As an unapologetic man of science, I am (of course), an enthusiast of immunisation. Whatever the standpoint that I try to attack it from – historian, scientist, logician, economist, philosopher, parent or just plain old gambler working the odds off the pure metrics that we have – I can come to no other conclusion that immunisation has been a boon to human society. As it is my blog, I can assert this with total and utter unyielding authority.
In this manner then, I always find that the best World Health Organisation campaigns are those that are blunt and to the point. Thus, I really, really like this immunisation campaign poster from 1975.
I apologise for the poor quality of the image, but the pictures should be clear. Here we see two new mothers, one trusts the health worker and chooses to immunise her child. The second is not so sure and chooses to not do so. Of course, baby number one now has a glowing protective halo, and baby number two does not. When disease strikes (as it inevitably will), baby number one is happy and dandy, and baby number two is like the parrot in the Monty Python sketch. Oh, and mother number two has tears running down her cheeks.
Nature is indeed a cruel mistress...
ANYWAY, if you are up for it, visit STATS.org for an interesting little discussion on the science behind pro- and anti- immunisation position in one well-known US case. There’s another example of the ‘casualties’ of the debate in the UK, and something else to consider, how changing your behaviour based on media interpretations of ‘the evidence’ is not always a good thing.
Comments
Cute :)
A good reminder.