Wouldn't you rather it be available for use in case those "10% who won't get it no matter what" (not sure how you came up with that number :idunno:), change their minds and decide to get it?

 

So you have no problem with potentially turning down someone who decides they want it, and giving it away, at the taxpayers expense, to other countries?

 

 

I don't believe anyone who wants it WILL be turned away.

 

I also believe the topic, as it is presented, is slightly skewed.

I don't believe anyone who wants it WILL be turned away.

 

I also believe the topic, as it is presented, is slightly skewed.

 

So you don't believe they will, but really don't know, correct? If that's the case, wouldn't you rather error on the side of caution, just in case?

We have better capability to handle disease than many other countries. Perhaps giving some of the vaccine to smaller, poorer nations will keep if from becoming an absolute epidemic which could happen there much more than it realistically can in the U.S.

 

Agreed.

 

Quick thought:

 

Does this not cause the same moral hazard that bailing out the big banks does? If AIG takes huge risks and fails, we will cover their losses. Similarly, if you are a foreign country, any time a new illness arises, why would you bother to spend money on a cure? The United States will merely give you some. It's the same reason why foreign aid is generally a bad idea. Transferring wealth from the U.S. to corrupt political regimes in other countries doesn't give them any reason to become more economically developed- they receive a financial reward for extreme poverty.

 

If we want to continue to have to financially prop up the rest of the world, then ideas like this are great. If we want other countries to prosper like we do, in the interest of ourselves and them, then we should try to stay away from giving out handouts for being unproductive.

 

Lest we forget, in our youth, we were the recepients of a "bit" of foreign aid our selves.

 

We exist in a global enviornment, even moreso now than 200 years ago. What is in the world's interest, is in OUR interest. I don't believe we live in a vacuum, and I don't believe foreign aid is a bad thing at all. I might disagree with some choices of aid, but I don't disagree with the premise of foreign aid as a whole.

So you don't believe they will, but really don't know, correct? If that's the case, wouldn't you rather error on the side of caution, just in case?

 

No, because of reasons stated above that I agree with.

No, because of reasons stated above that I agree with.

 

Aren't you one of the posters who say that whether global warming exists or not, it's better to error on the side of caution just in case? I don't see this is any different.

Aren't you one of the posters who say that whether global warming exists or not, it's better to error on the side of caution just in case? I don't see this is any different.

 

 

So....you don't believe preventing Swine Flu in other countries is in our best interests?

So....you don't believe preventing Swine Flu in other countries is in our best interests?

 

Not before doing so in our own country, no.

Not before doing so in our own country, no.

 

 

So, everyone here gets vaccinated, and visitors to our country, or our citizens go to another country, contract it, bring it to the US....do you think having the entire populace of the US is immune to the virus at that point?

Lest we forget, in our youth, we were the recepients of a "bit" of foreign aid our selves.

 

We exist in a global enviornment, even moreso now than 200 years ago. What is in the world's interest, is in OUR interest. I don't believe we live in a vacuum, and I don't believe foreign aid is a bad thing at all. I might disagree with some choices of aid, but I don't disagree with the premise of foreign aid as a whole.

The empirical evidence against foreign aid is substantial, but that is for another thread.

 

To my other point- what about the idea that giving these vaccines to these less developed countries encourages them to NOT find their own cures? Are we not simply making these countries more dependent on us? Is that a sustainable practice?

 

We should encourage behavior that makes these countries sustainable on their own, not by being dependent on us. We are the richest, most powerful country in the world, but we can't financially support everyone.

So, everyone here gets vaccinated, and visitors to our country, or our citizens go to another country, contract it, bring it to the US....do you think having the entire populace of the US is immune to the virus at that point?

This sounds like an argument that the U.S. should vaccinate everyone on God's green earth?

To my other point- what about the idea that giving these vaccines to these less developed countries encourages them to NOT find their own cures? Are we not simply making these countries more dependent on us? Is that a sustainable practice?

 

What money will they use to find a cure? What facility will they do the research in? These are parts of the world where dysentery and malaria are still widespread killers. I'll agree that there are massive problems with foreign aid, but I'll also draw a huge distinction between the current system of economic and development aid and the distribution of vaccines to countries that can't even afford to build hospitals.

So, everyone here gets vaccinated, and visitors to our country, or our citizens go to another country, contract it, bring it to the US....do you think having the entire populace of the US is immune to the virus at that point?

 

Well, if our citizens are already vaccinated, they wouldn't contract it in a foriegn country. Also, I'm pretty sure, if you aren't a US citizen you have to be healthy to come in, although I could be wrong there.

What money will they use to find a cure? What facility will they do the research in? These are parts of the world where dysentery and malaria are still widespread killers. I'll agree that there are massive problems with foreign aid, but I'll also draw a huge distinction between the current system of economic and development aid and the distribution of vaccines to countries that can't even afford to build hospitals.

Of course it isn't going to happen immediately, but foreign aid, in general, gives foreign government incentives to make conditions worse for their people. Likewise, if you are a foreign government, how are you going to get free vaccines from the United Nations? By not having your own.

 

Furthermore, I'd prefer a reduction in taxes, so that private organizations and charities could more efficiently administer the vaccines than an organization like the WHO.

 

And, FWIW, don't more kids died from diarrhea disorders every 10 hours then people have from Swine Flu over the last few years? If we are REALLY interested in helping save lives, swine flu vaccines is not the way to go. This is a PR move...

This is a PR move...

 

Absolutely it is. But it's an international PR move, and probably a good one politically. While it may not be the best idea from a development standpoint, when you're the global superpower, these sorts of things are basically a necessity from a political standpoint. Still waiting on politicians to make the best move instead of the politically advantageous one? Hope you brought your lawn chair.

I'm with rockmom they can have mine, hope it saves someones life.

 

Only 1 out of 5 in my family will be used, if that. They're welcome to them rather than throwing them out.

From the article:

 

Vaccine makers GlaxoSmithKline and Sanofi-Pasteur previously pledged 120 million doses to WHO.

 

If the issue is covering Americans, why no qualms here?

 

The government is buying the vaccines and providing the inoculations for no charge to citizens. Is there no ability to purchase a vaccine if the government supply runs out?

 

cch, I think you are raising good points, but the issue is more paradoxical than you're accounting for. Foreign aid can incentivize poor behavior or establish reliance, but it can also get the ball rolling in the direction of development. In this instance, especially, rockmom's point is well taken that we don't live in a vacuum and it can be in our interest to aid other countries.