Many lives might be saved if inoculations against cow flu were routinely administered to all people in areas where the disease is detected. However, since there is a small possibility that a person will die as a result of the inoculations, we cannot permit inoculations against cow flu to be routinely administered.
The ethics of vaccines are complex and efforts to oversimplify the issues do not benefit anyone except talking heads and social media figures. Some of the tensions which we find at the very core of our democratic society are found here: personal autonomy, the good of the individual versus the good of the whole and weighing the risks of potential harm and benefits. With the deep commitment to personal liberty of the United States, when can a person be forced to violate their conscience for the good of society and how compelling must that broader good be? If our civilization is based on balancing the needs of the majority, while respecting the rights of the minority, how can these be evaluated when the identity of the minority cannot be known until the damage is done? In a society that, as the founding fathers planned, would sooner see one thousand criminals freed than one innocent imprisoned, how do we evaluate the risk of harm caused by an inoculation against the herd immunity promised by high levels of compliance? Kant argued for utilitarianism, the greatest good for the greatest number, but American culture cries out for restraints on this kind of cold calculation. Yet historical realities like the story of Typhoid Mary, who through no fault of her own carried a plague to those around her and was quarantined against her will, remind us that sometimes hard choices must be made. To make a policy decision in the specific case of bovine influenza requires a quantification of the risks of each course and some sociological and biological study into possible alternative courses of action.
Statisticians work from a concept of "expected return," where the cost of something is compared to the various outcomes, weighted by their probability. The expected return of winning the lottery is almost always negative, because the prize of winning a five-hundred million dollar jackpot multiplied by the infinitesimal chance of success is less than the cost of a ticket. In the case of gambling it is obvious that this has to be the case, or Warren Buffet and Jeff Bezos might simply take turns buying one of each ticket to be sure of victory, and then collecting their winnings; on average, the house has to win. To evaluate whether or not routine cow flu vaccination is wise, the two sides of the equation must be calculated. Most simply, how many people will die if the cow flu vaccine is not routinely administered, and how many will die if it is? This is a good starting point, but is inadequate. Other, sub-lethal, ramifications must also be considered. How many will suffer permanent lung damage from cow flu, compared to how many will suffer some kind of ongoing injury from the inoculation? Weighing each of these factors is far from simple (is asthma 10% as bad as death? .10%?), but weighing the risks and benefits is inescapable. If the costs of routine vaccination are worse than the benefits, then there is no need to investigate further. If the benefits seem to substantially outweigh the risks, such as saving a thousand lives with the expected loss of ten, there is good reason to investigate further.
Deeper inquiry is needed, because mathematical expectation alone does not tell the full story. Suppose that someone came to me with a fair coin, and offered my $3 if I guessed the flip correctly, while I would pay $2.50 if I guessed incorrectly. I would be happy to play - the odds are in my favor. I would probably play for $30 versus $25, or maybe even $300 against $250. But if a middle class family is offered a coin flip, where they lose their $250,000 home if the coin lands "tails" and gain $300,000 if it lands "heads," they would be foolish to take it, even though the mathematical odds are in their favor. The risk is too great and the alternatives for recovering from a loss are few. In the same way working parents take out life insurance, with the full knowledge that the actuarial tables are in favor of the insurance company, because their children have no alternative means of support in the event of their death. When evaluating the possibility of routine cow flu inoculation, there is a pressing need to consider other options. If the benefits of inoculation outweigh the risks, but there is another - even better - path, that must be taken into account. Can education on hygiene and temporary quarantines be both medically effective and practically enforced? Evaluating how people would comply with these kinds of strategies, as well as compliance with potential routine vaccinations, can either make a policy feasible, or useless. If so, policy makers have a responsibility to pursue the path of least harm. The research needed here is broad sweeping, because the ramifications stretch down through future generations. Perhaps, like polio, a cow flu vaccine universally administered would be risky in this generation, but in a few generations would completely eliminate the illness and eliminate all risks. Weighing benefits to unknown future generations against costs now is difficult, but the evidence must be considered.
It is hard to make good decisions about truly complex systems. But to evaluate whether or not cow flu vaccines should be routine requires objective evidence. Until the pros and cons and their respective probabilities can be weighed, it is impossible to arrive at a good decision, and no policymaker should create a false dilemma, where other options are not considered.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
The arguments are somehow out of the topic.
---------------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: ??? out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 37 15
No. of Words: 918 350
No. of Characters: 4411 1500
No. of Different Words: 434 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 5.504 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.805 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.727 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 307 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 238 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 158 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 96 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 24.811 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 10.777 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.514 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.214 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.349 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.061 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 144, Rule ID: SOME_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'some'.
Suggestion: Some
...talking heads and social media figures. Some of the tensions which we find at the very core...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 59, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma
Suggestion: , &apos
... from a concept of 'expected return,' where the cost of something is compare...
^^^^^^
Line 3, column 640, Rule ID: WHETHER[7]
Message: Perhaps you can shorten this phrase to just 'whether'. It is correct though if you mean 'regardless of whether'.
Suggestion: whether
...rage, the house has to win. To evaluate whether or not routine cow flu vaccination is wise, th...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 160, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...e to me with a fair coin, and offered my if I guessed the flip correctly, while I...
^^
Line 5, column 525, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma
Suggestion: , &apos
... and gain 00,000 if it lands 'heads,' they would be foolish to take it, even...
^^^^^^
Line 5, column 1518, Rule ID: THE_SUPERLATIVE[3]
Message: A determiner is probably missing here: 'of the least'.
Suggestion: of the least
...ave a responsibility to pursue the path of least harm. The research needed here is broad...
^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 80, Rule ID: WHETHER[7]
Message: Perhaps you can shorten this phrase to just 'whether'. It is correct though if you mean 'regardless of whether'.
Suggestion: whether
... truly complex systems. But to evaluate whether or not cow flu vaccines should be routine requ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, if, may, so, then, well, while, as to, i guess, kind of, such as, as well as, in the same way
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 51.0 19.6327345309 260% => Less to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 30.0 12.9520958084 232% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 35.0 11.1786427146 313% => Less conjunction wanted
Relative clauses : 15.0 13.6137724551 110% => OK
Pronoun: 47.0 28.8173652695 163% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 113.0 55.5748502994 203% => Less preposition wanted.
Nominalization: 21.0 16.3942115768 128% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 4550.0 2260.96107784 201% => Less number of characters wanted.
No of words: 917.0 441.139720559 208% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.96183206107 5.12650576532 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 5.50290903609 4.56307096286 121% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.90386207211 2.78398813304 104% => OK
Unique words: 456.0 204.123752495 223% => Less unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.497273718648 0.468620217663 106% => OK
syllable_count: 1452.6 705.55239521 206% => syllable counts are too long.
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 4.96107784431 141% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 17.0 2.70958083832 627% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 17.0 1.67365269461 1016% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 10.0 4.22255489022 237% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 38.0 19.7664670659 192% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 22.8473053892 105% => OK
Sentence length SD: 62.7582145245 57.8364921388 109% => OK
Chars per sentence: 119.736842105 119.503703932 100% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.1315789474 23.324526521 103% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.73684210526 5.70786347227 48% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 7.0 5.25449101796 133% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 20.0 8.20758483034 244% => Less positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 14.0 6.88822355289 203% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.67664670659 86% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.196377312463 0.218282227539 90% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0425875350208 0.0743258471296 57% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0508430508349 0.0701772020484 72% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.116450650685 0.128457276422 91% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0387804979302 0.0628817314937 62% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.0 14.3799401198 97% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 47.12 48.3550499002 97% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.1628742515 156% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 12.197005988 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.78 12.5979740519 94% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.56 8.32208582834 103% => OK
difficult_words: 217.0 98.500998004 220% => Less difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 12.3882235529 113% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 11.1389221557 104% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 30 minutes.
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 Out of 6
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.