About::Vacinations

[Phanuthier]

So, the whole H1N1 got me thinking, the day that a real epidemic comes along, who gets the first vaccines? And how do you pick it?

A few years ago, a few companies requested their employees to do an informal survey (from the gov't?) about if Avian Flu really became a serious epidemic, questions like who gets the first vaccine, who gets it and who doesn't, and so on. (A serious epidemic as in one that will take out a significant portion of the worlds population.)

Why do women, children and elders get the first shot? Where did this priority come from? From a logical perspective, children make sense to me (longest to live) but why women over men? Why elders when they have less years to live? (if this truely were a serious epidemic with large parts of the population getting whiped out).

As the thread goes on the Flames and H1N1, we all know those who have power and those who have money will get to the front of the line. Then the rest of us. But where does the priority begin? How important is it to vaccinate public figures (from political leaders to sports athletes to actors)... after all, people with big names who get sick will draw more attention than me and you.

Rankings done with consideration for the service certain professions bring, law enforcement, controlling hysteria, age and how much longer a 10 year old will live than a 70 year old, contribution to society post-epidemic after much of the worlds population has been wiped out, et al.

How I would rank priority, in order:
- Political leaders
- Medical workers
- civil servants (police, fireman et al)
- children
- celebs
- young adults who have children (< 40 year old is where I'd probably consider young adults)
- young adults without children (< 25 year)
- young professionals (i.e. those with post-secondary education degrees, certificates, et al, < 30 years old, priority given loosely by contribution of their profession, i.e. teachers at the top of the list all the way down to... lets say, film studies)
.
.
.

Consideration in the "..." given by age (youngest priority, going to lowest), employment (an employed pereson priority over a homeless), health history (bias and contraversal, but I think it makes more sense to vaccinate those who are healthy over someone who has a terminal illness but will live for, lets say, 10 more years)

Tough decisions to make...

[Cain]

Women get the nod over men because it is easier and faster to repopulate with a ton of women. One man can impregnate multiple women (lucky bastid) and we are therefore not as valuable in this sense.

So if it were truly going to decimate a population, I would agree with women and children first. Elderly eh....not so much.

[Hemi-Cuda]

we should exterminate the elderly, just to be safe

[Bleeding Red]

I don't think celebs should be on the list at all. they have cash, let them pay out just like the execs of big business will (are - a private ON clinic catering to banking execs is already dolling out shots to the high and mighty who paid $2300 for the privliage.)

Front line health care workers need to be at the top of the list. They will be the most exposed. I think the main reason the elderly are on the list is that they are more likely to get sick and clog the emergency rooms, hospitals, and doctor's offices. Best to just quickly vaccinate them and keep them out of the way. Those without children should be at the bottom of the list.

I have no problem with the Flames organization working out a way to jump the line. Since they travel (lots of enclosed spaces) and come into contact with a lot of different people, they are more likely to contract the illness.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by Bleeding Red

Those without children should be at the bottom of the list.

No those people ahead of me on the plane with screaming children who won't shudup should be.

[Stranger]

Celebs aren't even a concern for me either. They can figure out a way to get a shot just like anyone else. If it came down to a hard working young person or Paris Hilton, I know who I'd give the vaccination to.

[enthused]

I'm not sure why you'd have celebrities ranked higher than any other people, their lives really aren't more important than the rest of us in the long run.

I also don't know why you'd have political leaders ranked first?

[Table 5]

I clearly say this as someone without a child, so don't shoot me, but why even give babies precedence? It would obviously depend on the severity of the event, but if we are in strictly survival mode, can't we just make babies after whatever afterwards?

[Shazam]

This list is horrible. Obviously chicks with big tits would be #1.

[Zevo]

Originally Posted by Shazam

This list is horrible. Obviously chicks with big tits would be #1.

Only if they are real. Fake-tittied chicks can wait with the rest of the small breasted women.

[GreenLantern]

Agreed, we don't want to be breeding fake breast needing women into the population. We want to breed those with natural big breasts, for feeding purposes of course. This would actually be the opportune time to breed those small tittied genes right out of the population.

I think that after medical/civil workers/children, young professionals should be first with or without children. You need the smartest, youngest minds to survive in order to re build and re tool society in a better image to help prevent this type of thing from occurring again. This includes Scientists to Architects.

I would do:

Political leaders
Medical Workers
Top Scientists
Civil Workers (Police/Firemen)
Children
Women with naturally big breasts
Young Professionals (Scientists first)
Young Adults w/ kids
Young Adults
Elderly
Fake tittied/small tittied women here, where we "accidentally" run out of the vaccine. And by accidentally run out I mean we burn whatever is left.

[Shazam]

Good catch, guys. Luckily for me I'm a certified Federal Breast Inspector, and will do my utmost to ensure that only real breasted women get the shots.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern

This includes Scientists to Architects.

As long as they are local architects, not European hacks who want to build things too fancy for our own good.

[Bleeding Red]

Originally Posted by Table 5

I clearly say this as someone without a child
, so don't shoot me, but why even give babies precedence? It would obviously depend on the severity of the event, but if we are in strictly survival mode, can't we just make babies after whatever afterwards?

Maybe you're infertile and can't make babies afterwords.
(I got the mumps back in June and my Dr. told me it could make me sterile.)

I think babies and the elderly end up high on the list because A) they are most likely to get the disease and B) panicky parents and hysterical old people would clog the hospitals making health care workers jobs that much harder.

(as someone with children I know if we were in "strictly survival mode" I would kill to get them to the front of the line. It's that parental attachment instinct in us.)

[FlamesAddiction]

If it was an issue of having to worry about re-populating the planet, then you would be better off not vaccinating the elderly or people with pre-existing conditions as a priority group. It sounds cold, but it would make sense.

[mykalberta]

After emergency personal, its every man woman and child for themselves IMO.

[LChoy]

My random thought

In the movie "Deep Impact," when the government was preparing for the end of the world and organizing a draw to put their citizens into the vault, all Americans age 65 and over were excluded from the draw

[Wookie]

- me
- you
- whoever else
- calgary flames

[kevman]

-men, women and children
.
.
.

-everyone that idolizes useless celebs
-those @ss hats at TMZ
-celebs

I'm sorry, but celebs? I understand political leaders, medical staff and civil servants...but celebrities? Really?

[Table 5]

Dude, how do you expect anyone to survive without Brangelina???