Description

Suppose that you are a research consultant working in an area where a virus that affects children under the age of 10 has been rampant for years. Each year, 30% of the children infected with the virus die. As the consultant, you are aware that if everyone in this area is vaccinated the virus would no longer be a problem. However, the additional people surviving in the area will be a threat to the area’s food and water supply, which means that 30% of the children would still die from starvation and thirst each year.

What would you recommend: vaccination or no vaccination? What are the tradeoffs with each recommendation? Why would you follow your chosen recommendation, and how are your values important in reaching a decision? (The economic concepts used to explain the decision, rather than the ultimate decision itself, is what should be focused on in your answer).