This New York Times article tells about how the response to the Zika epidemic left us with more questions than answers. The article speaks to the dangers we are facing now that there was not a coherent way in which the epidemic was handled. Because tourists and residents were given different advice on how to avoid contracting the virus, there are now children being born with brain damage and medical bills are increasing. While there were some positive outcomes (for example, the virus not being spread during the Rio Olympics), the public health community failed overall.
I did not find this article to be entirely compelling. There was no clear lede or nut graph. Even with the subheadings, the article seemed relatively unorganized. Additionally, the article itself seemed to simply summarize all of the other articles on Zika within the past year instead of providing new information. Why is this relevant now if there is nothing new? What should the author have added to the article to make it more compelling?