If a disease spread and there was a shortage of vaccines

rick182 · 04/04/13 - 22:58

Do you believe that the vaccines should be given to the higher earners or you that should have to pass a I.Q test to get it

[Deleted User] · 04/04/13 - 22:59

IQ tests don't really prove all that much.

I believe the vaccine would go to those who aren't very old, fragile or have a life-long debilitating illness.

I'd rather not pick and choose who would deserve it though.

Mustabuster · 04/04/13 - 23:02

So you've written yourself off then.

SJ_Mental · 04/04/13 - 23:03

High I.Q means nothing, It's a bit like warehouse space if you fill it full of shit it's mostly worthless.

Enidan · 04/04/13 - 23:04

Vaccines don't really work all that well so it doesn't really matter.

Moggio · 04/04/13 - 23:08

Enidan wrote: »

Vaccines don't really work all that well so it doesn't really matter.

Tell that to Smallpox.

Enidan · 04/04/13 - 23:15

Moggio wrote: »

Tell that to Smallpox.

Is he a FM?

Pisces Cloud · 04/04/13 - 23:21

It should be random. Put everyone's name in a computer then do a lottery type draw.

James Frederick · 04/04/13 - 23:25

Dan Fortesque wrote: »

It should be random. Put everyone's name in a computer then do a lottery type draw.

Should that person be allowed to give it to someone else though say a parent would sooner their child have it though if they had more than one that would be a problem

Would someone really want it while everyone they loved died I wouldn't

[Deleted User] · 04/04/13 - 23:28

A non-randomised system of doling them out might not be a bad idea for a society as a whole, if we could leave emotion behind.

It would be wise, if not politically smart, to prioritise women of child-bearing age, for instance. A fitness test for men might be appropriate. Children should be prioritised too, which at least is one area where the emotional and the pragmatic arguments meet up. There would be less sense, as callous as this may sound, vaccinating elderly people whose contribution to society has already been made.

It would probably be unpalatable politically but I don't think the underlying logic can be faulted. If Mother Nature were a sentient being, this is how she would we think. Whether a government should seek to think like that is another matter.

DinkyDoobie · 04/04/13 - 23:33

It should be done on a lottery based system, your value or worth isn't based on your wealth or intelligence.

KarlSomething · 04/04/13 - 23:35

The vaccines should be used where they will be most effective. That's the whole idea to begin with. Vaccination isn't just about protecting the person being vaccinated, it's about stopping or reducing the spread, and it's about the health of a population.

Enidan wrote: »

Vaccines don't really work all that well so it doesn't really matter.

Some work better than others. But most will only be of real use, if a lot of people have them. Not everyone gets an effect from a vaccine, while some are allergic to certain vaccines because of what they are made of, and those people depend on those around them to not be transmitting. Herd immunity. And if we want to eliminate disease, we need to eliminate any pockets the disease can flourish in.

KarlSomething · 04/04/13 - 23:45

heavy_rotation wrote: »

IQ tests don't really prove all that much.

I believe the vaccine would go to those who aren't very old, fragile or have a life-long debilitating illness.

I'd rather not pick and choose who would deserve it though.

If it's something like the flu, that the average healthy person is likely to survive, and not otherwise be devastated by, then it's the old and debilitated who will be most in need. If what we care about is saving lives and reducing suffering.

As well as those who are likely to be around those who are more vulnerable. Like hospital staff.

Hey there!

Quick Links

If a disease spread and there was a shortage of vaccines

Comments