I just posted a blog entry on barriers to improving international vaccination rates, and I include here a recent article that discusses the resurgence of Whooping Cough in the United States. The now-three-year epidemic of Whooping Cough diagnoses (and deaths) may, in all fairness, be bifactorial  (the properties of the newest vaccine version available may impart shortened length of immunity in some children), BUT ...the epidemic is also very clearly the result of lower vaccine participation rates. (Message me for more information on the statistics involved in these statements if you're interested).

In parts of Vermont, only ~60% of children receive vaccinations, in part because of an ability of parents to opt out per a "philosophical exemption" in addition to the commonly discussed religious exemption. Why should anyone care? Unvaccinated children are more likely to get a disease that others have been vaccinated against (clearly). For those that haven't yet been vaccinated against specific diseases because, for example, they're too young (i.e., infants) - being in area of disease to which they are highly susceptible can pose a significant risk to their health.

Enter the "herd immunity" debate. Vermont recently voted against including mandating vaccinations under certain conditions. Read the article below, and see if you agree with their decision.


Views: 46

Reply to This

Carnegie Council

Privacy, Surveillance, & the Terrorist Trap, with Tom Parker

How can investigators utilize new technology like facial recognition software while respecting the rights of suspects and the general public? What are the consequences of government overreaction to terrorist threats? Tom Parker, author of "Avoiding the Terrorist Trap," discusses privacy, surveillance, and more in the context of counterterrorism.

A Parting of Values: America First versus Transactionalism

"The existing divide in American foreign policy discourse has been the extent to which the U.S. must actively propagate and spread its values, or defend them or promote them even when there is no interest at stake," writes Senior Fellow Nikolas Gvosdev. How does American civil society demand consideration of moral and ethical concerns in the decisions both to go to war and how the war will be prosecuted?

Suleimani Is Dead, but Diplomacy Shouldn’t Be

Carnegie Council fellow and Pacific Delegate Philip Caruso advocates for the value of diplomacy in the aftermath of the U.S. killing Iran's general Qassem Suleimani. "Iran cannot win a war against the United States, nor can the United States afford to fight one," he argues. This article was originally published in "Foreign Policy" and is posted here with kind permission.





© 2020   Created by Carnegie Council.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service

The views and opinions expressed in the media, comments, or publications on this website are those of the speakers or authors and do not necessarily reflect or represent the views and opinions held by Carnegie Council.