What is the purpose of mass vaccination programmes? - Page 2

[Sileree]

Originally Posted by Super Glue Mommy

saves who money in the long term? just curious, since vaccines cost $$ too. unless the treatment for disease is free and the vaccines are free, then it would be saving them money from THEIR pocked. So, I assume this statement means they are trying to do "us" a favor and save us money?

Saves the government money, I meant.

[Super Glue Mommy]

saves the government money how? what did they used to spend the money on, and what are they spending the money on now? is our tax money going towards any of this? how much now, compared to how much before?

what about the less health care dollars statement (I know you werent the one who said this, but I would like insight) whose pockets does that effect, and how, relatively speaking (from treating diseases verus "preventing" disease)

and would it really be saving money if the studies were being done with proper control groups? if proper control groups and safety tests don't cost more money, then why dont they do them? wouldn't THAT save them more money in the long run? to have actual answers instead of CDC and vaccine manufactorers biased speculated and skewed statistics?

thats for any answers you are able tp provide. I realize no one may have the answers to all of these questions. I admit that I don't. I don't know if there are sources with the answers clearly outlined in this fashion that I have not yet found or come across, or if when people say these things they are just reiterating a statement of someone else who they are trusting to be telling them the truth, without any numbers available for them to interpret for themselves.

[ema-adama]

Originally Posted byplunky:
Forgot you were not from the US. It means second guessing someone. The quarterback is the person who throws the ball and calls the plays in an American football game. As in: hey it was great that they eradicated smallpox, but wouldn't it have been better if they did it MY way?

I was not saying it would have been better if they did it my way (!). I was saying that vaccination alone is not responsible for the eradication of small pox. Or potentially is not solely responsible. From what I have understood ring vaccination was effective. And this, together with the nature of the disease, make it at least possible that the vaccine is not solely responsible. It's really very hard to proove one way or the other.

Related to smallpox - it scares the bejeebies out of me that in the USA there are plans to vaccinate EVERYONE irrespective of contraindications should the government call for this. When the risks of the vaccine are known and documented. :

Originally Posted by carriebft

Commonly they talk about the economic side. You see tons of studies on the 'hours saved' and all that. So I would say you have to throw that reason in there. The thinking is usually: vaccine = less disease = less time away from work/ less health care dollars spent on recovery/etc.

Yes, this has become a part of the equation. The question has to be asked what is the cost of the vaccine to the immune system of the individual being vaccinated and what is the cost of accumulated vaccination. Obviously there is no clear answer on this as there are no studies done that address just what the long term effects can be. This is an area sorely lacking in information. Which makes it very frustrating when you are trying to understand just what the risks are. Well, frustrating for me anyway.