describe real officials or patients closely enough that classmates could recognize them. Name the decision and its benefits first, count the costs in units, keep the conclusion within what you can show, and make each reply add something new.
Get an NU733 Unit 2 example written to your instructions
Bring the public health choice at the center of your Unit 2 thread, assigned or self-chosen, with the discussion question and rubric. A free first custom sample returns in 24-48h, written to those instructions, sorting benefits and costs by party, with classmate replies added when they count toward the grade. The paper above is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Purdue University Global document.
More NU733 papers and DNP samples
- NU733 Unit 1: Issue Analysis, Homelessness Deaths
- NU733 Unit 3: Ethical Framework Paper
- NU733 Unit 4: Population Profile
- NU733 Unit 5: Statute Analysis
- NU733 Unit 6: Policy Brief
- NU733 Unit 7: Seminar Reflection
- NU733 Unit 8: Stakeholder Power Map
- NU733 Unit 9: Advocacy Letter
- NU733 Unit 10: Position Paper
- NU713 Unit 2: Social Determinants Profile
- NU703 Unit 2: DNP and PhD Role Comparison
NU733 Unit 2 questions, answered
Does the Unit 2 post have to be about homelessness?
No. Any public health choice with identifiable costs works: a school exclusion policy, a flavored tobacco ban, a water advisory, a quarantine order. What the unit rewards is the accounting, meaning who decided, who gained, who paid and whether the payers had any voice. Choose an example specific enough that each party can be named.
How can a post measure costs without data?
By describing them in concrete units even when totals are unknown: tents removed, doses missed, visits generated, workdays lost. Estimates are acceptable when labeled as estimates. What weakens a post is abstraction, words like burden or harm with nothing attached to them. A reader should be able to picture each cost you name and the person carrying it.
What counts as a good reply in this thread?
One that applies the post's question to a classmate's example and adds something: a party the classmate missed, a cost that went unrecorded, or a cheaper route to the same goal. Keep it respectful and specific. A reply that only agrees, or relates a personal experience without connecting it to the analysis, usually earns little.
Where can I find a free NU733 Unit 2 sample paper?
This page carries the complete NU733 Unit 2 discussion post, with the decision and decision makers, the benefits, the costs counted in concrete units, a conclusion about process and two replies, plus two references. A post about a public health decision you know can be drafted.
Was the clearance wrong in NU733 Unit 2?
The post does not claim that. It concludes that the clearance's costs to displaced residents, the outreach team and the hospital were never counted when it was ordered, and asks whether such recommendations should include a plan for the people moved.