Proof that vaccination works...

[cornflake]

All I'm saying is that, at a point when spending is supposed to being limited, it seems odd that a government would choose to spend money on a low-impact disease of all things.

As for the comments about the developing world...I don't even know how to respond to that

Again, where do you get that the government is deciding to spend money on this? And why do you see it as a zero-sum game?

 

[TheIncredibles!]

True, so any developments would be the result of (costly) research.





All I'm saying is that, at a point when spending is supposed to being limited, it seems odd that a government would choose to spend money on a low-impact disease of all things.

As for the comments about the developing world...I don't even know how to respond to that

What's there to say? The United States, and it's people, already do a GREAT DEAL for other countries. It's just never enough for foreigners though is it?

 

[daisax]

It's the opposite, actually. I was exposed over and over and over as a child (my mother was a great believer in having me play with infected kids so I would catch it - never did!). I was exposed again when I was pregnant so I went to the doctor for a blood test which showed I'd built up a natural immunity. It's seemingly fairly common - wish I'd known before because I'd spent much of my adult life paranoid I'd catch it!!

You probably had it at some point and it simply wasn't clinically obvious. Which is the way to do it, if you can. (Aside from being infectious and not knowing it, of course)

 

[Geoff_M]

You probably had it at some point and it simply wasn't clinically obvious. Which is the way to do it, if you can. (Aside from being infectious and not knowing it, of course)

You can never be sure, my wife had a great aunt that was in her 90's when she "babysat" two of her great-nieces that had chickenpox. When people expressed concern about the aunt being around the kids, when she said she had no recollection of having had the disease, she waived them off saying "If I haven't contracted it by my age... I'm not going to get it!" She was exposed.... contracted her first case of Chickenpox... and ended up in the hospital as one really sick 90+ year-old.

 

[Deb in IA]

You can never be sure, my wife had a great aunt that was in her 90's when she "babysat" two of her great-nieces that had chickenpox. When people expressed concern about the aunt being around the kids, when she said she had no recollection of having had the disease, she waived them off saying "If I haven't contracted it by my age... I'm not going to get it!" She was exposed.... contracted her first case of Chickenpox... and ended up in the hospital as one really sick 90+ year-old.

Retrospect-o-scope is always 20/20, but in that case, it might have been a good idea to check varicella titers before great-aunt's babysitting misadventure.

 

[Bonnie151]

You probably had it at some point and it simply wasn't clinically obvious. Which is the way to do it, if you can. (Aside from being infectious and not knowing it, of course)

Anything is possible- I did manage to contract whooping cough once even though I was vaccinated against that!

I think a while ago they were looking at rolling out the chickenpox vax over here, but I've not heard anything about that recently. The NHS used to say there wasn't a widespread programme here because of the increased risk of shingles in the elderly if the chickenpox vax were rolled out and the higher risks associated with that (which is a bit at odds with the proposed roll out a few years ago - who knows!).

 

[snarlingcoyote]

True, so any developments would be the result of (costly) research.





All I'm saying is that, at a point when spending is supposed to being limited, it seems odd that a government would choose to spend money on a low-impact disease of all things.

Who exactly IS this government of which you speak? Oh right. The US Government through the NIH. That means that we, the people paid for it. So far, I don't hear any dissent, at least on this board, from the folks who paid for it, that it was frivolous or unnecessary.

We spend good, hard-earned taxpayer money on the National Parks. This doesn't don't save any lives. But we, the people, the taxpayers of our country, have decided it is something we want to spend our money on and so our government spends money on it.

I was not privy to the NIH's decision process in deciding to fund research on the vaccine, but I am sure they look upon the irradication of any childhood communicable illness as a good thing. Also, they surely weighed in progress on the vaccine, likliehood of the vaccine actually coming to fruition and the cost of the research and found that it was a good expenditure.

Also, I need to add, the thing that irritates me most about your argument, to put it metaphorically, is that it's like someone looking at another person's bankbook and criticizing them for giving money to Cathy's Cat Rescue because they could've done a lot more good giving the money to David's Doggie Shelter because there are far more dogs in need of rescue than cats.

 

[NotUrsula]

True, so any developments would be the result of (costly) research.




All I'm saying is that, at a point when spending is supposed to being limited, it seems odd that a government would choose to spend money on a low-impact disease of all things. ...

Well, there is impact and there is impact. Back when I was a kid in the early 60's and most mom's of young kids were SAHM's, there wasn't much economic impact to chickenpox, but that isn't the case any longer. With 70% of US mothers of school-age children in the workforce, days when your child is sick with something that is highly contagious are days when you are not at work, and productivity suffers. If you are a minimum-wage worker and have to take off 2 weeks because you have to stay home with a contagious sick child, you may end up losing your job over it.

So, while it may not involve anyone dying, the government does have an interest in reducing factors that lead to productivity loss and job loss.

Of course, in the US vaccine research is normally not done by the government at all these days; vaccine production is a commercial business, and the ones most likely to get developed are the ones most likely to be easily sold to large numbers of people. I recently heard an official from the CDC on the radio talking about flu vaccines. He said that they knew that a more effective vaccine for flu could be made now, but that companies were not interested in pursuing it because such a vaccine might only be needed a couple of times in a lifetime, while the current ones need to be done every year. In this case, there is more profit in maintaining the status quo.