AbdurRakib wrote:
Conventional wisdom suggests vaccinating elderly people first in flu season, because they are at greatest risk of dying if they contract the virus. This year’s flu virus poses particular risk to elderly people and almost none at all to younger people, particularly children. Nevertheless, health professionals are recommending vaccinating children first against the virus rather than elderly people.
Which of the following, if true, provides the strongest reason for the health professionals’ recommendation?
A. Children are vulnerable to dangerous infections when their immune systems are severely weakened by other diseases.
B. Children are particularly unconcerned with hygiene and therefore are the group most responsible for spreading the flu virus to others.
C. The vaccinations received last year will confer no immunity to this year’s flu virus.
D. Children who catch one strain of the flu virus and then recover are likely to develop immunity to at least some strains with which they have not yet come in contact.
E. Children are no more likely than adults to have immunity to a particular flu virus if they have never lived through a previous epidemic of the same virus.
OG V 2017 New Question (Book Question: 139)
Dear
AbdurRakib,
I'm happy to respond.
I found it very easy to predict the answer on this question. Old folks are at risk from this virus, and young folks, especially children, are not. We need to protect the old folks. How it is that vaccinating the children first protects the old folks? There must be some way that the old folks could get infected with the virus from infected children: therefore, if we prevent children from getting infected, we block a major avenue by which the infections reach the old people.
Let's look at the answer. We want to strengthen the reasons for the health professionals’ recommendation.
A. Children are vulnerable to dangerous infections when their immune systems are severely weakened by other diseases.From the prompt, it doesn't sound as if children are going to be particularly weakened by this flu virus: if anything, it sounds as if they will fight it off handily. Therefore, the danger from a compromised immune system is minimal. At least, it is not at all clear whether this is any concern at all. This is incorrect.
B. Children are particularly unconcerned with hygiene and therefore are the group most responsible for spreading the flu virus to others.Bingo! What we predicted above. Those filthy unwashed children get the old folks sick.
C. The vaccinations received last year will confer no immunity to this year’s flu virus.Usually true with vaccines. Why does this matter? If no one is immune, why not vaccinate the old folks first? This does not strengthen the argument. This is incorrect.
D. Children who catch one strain of the flu virus and then recover are likely to develop immunity to at least some strains with which they have not yet come in contact.Well, that's great for the children, who weren't at risk anyone, but no matter how healthy the children are, this doesn't prevent the old folks from dying. This does not strengthen the argument. This is incorrect.
E. Children are no more likely than adults to have immunity to a particular flu virus if they have never lived through a previous epidemic of the same virus.This seems irrelevant. Even if they have no immunity, for whatever reason the children seem to be able to fight off this flu virus without much trouble. They are already doing fine: they don't need the vaccine for themselves, and it's not clear why helping them would help the old folks. This does not strengthen the argument. This is incorrect.
Does this make sense?
Mike