The research conducted by Ward (2014) evaluated the total impacts and influences of externalities in respect to the vaccination of influenza as it developed its spread to the patients targeted. Ward employed a triple-difference design while assessing a vaccination program in Ontario and the improvements perceived from it for several years. The research study brought the essence of providing the higher vaccination as an attribute facilitating the improvement of health status. It was noted that the expansion of the vaccination effects was beneficial to the regions. The benefits included lowering of an initial standard of disease prevalence where the older adults accrue many advantages. In perspective, this essay criticizes the research and presentation made by Ward through assessing various aspect of his presentation.
The researcher introduces by laying out the basic purpose of performing his study. The evaluation of this introduction dictates that there are various reasons why the research is essential. For instance, it has been stated that assessing the broad-based program is the sole purpose of identifying the underlying benefits. In fact, the assessment proceeds to develop a strategic reasoning criterion that seasonal epidemics demand prevention which in turn prevents cure. It does not only develop arguments about the policies applied in the approval and dissemination of the vaccines, but also provides an intricate analysis of prevailing health effects of the disease. The introductory section argues that children are threatened significantly by the disease if appropriate and reliable vaccines do not work properly (Fiore, 2012). In this section, the information has been presented from such reputable and peer reviewed sources as the World Health Organization. The researcher identifies the risky situation in cases where early-life infections lead to disabilities. In consideration of accuracy and generalization of the study, Ward makes his research analysis reliant on the quality of the subject vaccines. Furthermore, the supervision of survey data is constructed in a platform where hospital admissions and failure to attend employment duties are evaluated for a period of eleven years.
Although the research does not indicate the particulate data set, collection methods and their reliabilities, it is apparent that some results portray fundamental insight for future studies. The research results inform that there was a 48% decrease in the admission of pneumonia patient, 14% reduction in absenteeism, and decrease in death tolls related to the disease by 0.009%. However, it is not apparent that the randomization of the research can facilitate generalization of the results. Essentially, handling the research from the UIIC region may exhibit some unique characteristics not found within other regions across the globe.
The background information presents a case that demands professional attention. The researcher argues that the prevailing issues where the prevalence and effects of the influenza virus has been availed on a worldwide base. It evaluates the current efficacy of the vaccine, its developments, and other improvements noted on the virus. This section points out such lethal strains of the virus as H3N2 and H1N1. The background has been reviewed throughout the globe where nations or states like Canada and the USA are used (Demicheli, 2001). He reviews the reliable researches on the effectiveness of the vaccine including the assessment aimed at identifying the virus. The identification has been presented using 3 equations determining the effects of vaccination to a population.
The researcher fails to present all the data used for the analysis in ways that are easily assessable. For instance, the use of graph should be frequent in order to clarify the identification of the effects at a glance. For instance, a graph has been presented on the vaccination rates from the year 1995 to 2006. Even though this graph relays the final meaning of the assessment, it is a complex analysis which can be effective if presented as yearly data. It has been summarized to a level that makes it hard to retrieve information. If the graph was presented as monthly analysis, there would be sufficient information that can be relied upon when making the arguments.
In another consideration, Ward developed a set of analysis for the non-UIIC patients in order to bring the broad picture of the evaluation together. This diversity of information has also been attributed the age-effects evaluation. In fact, the researcher proceeds to collect surveillance information from other reputable sources like the Canadian Communicable Disease Report (CCDR) and Center for Disease Control (CDC). The sufficiency of this data allows Ward to develop analysis to the weekly basis for the 11 years. In doing this, he selects week 35 of each year and provides an average for the effects of vaccination. Probably, a highly reliable analysis can consider evaluating many weeks within one year instead of ignoring the criticality of sample size and associated errors. The health outcome data was retrieved from the Hospital Morbidity Database (HMDB) occasioned by the Canadian Institute for Health Information (Ward, 2010). In all these analyses, however, the research is conscious about the standards errors.
The research does not manage to pull out fundamental data on the probability of hospital admission in order to calculate the advantages of averted infections. In this respect, Ward develops an alternative and less reliable approach by making assumption that illness-conditional rate of admissions do not affect the matching of the vaccine. The inferred reduction in infection and changes on the people who are vaccinated may be compared. The final evaluation dictates that decreasing rate of disease prevalence has effects on both the vaccinated and unvaccinated people. The researcher argues that communicable diseases tend to amplify when the number of infected people increases. This factor implies that when the number of infected people lowers, a subsequent decrease in the disease prevalence becomes practical. In fact, researchers have supported the argument that an infected person within a large population of uninfected people can infect 1.44 individuals before treatment commences (Hethcote, 2000; Hedrich, 2010). Such prevalence does not pose a critical threat since it can be handled stringently.
Eventually, Ward applies a multidimensional perspective which incorporated many forms of logical ideologies. He evaluates the cost of the program and the associated benefits in order to check the viability of the whole strategic plan against influenza virus. He concludes by restating such aspects as the effects of unaccounted spillover in the vaccination of influenza. In this light, the research recommends the setting of regulations and policies in order to immunize the entire population with insignificant risks of spill over. The research recognizes that there is a fundamental requirement to address and investigate this field often. If these issues are not addressed and investigated stringently, the globe may be faced by an unprecedented threat. It is, therefore, recommendable that government institutions create research facilities to develop sustainable solutions for all people.
References
Demicheli, V. (2001). Mass influenza vaccination in Ontario: Is it worthwhile? Canadian Medical Association Journal, 164 (1), 38-39.
Fiore, A. (2012). Influenza vaccination: Where do we stand? International Journal of Infectious Diseases, 6(3), 12-13.
Hedrich, A. (2010). International Vital Statistics. American Journal of Public Health and the Nations Health, 9(36), 1123-1124.
Hethcote, H. (2000). The Mathematics of Infectious Diseases. SIAM Review, 42(4), 599-599.
Ward, C. (2014). Influenza Vaccination Campaigns: Is an Ounce of Prevention Worth a Pound of Cure? American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 6(1), 38-72.