~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ This message is from PedTalk! To reply to the group, use "" ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ In response to , "And what evidence is there to indicate how many lives would be saved by spending another $150 million in these areas? I don't think society has "written them off."" THere is just as much evidence that equal amounts would be saved using the varicella vaccine: very little. That's just my point: this decision was made with a relative paucity of data. Here's the test: has anyone seen, or heard of, any trials testing the hypothesis that we would see these great savings? I doubt it, and I bet we won't. Sorry about the "writing off" comment. An unnecessary rhetorical flourish. In response to Dr. Eisen, I respectfully disagree. In my conversations with Dr. Steve Kohl of the Red Book committee, the arguments for the vaccine boiled down to two: 100 saved lives, and the projected "societal savings". Given the difficulty of calculating "societal savings" in a meaningful way, or any other savings (inconvenience, discomfort, worry, etc.), we're stuck with the things we can count and quantify. Don't get me wrong: I think the the vaccine is great, serves a very useful purpose (immunizing non-immune adults and teens) and will be with us for a long time. I just think the rush to universal immunization was premature, and pushed on us with relatively little data. Physicians outside the US, particularly the Third World, I imagine are surprised at the effort being put into eradicating a disease like varicella. Despite the hype, this is NOT measles, diptheria, pertussis or polio.