Jump to content
Tomak

[AFF] Vaccines

Recommended Posts

On a vaccine case I would run:

 

Pharmacy DA

T - P.H.A.

Spending Trade Off DA

Corruption DA

 

and maybe more but I cant think right now.

 

The Pharm DA links hard to the aff though, plus could be more or less private health care rather than public with a few defenitions, spending trade off would work well against it because the onloy money that goes to those sorts of things are cut from other programs that do help, and the people wouldnt even get the aid in some countries due to corrupt government.

 

 

Vaccines are one of the most cost effective measures out there, and therefore spending tradeoff would be pretty easily beaten. Funnel through NGOs, as well as the fact that the some vaccines are worth a couple pennies, would mean that the governments wouldn't want the vaccines to sell off, and even if they did, they wouldn't be able to get them. I don't know what the Pharm DA is, but vaccines don't financially benefit those companies. The US defines vaccines as a form of public health assistance strait out, so it would be hard to beat that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Follow the link under Tomak's first post. It says that vaccines have mild side effects and that they are one of the most cost-effective methods of health care. The plan is not trying to solve for the people who already have the disease we are vaccinating against, we are trying to prevent people getting it in the future. My second point says that the U.S goverment isn't ignoring the people with AIDS and malaria that our plan doesn't solve for, the US has other plans that address those problems. There are already vaccines for the diseases that we are solving for, like meningitis or Polio. We don't have to produce new vaccines for the plan to work, we aren't even trying to solve AIDS, so I still don't understand why you keep bring it up. Most cases won't be sending a assortment of vaccines, they will be vaccinating one specific disease. Those vaccines even if expensive (haven't done the reaserch) are cheap compared to the money some plans dish out. Also if your whole stradegy against this case relies on something that is stupid to run theory against, like a perm, Then you will lose with that strat maybe 90% of the time.

 

well i never said my strategy was theory. I was making a point (few posts ago) from aff point of view on how you can answer that particular arguement.

1) Its cool if you arent solving for ppl who have the disease right now but if since you gave up those ppl, u will get killed by any team that debates on case. first, they will ur inherency against u, so all those ppl die while we just wait and hope for a better future. second, time-frame, you will be solving for the next 10 year at the best, and usually politics sceniros have a much shorter time frame.

2) If you give up that there are programs that are solving for AIDS (which I understand is not your advantage), that would be the CP and there are other ways u can utilize as well.

3) I understand that there are vaccines for stuff like polio and mengitis. problem with that is they are expensive, and the CP against that would be fund research and if you perm it, you will lose becuase research even makes the time-frame longer while also accepting that the current vaccines are bad (in the sense that they are expensive).

4) If you dont include AIDS or some other big disease advantage then I think you are...screwed. I guess I might havent done enough research but your arguement that polio will cause extinction would actually be bullshit. bcs most of the westerners are already protected against it and since we already have a vaccine, west cant be touched so no extinction. If you go just for Africa, then your impact is quite gay and small. I am not exactly sure how you will make sure impacts big without going critical.

5) Vaccines are expensive.

 

ALso, by no means I am saying that this is a bad aff, I am just telling you the gaps which you would have to fill in before you go into the round. I am also cutting this aff, and these were some of the stuff that I thought would be good neg args, so I am giving you a heads up to cut stuff against it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
well i never said my strategy was theory. I was making a point (few posts ago) from aff point of view on how you can answer that particular arguement.

1) Its cool if you arent solving for ppl who have the disease right now but if since you gave up those ppl, u will get killed by any team that debates on case. first, they will ur inherency against u, so all those ppl die while we just wait and hope for a better future. second, time-frame, you will be solving for the next 10 year at the best, and usually politics sceniros have a much shorter time frame.

2) If you give up that there are programs that are solving for AIDS (which I understand is not your advantage), that would be the CP and there are other ways u can utilize as well.

3) I understand that there are vaccines for stuff like polio and mengitis. problem with that is they are expensive, and the CP against that would be fund research and if you perm it, you will lose becuase research even makes the time-frame longer while also accepting that the current vaccines are bad (in the sense that they are expensive).

4) If you dont include AIDS or some other big disease advantage then I think you are...screwed. I guess I might havent done enough research but your arguement that polio will cause extinction would actually be bullshit. bcs most of the westerners are already protected against it and since we already have a vaccine, west cant be touched so no extinction. If you go just for Africa, then your impact is quite gay and small. I am not exactly sure how you will make sure impacts big without going critical.

5) Vaccines are expensive.

 

ALso, by no means I am saying that this is a bad aff, I am just telling you the gaps which you would have to fill in before you go into the round. I am also cutting this aff, and these were some of the stuff that I thought would be good neg args, so I am giving you a heads up to cut stuff against it.

 

Vaccines are the one of the most cost effective programs out there

Who, 2005

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs288/en/index.html

Immunization is considered among the most cost-effective of health investments. There is a well-defined target group; contact with the health system is only needed at the time of delivery; and vaccination does not require any major change of lifestyle.

A recent study estimated that a one-week "supplemental immunization activity" against measles carried out in Kenya in 2002 _ in which 12.8 million children were vaccinated — would result in a net saving in health costs of US$ 12 million over the following ten years; during that time it would prevent 3 850 000 cases of measles and 125 000 deaths. In the United States, cost-benefit analysis indicate that every dollar invested in a vaccine dose saves US$ 2 to US$ 27 in health expenses.

 

1)This program doesn't cost that much, other US programs would continue, and new ones will emerge. Yes, we do not address the needs of everyone. The point you making is like saying that doing a plan about malaria is wrong because it doesn't address AIDS, so you should vote against it

2)This program would not cause a trade off with AIDS programs. It's budget would be a drop in the bucket compared to the huge budgets of the AIDS programs

3)They aren't to expensive. And besides, the perm I would run is to use the old vaccines, and then use the new ones when they become availible

4)I never said that Polio would cause extinction, because that is stupid. Poverty, relief of hospital pressure, and (maybe) softpower.

5) Vaccines are cost effective

 

No you did not say you would be running theory against the case, you said you would be running it against an aff perm for a key counterplan in your strat. That is why I talked about Theory

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Vaccines are one of the most cost effective measures out there, and therefore spending tradeoff would be pretty easily beaten. Funnel through NGOs, as well as the fact that the some vaccines are worth a couple pennies, would mean that the governments wouldn't want the vaccines to sell off, and even if they did, they wouldn't be able to get them. I don't know what the Pharm DA is, but vaccines don't financially benefit those companies. The US defines vaccines as a form of public health assistance strait out, so it would be hard to beat that.

 

So pretty much plan text is going to be sending cheap, second rate vaccines to millions of people in SSA? Thats really effective, with these cheap second rate vaccines can we be assured that these people will be getting results from them? Also the Pharm DA still stands because its kinda like a politx da but with the drug industry. Not so much on spending, also the Spending trade off can still be argued because again the DA is saying that the money required for plan is going to be taken from somewhere else, programs that are doing good, it will be kind of hard to justify a trade off with other effective programs. Also, you may be right about the fact that vaccines are cost effective, however with the number of people in SSA that suffer from illnesses that require vaccines is huge! Costs will pile up and end up being a sizeable amount. The negative can still say that there are governments that have no regaurd for their people. (Zimbabwe anyone?) Even if we did lose it that is the time you bust out the western med. K.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So pretty much plan text is going to be sending cheap, second rate vaccines to millions of people in SSA? Thats really effective, with these cheap second rate vaccines can we be assured that these people will be getting results from them?

Uh, sure. Only this takes out the link to your "Pharm DA."

Also the Pharm DA still stands because its kinda like a politx da but with the drug industry.

More like bizcon.

Not so much on spending, also the Spending trade off can still be argued because again the DA is saying that the money required for plan is going to be taken from somewhere else, programs that are doing good, it will be kind of hard to justify a trade off with other effective programs.

That's where impact calculus would come in, of course.

Also, you may be right about the fact that vaccines are cost effective, however with the number of people in SSA that suffer from illnesses that require vaccines is huge! Costs will pile up and end up being a sizeable amount.

Cost-effective is still cost-effective regardless of the number.

The negative can still say that there are governments that have no regaurd for their people. (Zimbabwe anyone?)

Yes, the devastating solvency mitigator (that's not unique to this aff).

Even if we did lose it that is the time you bust out the western med. K.

GAME OVER. K WINS.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1.Uh, sure. Only this takes out the link to your "Pharm DA."

 

2.More like bizcon.

 

3.That's where impact calculus would come in, of course.

 

4.Cost-effective is still cost-effective irregardless of the number.

 

5.Yes, the devastating solvency mitigator (that's not unique to this aff).

 

6. GAME OVER. K WINS.

 

 

 

1. How exactly?

2. My file is titled Pharm DA but ok you can call it what ever you want I guess...

3. Ok well instead of that lets go back to T on PHA meaning the entire population.

4. Ok, you are missing the point, one vaccine may cost 2 dollars but if there are say 32 million people who need them in SSA then thats about 64 million dollars from another program that is doing good now.

5. Well if you are sending it to all of SSa then the DA still applies, if your not sending it to all of SSA then I would go for new T in the 2, with the AFF being to blame, on SSA meaning all 48 countries.

6. That was sarcasm on my part by the way...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1. How exactly?
If Big Pharma knows the drugs are cheap and shit, they won't care. It depends on your link really/what version of the DA you're running.
3. Ok well instead of that lets go back to T on PHA meaning the entire population.

1. We meet.

 

Next off.

4. Ok, you are missing the point, one vaccine may cost 2 dollars but if there are say 32 million people who need them in SSA then thats about 64 million dollars from another program that is doing good now.

No I'm not. It's more like a ratio - it's cost-effective meaning the cost is negligible in relation to the lives it saves.

5. Well if you are sending it to all of SSa then the DA still applies, if your not sending it to all of SSA then I would go for new T in the 2, with the AFF being to blame, on SSA meaning all 48 countries.

Ok.

6. That was sarcasm on my part by the way...

That's on the top of all my 2NC blocks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If Big Pharma knows the drugs are cheap and shit, they won't care. It depends on your link really/what version of the DA you're running.

 

1. We meet.

 

Next off.

 

No I'm not. It's more like a ratio - it's cost-effective meaning the cost is negligible in relation to the lives it saves.

 

Ok.

 

That's on the top of all my 2NC blocks.

 

1. You cost more lives though with the DA, by taking money away from program(s) that work the benefit of plan is moot.

2. So the new T in th 2 wins round.

3. Nice!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because you don't seem to be getting this quote-and-answer business, I'll kind of just sum up my arguments here:

 

Vaccines are sweet, the disad is generic and not a unique reason why not to run this case, your T takes 2 seconds to answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On T-

If you want to start a PHA=everyone discussion, please start a new thread in T&Procedurals. This case could meet if the aff wanted it to, and the violation isn't unique to this case. If it continues here I'll split and move posts.

 

On spending-

Plan will cost in the low millions, not billions, and it will be spread out over several years. The price is negligible compared to most aid projects. It is unlikely the aff spends enough to cross a budget brink, and any trade-off will be small. Either way, saying a case has to worry about spending is like saying it has to worry about T-substantially. Everyone has to answer spending - it's just a little easier for vaccines affs. The neg should certainly try a budget disad since there's really nothing else to run, but there is nothing about this case that should uniquely make the aff worry about it.

 

On corruption-

This is one of the few cases that doesn't really link. Unlike most medicines, there is no black market for vaccines. More importantly, the plan can be implemented through NGOs and without any government-to-government aid and still be extremely efficient. There are still the ultra-generic shunning links, but again, there's nothing about this case that is uniquely troublesome for the aff.

 

On pharmaceutical business DA-

I would have to see the file to know whether this links. If someone can post their link card, I can comment.

Either way, if it turns out this disad is causing the aff problems, they can probably spike out of the link by simply specifying who gets the contracts in their plan text (ie give it to the Sanofi-Pasteur or something). But I have my suspicions that the turns are better than the links in the first place and that pharma-bizcon might actually be a worthy advantage out of the 1AC.

 

 

On case-

So pretty much plan text is going to be sending cheap, second rate vaccines to millions of people in SSA?
No, the plan will pay for the same vaccines we use in the US and Europe. They are still cheap.

 

Its cool if you arent solving for ppl who have the disease right now but if since you gave up those ppl, u will get killed by any team that debates on case. first, they will ur inherency against u, so all those ppl die while we just wait and hope for a better future. second, time-frame, you will be solving for the next 10 year at the best, and usually politics sceniros have a much shorter time frame.
Think about it. Few are saved in 2008, but hundreds of thousands are spared every year starting 2009. Do the math. Have you ever run a case that actually saved millions (quantified, and without a shady internal link story)? Because of its near-100% solvency, this case prevents more death and suffering than almost any other case written at any camp this year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Think about it. Few are saved in 2008, but hundreds of thousands are spared every year starting 2009. Do the math. Have you ever run a case that actually saved millions (quantified, and without a shady internal link story)? Because of its near-100% solvency, this case prevents more death and suffering than almost any other case written at any camp this year.

 

actually you think abt the time-frame. I am not sure wat the population of SSA is, lets say its 500million (i highly doubt its that much), and i read somewhere that over 60million ppl are infected by HIV and this doesnt include other gay ass diseases (and somebody brought up that they arent using HIV as an adv, even other diseases are quite big). so those 60mil die. u start vaccinating ppl, and hopefully it will prevent them from getting AIDS. and u r still in a jeapordy bcs u have to have awesome evidence explaining why that particular HIV vaccine works. Lets say you do the plant vaccines, somebody posted links on that, it will take time to get those in market, minimum of 2 years. So already u lost two years of time-frame. then u produce it, and get it there, 1 more year. This means 180million ppl die, which in thus is already quite bad. And there wont be much population left either.

BUT if I was still in high school, I would have definitely ran this case. Its my favorite case, and I find that there are few problems with it, such as time-frame. but other than that, i think its awesome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
actually you think abt the time-frame.
Do you run the Mead '98 card? Remember that Hitler invaded Poland a full decade after the market crash of '29. A million lives easily saved over 10 years prima facie, with no internal link to defend, sounds much better to me. In my entire life I've never heard a disad that could claim the same without making at least one or two dubious leaps in the chain of causality, and the time frame is still almost always several years.

 

You should have NO problem using the case harms to outweigh disads. The time frame isn't a problem.

 

I am not sure wat the population of SSA is, lets say its 500million (i highly doubt its that much)
It's more.

 

and i read somewhere that over 60million ppl are infected by HIV and this doesnt include other gay ass diseases (and somebody brought up that they arent using HIV as an adv, even other diseases are quite big). so those 60mil die. u start vaccinating ppl, and hopefully it will prevent them from getting AIDS. and u r still in a jeapordy bcs u have to have awesome evidence explaining why that particular HIV vaccine works.
It's impossible to use HIV as an advantage. There is no HIV vaccine. I gave a list of vaccine-preventable diseases above.

 

Lets say you do the plant vaccines, somebody posted links on that, it will take time to get those in market, minimum of 2 years. So already u lost two years of time-frame. then u produce it, and get it there, 1 more year. This means 180million ppl die, which in thus is already quite bad. And there wont be much population left either.
Your estimates are exaggerated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
actually you think abt the time-frame. I am not sure wat the population of SSA is, lets say its 500million (i highly doubt its that much), and i read somewhere that over 60million ppl are infected by HIV and this doesnt include other gay ass diseases (and somebody brought up that they arent using HIV as an adv, even other diseases are quite big). so those 60mil die. u start vaccinating ppl, and hopefully it will prevent them from getting AIDS. and u r still in a jeapordy bcs u have to have awesome evidence explaining why that particular HIV vaccine works. Lets say you do the plant vaccines, somebody posted links on that, it will take time to get those in market, minimum of 2 years. So already u lost two years of time-frame. then u produce it, and get it there, 1 more year. This means 180million ppl die, which in thus is already quite bad. And there wont be much population left either.

BUT if I was still in high school, I would have definitely ran this case. Its my favorite case, and I find that there are few problems with it, such as time-frame. but other than that, i think its awesome.

I have been saying that the US is addressing those health care problems now. Malaria, HIV, and TB are big budget issues that get HUGE attention. But things like polio and meningitis do not. This is a low budget plan, and those other programs will continue. It is not like we are leaving AIDS unchecked, which is the only way your impact could happen. The US, even if they pass this plan, will not ignore the big diseases you are talking about. In fact, they probably will still get much more money and attention then this plan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea i do too and thanks for everyone who has posted here its been a great help if u could keep it up that would be great

 

oo and i dont know if anyone knows this a camp did actually cut a vaccines case

 

Cameron cut this case its not very extensive but its got a few answers with it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hate to break it to you people... but cost-effectiveness is NOT the same thing as 'low cost.'

 

it may be more cost effective to build a bridge from new york to england than to build an undersea tunnel... that doesnt make the bridge 'cheap' seeing that it would cost trillions.

 

lol.

 

and btw, it costs about $1000 per child for the standard gamut of pediatric preventative vaccinations. and that doesnt include hepatitis or the optional ones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hate to break it to you people... but cost-effectiveness is NOT the same thing as 'low cost.'

 

it may be more cost effective to build a bridge from new york to england than to build an undersea tunnel... that doesnt make the bridge 'cheap' seeing that it would cost trillions.

 

lol.

 

and btw, it costs about $1000 per child for the standard gamut of pediatric preventative vaccinations. and that doesnt include hepatitis or the optional ones.

You're off by a couple orders of magnitude, Ankur. The correct answer is $20-40 for DTP3 plus Hep and Hib, and that includes equipment and admin costs.

 

You're probably talking immunization in the US.

 

 

 

The cost-effectiveness of immunization

 

Immunization is considered among the most cost-effective of health investments. There is a well-defined target group; contact with the health system is only needed at the time of delivery; and vaccination does not require any major change of lifestyle.

 

A recent study estimated that a one-week "supplemental immunization activity" against measles carried out in Kenya in 2002 ─ in which 12.8 million children were vaccinated — would result in a net saving in health costs of US$ 12 million over the following ten years; during that time it would prevent 3 850 000 cases of measles and 125 000 deaths. In the United States, cost-benefit analysis indicate that every dollar invested in a vaccine dose saves US$ 2 to US$ 27 in health expenses.

 

The cost of immunizing a child

 

In mid-1990s, vaccines to provide "basic" coverage for tuberculosis, polio, diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, and measles cost about US$ 1 per child. Inclusion of vaccines for hepatitis B and Hib, raises the vaccine cost alone to US$ 7-13 per child (not including administration and injection equipment) in the developing world. When vaccine administration is included, the costs amount to between US$ 20-40 per child. It has become a significant challenge for low-income countries and international health agencies to find ways to introduce more highly-priced vaccines such as those for hepatitis B and Hib, which can greatly increase the costs of national immunization programmes. With many new vaccines expected to be available in the near future, issues of financing and financial sustainability will become ever more important.

 

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs288/en/index.html

World Health Organization, Fact Sheet No 288, "Immunization against diseases of public health importance," March 2005

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you're vastly overestimating the cost of vaccines. It all depends on what is being distributed. We cut a Polio Vaccination Aff, which uses the oral drops, and doses per a child cost a rediculously small amount, especially when done in large programs. I have yet to find any evidence that puts the costs over a dollar.

 

8 cents.

 

http://www.scienceblog.com/community/older/archives/L/1995/A/un950093.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

just because the bread, cheese, ham, lettuce, tomato, onions, pickles, and peppers cost a total of 1$ in food supplies per sandwich doesnt mean that it costs $1 per sandwich at subway and that subway could give it to you for a $1 per sandwich. there are additional costs - labor, facility, shipping, transaction fees, storage, utilities, etc.

 

you need to figure in labor, facilities, regulatory, taxes, shipping, storage, quality testing & release, ongoing stability, continued R&D, toxicology and pharmacology, etc. the biggest assumption of those figures is that the cost of the active ingredient is the cost of the vaccine when that simply isnt true

 

and none of that incorporates the cost of properly trained administrators, doctors, side-effect/infection rates, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
just because the bread, cheese, ham, lettuce, tomato, onions, pickles, and peppers cost a total of 1$ in food supplies per sandwich doesnt mean that it costs $1 per sandwich at subway and that subway could give it to you for a $1 per sandwich. there are additional costs - labor, facility, shipping, transaction fees, storage, utilities, etc.

 

you need to figure in labor, facilities, regulatory, taxes, shipping, storage, quality testing & release, ongoing stability, continued R&D, toxicology and pharmacology, etc. the biggest assumption of those figures is that the cost of the active ingredient is the cost of the vaccine when that simply isnt true

 

and none of that incorporates the cost of properly trained administrators, doctors, side-effect/infection rates, etc.

 

Oh, I don't doubt that most vaccination programs that are quite expensive, I was just trying to show how cheap the oral polio vaccine is.

 

It's produced in bulk, has been around forever, is dirt cheap to produce, and because it isn't injected, but instead administered orally, it doesn't require trained professionals to administer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well, to be fair, all medicines are produced in bulk. incredibly few are produced in small batches, but certainly vaccinations are produced en masse.

 

few people realize that one of the biggest drug therapy costs post-production is the infrasturctural cost of delivering those drugs to the right people. even for something as simple as antibiotics, it is important that a trained professional be responsible for its distribution to prevent diversion, ensure quality of the drug (free of tampering) and administer the correct dose to the patient. one of the main reasons for poor general healthcase in 3rd world countries is that pharmacies are unlicensed, operated by any uneducated person interested in opening shop, and the quality of the drugs is suspect (frequent tampering, counterfeiting, division of doses, etc).

 

and in many of those countries, cost really isnt an issue. for example, in india, when you are sick, you just go to a pharmacy, tell the guy what ails you and he'll dig through various pill containers and hand you a selection of pills. if he thinks you have a common cold, he might slip you a placebo knowing you'll get better in three days anyways - it saves him a pill he could legitimately sell to someone else. cost is only an issue in countries where drug controls exist (because the controls add an immense cost to the distribution of drugs).

 

few people also realize that aside from keeping drugs under lock and key, it needs to be kept at a relatively constant temperature. while most drugs are okay at room temperature, most of the places where the drugs are needed most are places that are far outside the 'room temperature' range. as a chemist, i know for a fact that some drugs will begin to degrade very quickly (in a matter of hours) in extreme temperatures... and in some drugs, degredation products are somewhat toxic...

 

and lets not forget drug interactions. i recommend that every person take an opportunity to browse a copy of the Physicians Desk Reference (PDR) and just look at the various side effects and interactions of some popular drugs. its startling because for some drugs, you literally cant take anything. as an example, this past week i was pretty sick and i was taking phenergan (promethazine) with codeine for my sore throat/cough. i literally couldnt take so much as an over the counter cold medicine with it. and some of the interactions are lethal. you cant mix phenergan with mao inhibitors (anti-depression drugs).

 

as a whole, if africa is to get better healthcare, it needs a lot more than cheap drugs... it needs an overhaul of the entire healthcare infrastucture. without that, its impossible to improve health. there are a lot of systemic problems which plague africa and prevent successful therapies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...