Economics and Vaccination

It is important not to stretch the many uses to which knowledge of economics at any level is useful for policy design. However, as I read this NYT article by Sarah Klein and Phyllis Greenberger, it just occurred to me that economics is more useful and is surely not just about money and aggregates such as the Gross Domestic Product. In their argument, they posit the results of studies stating that there are reasons of biology which makes women and men to require different doses of vaccines in order to achieve the required effect. Because the studies that they cite show that women's bodies are more efficient at generating a protective response from vaccines as compared to men, then this factor should be employed in the analysis of demand for vaccines.

They authors of the article argue eloquently as people with an understanding of human biology and health research but they do make a subtle but interesting economic argument based on optimum use of resources. I see two clear arguments that a student of economics would be impressed by. First is that in light of the fear that the flu vaccine for the H1N1 virus may not be available in quantities to cover everyone who would be most vulnerable, the consideration of the differences in biology are essential in ensuring that the greatest effects emerge from use of a given quantity of vaccine. The second argument is that it may be useful for public health professionals to consider whether the same proportions of men and women should be receiving the vaccines. So given the loud protests from some people who are reluctant to take vaccination, it does matters whether it is a man or woman who opts not to be vaccinated.