Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Polk5440]

Healthy, fit people can actually spread the disease without showing symptoms themselves.

A healthy fit, vaccinated, person can spread the disease without showing symptoms themselves. Being vaccinated does not prevent one from spreading the disease. Flu vaccines are not a replacement for proper hygiene which does, in fact, prevent transmission.

In general, vaccination does in fact reduce the spreading of the disease because your body better wipes out the disease if you are vaccinated. There is absolutely a public good component (minimize spreading of disease) to vaccination.

Whether this effect is present depends on the disease, and I have to say I don't know the research on the flu vaccine in particular.

[Witherweaver]

The risk of not getting the vaccine is about five days of agony and time off work, plus medication costs.

In the UK the converse is true- most people don't get the flu vaccine because you have to pay for it, and if you get ill, you just go get free treatment.

That seems backwards.  Wouldn't making the vaccine "free" be more cost effective over all?

No, prevention is often more costly because you pay for EVERYONE. You treat only those who get sick (a much smaller number, unless there is an epidemic).

I would have thought the vaccine cost was significantly lower than the treatment cost.

[Polk5440]

The risk of not getting the vaccine is about five days of agony and time off work, plus medication costs.

In the UK the converse is true- most people don't get the flu vaccine because you have to pay for it, and if you get ill, you just go get free treatment.

That seems backwards.  Wouldn't making the vaccine "free" be more cost effective over all?

No, prevention is often more costly because you pay for EVERYONE. You treat only those who get sick (a much smaller number, unless there is an epidemic).

I would have thought the vaccine cost was significantly lower than the treatment cost.

Per person, yes. But you can still have this effect overall:

Example (not based on flu numbers -- I have no idea what they are):
vaccine (100% effective): cost $10 per person.
treatment for disease (100% effective): $10,000 per person.

If no one gets vaccinated, 10,000 get sick. Population 50,000,000

Cost of vaccination: $500,000,000.
Cost of treatment: $100,000,000.

Letting people get sick is cheaper.

[Witherweaver]

Right, I mean, obviously it depends on the numbers.  I just (without really thinking about it) guessed they would work out the other way.

[Joseph2302]

Yes, this is basically the reason behind it. Also, those most at risk (kids, elderly, those who work for NHS) do get free flu jab, but the rest of us don't.

[GeoLib]

The risk of not getting the vaccine is about five days of agony and time off work, plus medication costs.

In the UK the converse is true- most people don't get the flu vaccine because you have to pay for it, and if you get ill, you just go get free treatment.

That seems backwards.  Wouldn't making the vaccine "free" be more cost effective over all?

No, prevention is often more costly because you pay for EVERYONE. You treat only those who get sick (a much smaller number, unless there is an epidemic).

I would have thought the vaccine cost was significantly lower than the treatment cost.

Per person, yes. But you can still have this effect overall:

Example (not based on flu numbers -- I have no idea what they are):
vaccine (100% effective): cost $10 per person.
treatment for disease (100% effective): $10,000 per person.

If no one gets vaccinated, 10,000 get sick. Population 50,000,000

Cost of vaccination: $500,000,000.
Cost of treatment: $100,000,000.

Letting people get sick is cheaper.

You're assuming that everyone has to get vaccinated for the vaccine to be effective. Not the case: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity Also, you're neglecting the cost in lost productivity (and general human well-being) that is much higher for the disease than for the vaccine.

[Polk5440]

The risk of not getting the vaccine is about five days of agony and time off work, plus medication costs.

In the UK the converse is true- most people don't get the flu vaccine because you have to pay for it, and if you get ill, you just go get free treatment.

That seems backwards.  Wouldn't making the vaccine "free" be more cost effective over all?

No, prevention is often more costly because you pay for EVERYONE. You treat only those who get sick (a much smaller number, unless there is an epidemic).

I would have thought the vaccine cost was significantly lower than the treatment cost.

Per person, yes. But you can still have this effect overall:

Example (not based on flu numbers -- I have no idea what they are):
vaccine (100% effective): cost $10 per person.
treatment for disease (100% effective): $10,000 per person.

If no one gets vaccinated, 10,000 get sick. Population 50,000,000

Cost of vaccination: $500,000,000.
Cost of treatment: $100,000,000.

Letting people get sick is cheaper.

You're assuming that everyone has to get vaccinated for the vaccine to be effective. Not the case: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity Also, you're neglecting the cost in lost productivity (and general human well-being) that is much higher for the disease than for the vaccine.

I assumed simplicity for an EXAMPLE. More complicated scenarios can absolutely can work out the same way.

Oh, did I not mention costs were economic costs? Cost of the pain of being jabbed, lost productivity, pain and suffering, driving around to get care, etc? $10 and $1000 of economic costs.

And all numbers are expectations.

[Polk5440]

Right, I mean, obviously it depends on the numbers.  I just (without really thinking about it) guessed they would work out the other way.

I don't know. I assume they go the other way for flu (and other strongly encouraged vaccines). In fact, I would hope that public policy is set so that you are encouraged to get the vaccine/preventative treatment for exactly the set of diseases where the prevention is cost-effective. Could depend on country, too.

Just wanted to point out they may not.

[jonts26]

I would hope policy would include moral and ethical considerations as well as economic ones.

[Polk5440]

I would hope policy would include moral and ethical considerations as well as economic ones.

Yeah, that too.

[qmech]

The risk of not getting the vaccine is about five days of agony and time off work, plus medication costs.

In the UK the converse is true- most people don't get the flu vaccine because you have to pay for it, and if you get ill, you just go get free treatment.

That seems backwards.  Wouldn't making the vaccine "free" be more cost effective over all?

No, prevention is often more costly because you pay for EVERYONE. You treat only those who get sick (a much smaller number, unless there is an epidemic).

I would have thought the vaccine cost was significantly lower than the treatment cost.

If a typical working age person happens to get flu then there won't be any treatment.  The advice is just to rest, drink water, and take paracetamol or ibuprofen if you like.

For those who might get serious complications the vaccine is provided free of charge.

[jonts26]

Not everyone who is high risk for complications can get the vaccine due to allergies or other health risks. Also getting the vaccine is not a guarantee to avoid catching the disease. This is why herd immunity is so critical and everyone should get vaccinated who is able. You might save someone else's life.

[pingpongsam]

Not everyone who is high risk for complications can get the vaccine due to allergies or other health risks. Also getting the vaccine is not a guarantee to avoid catching the disease. This is why herd immunity is so critical and everyone should get vaccinated who is able. You might save someone else's life.

So you're saying they should pay me to take the shot?

[jonts26]

Not everyone who is high risk for complications can get the vaccine due to allergies or other health risks. Also getting the vaccine is not a guarantee to avoid catching the disease. This is why herd immunity is so critical and everyone should get vaccinated who is able. You might save someone else's life.

So you're saying they should pay me to take the shot?

For matters of public safety like this they should probably incentivize you to get vaccinated. Probably would be more cost effective to fine you for not getting it though.

[eHalcyon]

[Kuildeous]

For matters of public safety like this they should probably incentivize you to get vaccinated. Probably would be more cost effective to fine you for not getting it though.

Thanks, Obama.

[sudgy]

What does that say at the end?

[eHalcyon]

What does that say at the end?

No idea.  Not even sure if this was an actual game by a very skilled player or just an animation.  I want to believe though.

[jonts26]

What does that say at the end?

No idea.  Not even sure if this was an actual game by a very skilled player or just an animation.  I want to believe though.

My guess is someone wrote a program to try to optimize the pathing.

[Awaclus]

What does that say at the end?

No idea.  Not even sure if this was an actual game by a very skilled player or just an animation.  I want to believe though.

It's not that difficult. At least it wasn't when all Nokia phones still had that game.

[silverspawn]

you can just pick one route that covers any point on the field and go through that over and over again, and you win.

[jonts26]

you can just pick one route that covers any point on the field and go through that over and over again, and you win.

That wouldn't be optimal though. 

[Teproc]

you can just pick one route that covers any point on the field and go through that over and over again, and you win.

That works but not what's shown there, there are some pretty impressive skills involved towards the middle of ehalcyon's thing.

[WalrusMcFishSr]

Fun fact: Giuseppe Peano first discovered his eponymous space-filling curve while playing Snake on a graphing calculator.

[Voltaire]

ADK and I discovered yesterday that we share a mutual friend (in real life). The world is tiny.