On
October 2nd, I was seated in my room studying for an exam. All of my
housemates came clambering in exclaiming that they were on their way to Newcomb
to get a flu shot. I had received the email and had planned on going, but I had
not yet finished studying for my exam. However, as I was sitting there, I
thought back to our class on externalities. I realized that if all my friends,
and hopefully a large portion of the UVA community, went to receive their flu
shots I was gaining all kinds of benefits without compensating them for their
costs. My friends receiving the flu shot would produce positive consumption
externalities for me. Their consumption of the flu shot would reduce their
chances of contracting the disease in the future. It would also make me less
likely to contract the flu from them,
without having to receive the flu shot myself. With this in mind, I texted
everyone I knew, posted on Facebook, and posted in Groupme to remind everyone
to go get their flu shot and continued to study for my exam.
For
every individual then, the private marginal benefit is lower than the social
marginal benefit of receiving a flu shot. There are additional benefits given
to society due to any individuals’ consumption of the good that they are not
compensated for. The society is less and less likely to contract the disease as
each individual receives immunization from the disease. Because of this, there will
be under-consumption and non-allocative efficiency when it comes to flu shots. As
a free-rider, I receive some of the benefits of others receiving their flu
shots and contribute nothing. I help contribute to the under consumption of the flu
shot.
However, there are many great benefits to getting the flu shot. So get on out there and get your vaccine!
However, there are many great benefits to getting the flu shot. So get on out there and get your vaccine!
1 comment:
As a public health student, I had always been told that vaccinations were under-consumed, but I was never able to understand the reasoning behind it. As I read Jessica’s explanation for it, however, I began to realize that akin to the cost-benefit analysis for voting, the benefits from vaccination are also dependent on the number of people vaccinated. In other words, for someone to get vaccinated the following must hold true: p(MB) + D>MC, with MC being the marginal cost involved (i.e. time, money, etc), MB being the marginal benefit from not contracting the disease, D being other factors motivating people to get vaccinated, and p being the probability that you will be exposed to the disease. It’s important to note that while someone’s benefit is dependent on the number of people already vaccinated, p here is not solely 1/(the number of people vaccinated). This is because the probability of encountering a contagious condition also encompasses other factors such as prevalence of the condition and means of transmission (i.e. it’s harder to contract an STI versus something airbourne).
For something like the flu, I’d argue that C is low (there are now numerous places to get the vaccine for $15 or less), D is moderate (certain professions require that you be vaccinated and there is a moderate societal push to do so), U is moderate (most strains of the flu aren’t pleasant but also aren’t life-threatening), and p is high (given the number of strains and how easily it’s transmitted, it isn’t hard to get the flu). For these reasons, many get vaccinated every year.
But what happens when you consider a rare but potentially deadly disease like whooping cough, for which we get vaccinated as children? Now, MU is much larger, but p becomes close to 0 and can potentially negate that. Many still choose to get their children vaccinated, regardless, because D is often enough to compensate: many schools and states require that children be vaccinated prior to starting their education and we as a society tend to look favorably upon parents who do so. For certain parents, however, who believe vaccination is linked with autism, MC now becomes much larger. And interestingly enough, there is a way to negate D as well: move to a community of similar-minded parents where vaccination recommendations are not enforced. While this may seem like a great solution, there is one thing these parents fail to account for: in such situations, p is no longer 0.
The ways in which we choose to tackle under-vaccination is still a big conundrum. Due to the diversity in religious and moral beliefs our nation encompasses, a simple tax or law to enforce vaccinations isn’t possible. Part of the reason for that is that assigning property rights in such a situation can be difficult, because by doing so you are inherently implying the other side bears a sense of liability for their values. It will be interesting to see how our thoughts on such matters develop with further scientific research and political polarization.
Post a Comment