Debate Rounds (5)
Before I explain why a disbursment plan should be enforced it is important to inform people of the importance vaccines have as a whole. With information on the need for immunizations people will better understand why a plan needs to be enforced.
According to CDC, if vaccines were to somehow disapear deadly viruses, illnesses, and diseases would take over the world. The equivelent to a plague would break out killing millions of people. Sceintists who produce immunizations have saved themselves and the rest of us from that issue by bringing this form of drug administration into play. As we all should know, vaccines build our body's immunity to diseases which decreases our likelyhood of catching a sickness. That is why a disbursment plan is needed. The plan will increase production and availiability to the very thing that allows us to stay relitively plague free and keep us, the inhabitants of the world, safer.
The vaccine disbursement plan will do three very important things for the people involved with Gavi. According to gavialliance, the plan will provide vaccine productivity and availability. One thing the plan will ensure,according to gavialliance, is a sustainable amount of products using different suppliers. This will create a booming business for the suppliers which will bring in more money. The more money they get the more money they will have to spend on the production of vaccines. Vaccines are in high demand, and the more production the better. Higher production also means the price will go down because suppliers will be selling more and more of them. The second thing that the disbursement plan will ensure,acording to gavialliance, is production of products that best meet certain needs of a country. In other words, the plan will focus on exporting certain vaccines to certain countries depending on what they are in need of rather than waste resources and send them a bunch of vaccines that will go unused for a prolonged amount of time. The last thing that the disbursement plan will ensure, according to gavialliance, is a long term affordable price. The program will decrease the price of vaccines so much that even developing countries will be able to sustainably finance the products. A disbursement program is needed in order to reach these kinds of advancement in the production, distribution, availability and price of immunizations.
Your arguments stated above are a gross perversion of the debate topic. The topic at hand is whether or not we as a global society should implement the GAVI disbursement plan internationally to handle the outbreak of diseases and administration of vaccinations and immunizations. How exactly, is the free market not being infringed upon if GAVI is in control of where vaccines go? This removes the power from the common man and does, indeed infringe the free market.
I am not entirely sure how your metaphor comparing a rich man and a poor man is relevant, and I will not respond because I do not understand the intended argument being made.
According to Gavialliance.org, "The GAVI Campaign focuses solely on raising funds from the private sector to support GAVI programmes. Individuals and companies in the United States do not receive tax deductions for contributions made to foreign charitable organisations." This means that GAVI essentially provides the vaccines out of the pocket of the rich. It seems completely fair and just that those who provide for vaccines get first rights to them. Disbursing them as GAVI sees fit is following a communist philosophy and definitely should not be implemented on a global scale.
" A common danger tends to concord. Communism is the exploitation of the strong by the weak. In Communism, inequality comes from placing mediocrity on a level with excellence."
Round 3 Points: According to an article found on vaccines.gov, immunizations are critical and can save your life, as well as other peoples life's and are very effective, but It is a good idea to also enforce the Gavi disbursement plan because, according to gavialliance, the Gavi disbursement plan will only increase these benefits. Vaccine distribution already saves a lot of people from sickness, but think about the increase in how many people would benefit from Gavi and stay healthy. The program, as already stated, increases production and availability, therefore, the program will also increase the resistance to particular diseases and save a larger number of people from dying as a result of an illness. The more vaccines people receive the more resistant to diseases they are, the more illness resistant people there are, the more lives we can save. It is a chain reaction. That is how illness transfer is stopped, and the less illness transfer there is the less illness there will be altogether. The regulation of vaccines, aka Gavi, will ensure that traveling illnesses be significantly decreased, according to Gavialliance. By using the disbursement plan to regulate what vaccines go to who/where we can preserve our lives and protect ourselves from mass outbreak of disease.
This again, is a misrepresentation of the debate topic. We are not discussing the GAVI disbursement plan as it currently exists. We are debating whether or not the GAVI plan should be implemented in ALL countries. Not just the ones that chose to be a part of it. Thus, the free market is being infringed upon because a single organization is determining where the vaccines go.
"As for the comparisson of the rich man to poor man, I was using it as a real world example to back up the disbursment plan which does make it relivant. The poorer you are the more likely you are to catch an infectious disease, therefore the highest bidder (most likely a richer man), has a lower risk of catching a disease. It is common sence. Why would we give the immunisations to the higher bidder if they are already less likely to catch an illness? It is really not that hard to understand."
This argument states that because the rich man can afford baths and cleanliness, he is essentially less deserving of a vaccine. Sure there might be a lower chance for him to catch a disease or illness, but that in no way, reduces a man"s fear. It is not the governments, or anybody"s choice as to how scared and fearful a man is. The poor man gets the vaccine because he needs it. But is it really impossible for a poor man to remain clean? The rich man deserves a vaccine first because he provided it. And he is fearful. Not just for himself, but for his loved ones and for his children. Who are you to say that a poor man deserves it more?
"As far as I know chairies can't force people to participate in their organisations."
Actually, due to the debate topic, people are forced to participate in a charitable organization.
GAVI is essentially acting as a hindrance. In order for a private sector man to provide vaccines, he must donate to a charity. This is inefficient. GAVI also provides vaccines from donations, so if someone suddenly chose to keep their money, then the GAVI system would fall apart. This means that immunizations and vaccines couldn"t get to people who needed them if GAVI didn"t collect enough money. So, rather than depend on the good nature of those in the private sector, I suggest a different system that collects its vaccination money from a tax. This would be far more reliable than GAVI on a global scale. Also, certain countries may not like other countries, and thus stop donating money when they here of vaccinations are used in another country. There is most certainly a far better and more reliable system than a non-profit corporation which relies on the donations of the rich.
"This argument states that because the rich man can afford baths and cleanliness, he is essentially less deserving of a vaccine. Sure there might be a lower chance for him to catch a disease or illness, but that in no way, reduces a man"s fear." Nowhere in my argument have I ever stated a rich man is less deserving of a vaccine . I did, however, state that it is more logical to give a vaccine to somone who has a higher risk of catching a disease, and as far as what yu said about the rich mans "fear", if he is that afraid then he is clearly misunderstnading the point of Gavi. Gavi will provide an abundance of vaccines, he will get one. It is also, as you stated, not impossible for a poor man to stay clean, but it is however fact that a poorer man will live in an area that makes him at a higher risk of catching a disease, which can and will be easliy passed along to different people. If we attack the problem at its main carriers then we have a higher chance at stopping an epidemic from breaking out. "GAVI is essentially acting as a hindrance. In order for a private sector man to provide vaccines, he must donate to a charity. This is inefficient". Actually, no. a man does not have to provide chairty money for a vaccine if he does not choose to donate money. Instead, Gavi will use the money from willing participants to get the program in a good steadly place. Once the program is in a stable place there wont even be a need for the charity, we will make enough money to sustain our program by ourselves. It will not even take a few months for this to happen, becuase the demand for vaccines is so high. Therefore, the man who donates money gets a vaccine, the man who didnt donate gets a vaccine, anyone who needs a vaccine gets a vaccine, we all get vaccines. Its so efficient we could through a vaccine PARTY, and invite the whole world. We do not in any way force people to donate, they chose too, we are not scaring people into investing into us, we are informing them on the things the program will help them out with. "So, rather than depend on the good nature of those in the private sector, I suggest a different system that collects its vaccination money from a tax." This suggests that we tax people to stay healthy. That seems to me more "communitst" than a plan that will only minorly regulate who gets what, but also increases vaccine production. "There is most certainly a far better and more reliable system than a non-profit corporation which relies on the donations of the rich." We do not rely on dontions, and we will not crumble without them, the profit from the things our organisation produces is enough to sustain our program. We dont need the donations. the donations are instead put into fundding so that when we need to expand, or we decide to branch off into other things extra money will be around. We can perfectly sustain ourselves without the help of donations, but it is extremely appretiated when someone invests in our organisation.
Many people will agree that the Gavi plan is a major help in decreasing bills and increasing time. According to an article on vaccines.gov, by administering vaccines the number of healthy people will increase, and the amount of people admitted to health clinics/ hospitals will decrease. Instead of being treated for a preventable illness for several days/weeks/ months in a hospital, which is extremely expensive and time consuming, you will only be spending a few extra minutes at the doctor"s office during a normal checkup which regularly costs about $ 30-50 and is normally covered by insurance. Also according to vaccines.gov, immunizations are extremely effective, and many scientists or other individuals would agree with that. The product availability that Gavi helps provide is too good to not take advantage of.
I apologize for the confusion over the topic of debate.
A disbursement plan should not exist because it creates an inconvenience and unnecessary protocol. In the event of a major outbreak of disease or illness a disbursement plan will dictate where, and to whom vaccines and immunizations go. However, this is not good because diseases are unpredictable and thus we cannot pre-determine the need for vaccines. For example, if in the event of a disease a disbursement plan would tell 100 vaccines to go to one region, because that is proportional to the population present. However, if the disease favors a specific ethnicity that may or may not be present there, then the area will either receive to many or to few vaccines. This will create more deaths than necessary. Rather than have this plan, we should instead use a reaction task force to assess the disease and deal with vaccines accordingly. But having a pre-determined disbursement plan is not a good idea.
My last and final argument for supporting the Gavi disbursement plan is going to be about awareness of some illnesses that vaccines can build our immunity to. I have decided to use my last argument to inform people of this because why would anyone care about the rest of the points if the vaccines would only provide resistance against a common cold? The answer is simple, no one would care at all how beneficial it would be if that"s the only thing they were to get out of the program. Diseases/sicknesses that can cause large epidemics include polio, the measles, type b meningitis, hepatitis B, whooping cough, pneumococcal, chicken pox, diphtheria, lock jaw, and the mumps. None of those sound fun, right? Nope. What Gavi will do to help reduce the spread of these horrible sicknesses is increase the amount of production and decrease the amount of money it costs to buy them. I have said it a million times, but I will continue to say it until the debate is over because high production and low price is what makes this plan such a good idea. According to cdc.org, supplies will always be in demand, and the use of Gavi will enforce distribution rules/guidelines. Part of this plan will help get vaccines to the people who need it, the people who are at a higher risk for catching a disease (poorer people), and countries that are suffering from preventable sicknesses. Without the disbursement plan administration and distribution is not well planned out and not as effective. With it, specific things will be required of Gavi participating countries that will help get illnesses under control, regulate our supplies, create more business, give people more time, cost less, make the world healthier over all and most importantly keep the human race sustainable.
Also, since I cannot post anything else beyond this last round, I would like to wish you the best of luck. You offered a lot to argue against and it was honestly interesting to debate this topic with you. Let the best man win :)
Secondly, you state that a disbursement plan will reduce the cost and increase the availability of such vaccinations. This is true, but how? You have said this statement over and over but never shown reasons as to how it manages to miraculously make vaccines cost less. A disbursement plan is a bad idea. It creates a larger amount of protocol and a pre-determined schedule to deal with in the event of a dangerous outbreak. This will only slow the outbreak containment process, and will slow down our ability as a global, international, and national society to help treat diseases. Responding quickly with a specialized plan would be much better. This could help accurately deal with specific diseases whereas a disbursement plan simply assesses necessities without examining outside factors which will lead to error and confusion in the event of a pandemic.
Also, it has been fun debating with you and I wish you the best of luck. You brought up some good points. Nice job.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.