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.

Just because politicians make PR moves often doesn't excuse it. I'll continue to point out that this is a move that won't help nearly as much as other moves (such as diarreah medicine) would, and if the "we should help other people" argument is valid, we should spend out money on the most efficient ways, not this.

 

Furthermore, and I'm not saying you are wrong, why is it "necessary?"

From the article:

 

 

 

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.

How is it in our interest? If the point is to keep Americans from getting swine flu, wouldn't giving Americans the vaccine be the best way?

 

BTW, who produced this vaccine? Everyone should keep in mind that, in 1976, the swine flu "epidemic" killed 1 one person, but the vaccine killed 25 people.

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

I thought it was put quite eloquently...and with effect.

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...

 

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.

 

Just because politicians make PR moves often doesn't excuse it. I'll continue to point out that this is a move that won't help nearly as much as other moves (such as diarreah medicine) would, and if the "we should help other people" argument is valid, we should spend out money on the most efficient ways, not this.

 

Furthermore, and I'm not saying you are wrong, why is it "necessary?"

 

How is it in our interest? If the point is to keep Americans from getting swine flu, wouldn't giving Americans the vaccine be the best way?

 

BTW, who produced this vaccine? Everyone should keep in mind that, in 1976, the swine flu "epidemic" killed 1 one person, but the vaccine killed 25 people.

 

I had nothing to do with it! :irked:

I had nothing to do with it! :irked:

 

Yeah, it helped people. I already assumed you had nothing to do with it.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

A vaccination in no way is 100% effective. I was vaccinated for mumps...got the mumps. I was vaccinated for measles, got the measles. Hence the reason I don't do flu shots of any kind. :lol:

Just because politicians make PR moves often doesn't excuse it. I'll continue to point out that this is a move that won't help nearly as much as other moves (such as diarreah medicine) would, and if the "we should help other people" argument is valid, we should spend out money on the most efficient ways, not this.

 

Furthermore, and I'm not saying you are wrong, why is it "necessary?"

 

How is it in our interest? If the point is to keep Americans from getting swine flu, wouldn't giving Americans the vaccine be the best way?

 

BTW, who produced this vaccine? Everyone should keep in mind that, in 1976, the swine flu "epidemic" killed 1 one person, but the vaccine killed 25 people.

 

 

First, one doesn't need to contract the virus to carry the virus. Despite anyone's warnings, there will be those who are not vaccinated.

 

I guess if the only concern you have is your own interest, or those that live within the borders of the United States, then you won't be concerned. I happen to have a more global view, and feel that a greater good is at stake. Yes, it's PR, but no one can deny that to provide the vaccine to others in the world who would otherwise not have access is also a basic humanitarian good deed.

 

Have we really become so selfish a nation that the good of others is of absolutely no concern?

Edited September 19, 200917 yr by rockmom

I thought it was put quite eloquently...and with effect.

 

 

:lol: Eloquently skewed. :lol:

Yeah, it helped people. I already assumed you had nothing to do with it.

 

 

 

 

 

Zing! :lol:

A vaccination in no way is 100% effective. I was vaccinated for mumps...got the mumps. I was vaccinated for measles, got the measles. Hence the reason I don't do flu shots of any kind. :lol:

 

Me neither. I hereby bequeath 100% of my share to someone - anyone - who needs and wants it.

First, one doesn't need to contract the virus to carry the virus. Despite anyone's warnings, there will be those who are not vaccinated.

 

I guess if the only concern you have is your own interest, or those that live within the borders of the United States, then you won't be concerned. I happen to have a more global view, and feel that a greater good is at stake. Yes, it's PR, but no one can deny that to provide the vaccine to others in the world who would otherwise not have access is also a basic humanitarian good deed.

 

Have we really become so selfish a nation that the good of others is of absolutely no concern?

Fair enough. I don't know if it is good for a nation to be unselfish. That is on individuals, not government.

I guess if the only concern you have is your own interest, or those that live within the borders of the United States, then you won't be concerned. I happen to have a more global view, and feel that a greater good is at stake. Yes, it's PR, but no one can deny that to provide the vaccine to others in the world who would otherwise not have access is also a basic humanitarian good deed.

Why are people in foreign countries more worthy than our own citizens?

 

I think the point is not that we will have plenty of supply left over. Giving to the other countries would be fine at that point. The problem is in giving 10% of our supply away when we don't even have enough (yet) for every American who needs it. Because of the gradual rollout of the vaccine, a certain percentage of vulneable people will have to wait to be protected. If we give 10% of that away, there will be that many more who have to wait and could potentially catch the disease while doing so.

I think people are making to big of a deal out of this. This vaccine hasn't been tested on humans before. Since I work in the health care profession, I always get a flu vaccine every year. I'm not sure if I want the swine flu vaccine or not, with the unknown about the vaccine. I don't mean to come off as callus, or heartless, but I certainly don't mind it being tested on others before it's used on me, or my family.

Why are people in foreign countries more worthy than our own citizens?

 

I think the point is not that we will have plenty of supply left over. Giving to the other countries would be fine at that point. The problem is in giving 10% of our supply away when we don't even have enough (yet) for every American who needs it. Because of the gradual rollout of the vaccine, a certain percentage of vulneable people will have to wait to be protected. If we give 10% of that away, there will be that many more who have to wait and could potentially catch the disease while doing so.

 

We have access to clean water, soap and plenty of sanitary conditions to protect ourselves in the event that there may be some that don't get it right away. The countries where this will be sent are in a much worse predicament.

 

As has been unscientifically indicated by my poll in the other thread, there are those of us who are eligible and possibly high-risk, that aren't getting it. I don't think any who do need it or want it will go without.

I think people are making to big of a deal out of this. This vaccine hasn't been tested on humans before. Since I work in the health care profession, I always get a flu vaccine every year. I'm not sure if I want the swine flu vaccine or not, with the unknown about the vaccine. I don't mean to come off as callus, or heartless, but I certainly don't mind it being tested on others before it's used on me, or my family.

Isn't that what they're doing now?

We have access to clean water, soap and plenty of sanitary conditions to protect ourselves in the event that there may be some that don't get it right away.

We also have access to vaccine. Or at least we did until Obama decided to give it to people who hate us anyway.