Who to vaccinate?

[Snowball]

So one of the prompts for the Flinn scholarship this year goes basically like this: You have only 100 vaccines for a deadly strain of influenza to give to 100 elderly and 100 children in your town. The elderly are more likely to die if they get sick, but also less likely to spread the disease. The children are less likely to die from it if they get sick, but they are more likely to spread the disease to others. Who would you vaccinate and why?

 

[LightFang]

First come first serve. It's not right to force people to be vaccinated; if they want to be vaccinated, then they'll come. When it runs out, it runs out.

 

[frob2900]

So one of the prompts for the Flinn scholarship this year goes basically like this: You have only 100 vaccines for a deadly strain of influenza to give to 100 elderly and 100 children in your town. The elderly are more likely to die if they get sick, but also less likely to spread the disease. The children are less likely to die from it if they get sick, but they are more likely to spread the disease to others. Who would you vaccinate and why?

A few select elderly (e.g. statesmen, scientists, if there are any) and then mostly frail kids, followed by less frail kids etc.

It's not the same scale of tragedy if a run-of-the-mill 80 year old dies than if a 8 year old dies.

 

[Colonel]

the kids, they need to survive to propagate the species. Old people are expendable in this regard.

 

[bhsup]

The kids, because I believe the children are the future.

 

[GVBN]

I would sell the vaccines

 

[nivi]

Where's El_Machinae to tell us how people are going to live forever?

 

[Izipo]

Interesting question.
But really, a no-brainer.
Children are more likely to spread the vaccine, unless they are vaccinated.
Thus by using your 100 vaccines on children alone, you would stunt the spread of the epidemic (and save children), possibly saving countless more lives in the process.

This answer is, IMO, morally and scientifically acceptable.

 

[Rambuchan]

Izipo hit it.

 

[Dezzilisk]

MYSELF!

Then i too would sell the rest

 

[plarq]

Hit those weak people

 

[mdwh]

I don't see there's any dilemma here, since spreading disease to others means that more people will die. The answer is "whichever one is likely to result in less deaths", which we obviously can't answer without more information.

 

[Mirc]

Interesting question.
But really, a no-brainer.
Children are more likely to spread the vaccine, unless they are vaccinated.
Thus by using your 100 vaccines on children alone, you would stunt the spread of the epidemic (and save children), possibly saving countless more lives in the process.

This answer is, IMO, morally and scientifically acceptable.

Agreed.

 

[AL_DA_GREAT]

How old are the eldarly. The children can't take care of themselves, so we would need a mix.

 

[El_Machinae]

Vaccinate 2/3 of the children. By vaccinating a heavy portion of their population, you prevent the disease from spreading among the children opportunitistically. Heck, if children show symptoms, you can sequester those kids with vaccinated kids to quarranteen.

Then spend the last 1/3 on vaccinating the elderly most likely to interact with the public.

Where's El_Machinae to tell us how people are going to live forever?

How is this related? A hundred thousand people die of aging-related causes every day.

 

[warpus]

Depends on how extensive the spread of the virus has been so far. If it's only spread to kids, give it to kids. If it's only spread to the elderly, give it to them. Then make sure that no elderly come in contact with kids, until the virus is gone.

 

[nivi]

How is this related? A hundred thousand people die of aging-related causes every day.

Uh, was talking about how people don't appriciate the life of the elderly, just teasing, don't worry.

 

[Leonel]

A few select elderly (e.g. statesmen, scientists, if there are any) and then mostly frail kids, followed by less frail kids etc.

It's not the same scale of tragedy if a run-of-the-mill 80 year old dies than if a 8 year old dies.

Same thing but I'd vaccinate the farmers and government administrators. Then we don't end up starving to death and we have some order afterwards.

 

[Japanrocks12]

First come, first serve, but we defintely want to make sure that a certain amount of elderly folks get it. Their immune systems are weak, and it wouldn't be proper to let 100 people go to their deaths if it means fewer people will potentially have the disease in the long run.

 

[Izipo]

I forgot that you have to give the vaccine to some of the health care personel first. If they're sick, who's gonna vaccine you ?
Some people here found the perfect answer. The only way to stop a major (and lethal) airborne epidemic, is to limit to the minimum social interaction.
Your town/area/country might go down for a few weeks, but after that you're safe. Or keep everything normal (school, work...) and see it slowly go down in anarchy when people start dying in the thousands.