Swine flu vaccine: Poland smarter than everybody else :P

[Tamas]

Not really. There were numerous voices saying that the swine flu scare is being hyped up by pharmaceutical corporations and the like (and I remember many people here on Languish saying they have no intention of being vaccinated - although more in Europe than in the US). These voices prove to be correct and there has been little surprise there.

Homer: Well, there's not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol is sure doing its job.
Lisa: That's specious reasoning, Dad.
Homer: Thank you, sweetie.
Lisa: Dad, what if I were to tell you that this rock keeps away tigers.
Homer: Uh-huh, and how does it work?
Lisa: It doesn't work. It's just a stupid rock.
Homer: I see.
Lisa: But you don't see any tigers around, do you?
Homer: Lisa, I'd like to buy your rock.

Actually, this dialogue works pretty well with the vaccine, doesn't it?

The countries that bought the anti-tiger rock (i.e. the swine flu vaccine) didn't get attacked by tigers (i.e. didn't get massive deaths due to swine flu).

The countries that did not buy the anti-tiger rock didn't get attacked by tigers, either though.

thinking that the vaccine was the anti-tiger rock just shows your ignorance on the subject.

[DGuller]

Actually, this dialogue works pretty well with the vaccine, doesn't it?

The countries that bought the anti-tiger rock (i.e. the swine flu vaccine) didn't get attacked by tigers (i.e. didn't get massive deaths due to swine flu).

The countries that did not buy the anti-tiger rock didn't get attacked by tigers, either though.

Except that no one claims that it was the vaccine that held the swine flu at bay.

[Martinus]

Not now, but before, the media at least claimed that if the vaccine is not available WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE.

[Tamas]

Not now, but before, the media at least claimed that if the vaccine is not available WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE.

They claim that for everything.

[Caliga]

The media's job is to overhype EVERYTHING, thereby keeping you glued to their TV/radio stations and websites and watching the advertising they also show.

[Martinus]

The question isn't whether the vaccine was beneficial or whether the swine flu constituted a risk. So please stop arguing about this, guys, since it is a strawman that me or Merri hold the opposite position.

The question is: was the overall cost incurred by national governments in order to get the vaccine reasonable, taking into account the risks posed by swine flu.

As one English judge once said, we could eliminate virtually all rail-related accidents if we made trains run at 10 mph, but we do not do that since the social and business costs of this would be insurmountably higher than the benefits from the elimination of a relatively low (or non-costly) risk.

The question is how does paying through the nose for the vaccine fit this equation.

[Tamas]

The question is how does paying through the nose for the vaccine fit this equation.

No, because every government project is bound to be too expensive and overly careless in spending. Thats the nature of things, when you have lots of people spending money which is no one's

[Martinus]

The question is how does paying through the nose for the vaccine fit this equation.

No, because every government project is bound to be too expensive and overly careless in spending. Thats the nature of things, when you have lots of people spending money which is no one's

So your argument is effectively that since all government projects waste money and are corrupt, there is no way to judge individual government projects on whether they are reasonable or not?

And you accuse me of Eastern European thinking? 

[Zanza]

The question is: was the overall cost incurred by national governments in order to get the vaccine reasonable, taking into account the risks posed by swine flu.

As it is rather hard to quantify both the potential damage or the risk that this damage would actually occur, you can't really say whether or not the cost of the vaccine were reasonable. As both of the unknown numbers can only be estimations, it is rather easy to make a case both pro and contra the vaccine depending on what you aim for. Pretty pointless exercise.

[Tamas]

The question is how does paying through the nose for the vaccine fit this equation.

No, because every government project is bound to be too expensive and overly careless in spending. Thats the nature of things, when you have lots of people spending money which is no one's

So your argument is effectively that since all government projects waste money and are corrupt, there is no way to judge individual government projects on whether they are reasonable or not?

And you accuse me of Eastern European thinking? 

Yes. My idea of as little as possible state involvment in everything goes straight against just about every east euro political positions, which differ only in the preferred size of the nanny state.

[The Minsky Moment]

Not now, but before, the media at least claimed that if the vaccine is not available WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE.

Cite please?

[Savonarola]

Not now, but before, the media at least claimed that if the vaccine is not available WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE.

Cite please?

[Ed Anger]

At least it was printed with ink that won't come off on your hands as you die of the flu.

[The Minsky Moment]

The question is: was the overall cost incurred by national governments in order to get the vaccine reasonable, taking into account the risks posed by swine flu.

Ok.  Where is your analysis?

Here's mine:
Let's say we assume that the chance of this h1n1 variant having a similar impact as the Spanish Flu pandemic was (a priori) very low - let's say 1 in 20 or 5 percent.

The Spanish flu conservatively killed about 3 percent of world population in 1918-19.  Since medical facilities are much improved since them, the death rate would presumably be lower now; on the other hand, ubiquitous and very rapid transport would make the spread much faster.  Still, let's be conservative and assume a much lower fatality rate of only 1 percent or 1 in 100.

That means the expected death rate would be 5% x 1% =.05% or 1 in 2000.

So the question is whether you think it is reasonable to spend $10 or so to eliminate a 1 in2000 chance of dying.

I don't think there is much question about it.  Even if I have overstated the risks very substantially.

[The Minsky Moment]

Sav: Martinus didn't say that a few London tabloids made such claims; he said "the media".  If you have to reach for the "London Lite" my point is made.