~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ This message is from PedTalk! To reply to the group, use "" ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Robert and Lisa Wack wrote: > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > 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. > > But this is not the Third World either.