Posted by Nickengland on September 14, 2005, at 13:25:39
In reply to Re: Vaccine plan 'will save millions' » Nickengland, posted by AuntieMel on September 14, 2005, at 10:23:56
Hello AuntieMel,
>The whole thing seems so expensive!
It does when you look at the figures doesn't it?!...but then I thought, you're vaccinating a group of people larger than the population of Sweden!
>4bn USD to provide vaccines for 10 million kids works out to, what, $400 per kid?
$400 per kid? Probably worth it considering, according to the site links you provided they are the worlds poorest children. In the rich countires kids might have $400 spent on them for computer games or something, whereas perhaps these children don't have these kind of luxuries, at least they are getting the chance of a better future health..
>But - according to the Iffim web site, it is 5 million kids lives to be saved and 5 million "future adult lives" whatever that is.
An anticipated IFFIm investment of US$4 billion is expected to prevent 5 million child deaths between 2005-2015 and more than 5 million future adult deaths. This is in addition to the estimated 1.5 million lives that will be saved if resources invested in the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization (GAVI) continue at their current level.
>Why so much? Is most of it interest? Probably.
This is partly becuuse, I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Gordon Brown - aka Tony Blairs right hand man and also the man in charge of all the money over here, taxes etc is quite fond of borrowing money, hence the interest. But why so much ~ I think to save lives is the overall outcome and to do it as fast as possible to improve the poorer countries of the world?
>Iffim says that one "advantage" of frontloading the money is to "focus on new, under-used and newly licensed vaccines." Does this mean that poor countries are to be our test cases?
Well it does say *licenced* so like the medication people take for mental illness for example, in theory we would hope they have been put through tests to make sure they are safe. Also the medications we take, some of which have only very recently come on to the market, so we in the Western world are test cases too. You have to begin somewhere..
>They also say that providing the vaccine gives them more access to the kids and "can be used to deliver other interventions such as vitamin A and insecticide-treated bednets."
>I'll take my bednet without the insecticide, thank you
Malaria is considered very dangerous in some parts of the world and from what I know of seeing something on TV recently can kill if not treated early enough.
"Hang an insecticide treated mosquito net over beds, if the room cannot be kept free of mosquitoes (cabins or huts, tents, etc.) or if you are in a high-risk area."
"Use insecticides in form of aerosols, vaporizers, candles, smoke spirals or others in living and, most of all, in sleeping areas"
"In view of the fact that these measures of protection against mosquito bites are practically free of risks, they should be carried out meticulously by all people traveling in areas of endemic malaria."
http://www.mosquito-netting.com/mosquito-bite.html
I read that as...
Immunization is well suited to use IFF-generated funds because it:
Is a key first (and sometimes, only) point of contact for mothers and children with the health systems, and can be used to deliver other interventions such as vitamin A and insecticide-treated bednets
As well as
Has the potential to save millions of children's lives through a substantial ramp-up in coverage rates.
>As much as I hate to admit it, I'm with the US govt on this one. It seems to me to be a more efficient way to get coverage.
Well Bush said (US Govt) that it does not fit with budgetary process ~ its doesnt say why?
Obviously with the costs of the Iraq war there must be limits to what the Government can afford I would of thought, whether that comes into it I don't know.>The CDC has been for years going into poor countries and passing out vaccines
The CDC sounds like it does a great job, I take it this is an American agency, I just had a look on their website..
> - and teaching village people how to administer them.
So that they can then use them by themselves?.....it says this from the link you provided..
Experience demonstrates that co-financing arrangements with countries greatly improves the prospects for long-term sustainability and would allow for the extension of IFF funding to more countries over a longer period of time. When vaccines are first introduced in developing countries, the high prices are out of reach of developing country health budgets and IFFIm will shoulder much of the funding burden. However, over time vaccine prices will decrease eventually reaching a point where developing countries can take over the financing of these vaccines.
>It seems to me to be a more efficient way to get coverage.
The Centre for Disease Control seems a more efficient way, than the International Finance Facility for Immunization which is an initiative of the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization? I'm not sure if thats what you meant?
I think in America, lots of things are bigger and better than compared to other parts of the world - take cheese burgers for example lol No seriously, when I was out in America from what I remember, the size of the roads, the size of the cars! the quality of service from the people was outstanding....lots of others things too were excellent.
Whether the CDC will be more efficent than IFFIM I guess time will tell....I'm just glad childrens lifes will be safed, the costs might be high, but these children need this help asap and the best result in my eyes, is that the more children that can recieve it, the better it will be for the overall outcome.
Kind regards
Nick
poster:Nickengland
thread:552882
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/poli/20050728/msgs/555020.html