Vaccine Disbursement

"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." Yes, I know the debate topic, but that is not it sir. We are not debating the way Gavi exists now, OR wheater it should be inforced into all countries, we are debating wheater a disbursment plan, like Gavi, should exist at all. Also, I would like to point out that yes I am talking about the way Gavi is now becuase no one in our class even knows what that is. Why would they vote for something they dont understnad ? They wouldn't, therefore, I am explaining the program and why it doesn't apply to anything you call it (comminist, etc) so that there is fair represntation of Gavi. Again, as I have stated 2-3 times already, we cannot force people to agree to our program, or force it upon anyone, countries that are a part of our program have chosen to be part and their decisions are not in anyway our issue. If they feel that it will take away their free market. They do not have to join. Gavi does want al countries to participate, to benefit the world but if even one country doesnt want to then we cant force them to and we wont. That will mean they continue to have their free market. the countries that do join, made that decision themselves to join us, and they can kindly back out if they decide they dont like the decision they made. We are not communist, we are an option. "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.