As I'm sure everyone is fully aware, the issue of flu vaccine shortages is real and not media hype. The NY Times wrote an article about how this is becoming a policy problem for President Bush that is a very interesting read and poses some interesting questions. Admittedly the questions are partisan and meant to throw doubt on Bush's ability to set policy, but I think they are still worth thinking about.


And, the question of whether we are doing enough about it also needs to be answered:


Questions for debate:
1. Is the Flu vaccine shortage this year due to systemic problems with our health care system or is this a stroke of bad luck? If it is due to systemic problems, what are they?

2. The question was raised that if we can't get flu vaccine to our citizens, how could we prevent a bioterrorism attack from spreading? Is this simply a scare tactic or does the flu vaccine shortage point to deficiencies in our system and procedures which would be exposed during a bioterrorism attack?

1. Is the Flu vaccine shortage this year due to systemic problems with our health care system or is this a stroke of bad luck? If it is due to systemic problems, what are they?
   
   SYSTEMIC PROBLEMS: In listing them I fault the medical board for not producing enough doctors to provide an accurate count of patiences. The reliance on two companies to produced vaccine instead of multiple companies. The people for an over exaggerated claim that the flu vaccines are necessary.
   
   
2. The question was raised that if we can't get flu vaccine to our citizens, how could we prevent a bioterrorism attack from spreading? Is this simply a scare tactic or does the flu vaccine shortage point to deficiencies in our system and procedures which would be exposed during a bioterrorism attack?
   
   SCARE TACTIC: Not only do we have stock piles of small pox vaccines, but in LA, every three months, they perform a fake bioterrorism attack and the teams performed well. And it is scare tactic because as long as we keep fighting the terrorist in Iraq, they will not come here to use their WMDs.

I would like to add:


If there is such a shortage, and Kerry and Edwards are so worried about the American people, why haven't they given their vaccines to someone else?

Oh come on Yehoshua, let's not go down that path. If Bush and his administration are so worried why don't they give theirs away? Let's try not to make this about election year politics, and actually discuss the questions for debate instead.

I think that this issue transcends the election and it is something we are going to have to find a solution to once the dust has settled.

Oh, come on yourself, Cube Jockey. You cite a political/election article from a liberal rag like the NY Times and then turn around and want to talk about the "issue" as though politics has nothing to do with it? What's next, you gonna cite an opinion piece by Robert Sheer as a legitimate news story?

The answer to your "questions for debate" is that this is just another scare tactic by a desperate left wing.

I think it's probably a little of both. As I understand it we out sourced our operations to England, which in itself isn't a bad thing. They have no reason to produce vaccines of poor quality or to do anything to hurt us being one of our allies. I actually agree with yehoshua for once that we do need more companies to produce vaccines within the states though.



This raises a good point. If we can't prepare for something that occur annually then how well are we prepared for something that may occur randomly? There may be lots of Small Pox and other vaccines out there, even enough for every person, but if they're poorly distributed and not all states or major cities then they would have to be transported, which could cause problems. This statement is probably more of a scare tactic than anything, but I believe it holds some sway.



As long as we keep fighting terrorists in Iraq they won't come here? I didn't know that all terrorists resided in Iraq and were on the front lines fighting. I could've sworn there were terrorist organizations in more countries than Iraq. From this spreadsheet it's obvious that there are many organizations, and while not all of them are against the US, there are more than just the terrorists in Iraq; that's for sure.

Terror Org. Site

1. Is the Flu vaccine shortage this year due to systemic problems with our health care system or is this a stroke of bad luck? If it is due to systemic problems, what are they? A bit of both, as mentioned before.

2. The question was raised that if we can't get flu vaccine to our citizens, how could we prevent a bioterrorism attack from spreading? Is this simply a scare tactic or does the flu vaccine shortage point to deficiencies in our system and procedures which would be exposed during a bioterrorism attack? There isn't much of a connection between immunization to a bioterrorist attack and the flu vaccine. Vaccinations only work if you are immunized prior to exposure, and only the active duty military people here have probably received any immunizations to a potential terrorist pathogen, and those vaccinations offer dubious protection, because the biowarfare strands would likely be genetically modified and in such heavy concentrations that the vaccines won't be effective anyway. The only way to combat that sort of attack would be containment and quarantine after-the-fact (or, of course, prevention of the attack to begin with). For the remaining unexposed, the government would have to cook up a vaccination to the modified strand...but that would likely only be possible after the attack.

Is the Flu vaccine shortage this year due to systemic problems with our health care system or is this a stroke of bad luck? If it is due to systemic problems, what are they?



Bush is correct, mostly. The "company out of England" is a lab owned by Chiron, which is based in California. The shortage is due to having all our eggs in one nest.


Bush went on to say:



Way to spin tort reform on a baseless position.

Eli Lilly and Co. are the makers of thimerosal, a mercury-based preservative present in vaccines to prevent contamination. Although there doesn't seem to be a consensus thimerosal has been linked to autism in children in some studies.


The Vaccine Injury Compensation Program of 1986 was set aside to quickly and generously compensate families when vaccine injuries occur. In 1996 the Childhood Vaccine Injury Act granted drug companies limited immunity from vaccine-related injuries. In 1997 the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act "called for the FDA to review and assess the risk of all mercury containing food and drugs." The FDA's studies into a thimerosal-autism link have been inconclusive, but it backs the Public Health Service agencies and the American Academy of Pediatrics that the preservative should be removed from most vaccines.

With present limited immunities against vaccine-related injuries in place we reach the icing on the cake. Almost two years ago the Homeland Security bill was ready for a vote. A last-minute provision was added that granted Eli Lilly and Co. "broad legal protection."

Mitchell Daniels serves as White House budget director. He is also a former Lilly executive. Oddly enough no one wants to take credit for the lobbying coup.




This is a naive suggestion on the part of the president to decline a flu shot, and your exchange doesn't improve matters. Figuratively speaking the president belongs to the American people. He cannot risk his health while in office to set an example or make a gesture, nor should he be allowed.

HEALTH RISK? The flu? I can see heart surgery or eating sugar as a diabetic, but the flu? Not only that but the health clincs here are urge, health adults not to get the shot. Bush seems to be a health adult who does not need his shot.

When you take the shot you run the risk of getting the flu from the shot, so either way you run a risk of getting the flu. And let's say he got the flu (like Kerry did earlier this month) a health adult is down for 24 hours (like Kerry was). I think the country can manage the 24 hours on its own.

Besides, Kerry has already had the flu, the flu shot is no good for him, so he join Bush in allowing someone else to take the shot.

First, I don't really see what this thread has to do with anything we are discussing Aquilla, so I'm not sure how you think mentioning that advances this debate.

Secondly, if you think the NY Times is a "liberal rag" and don't want to read the article, that is fine by me. However, I think you'll find that it is hard to intelligently debate a topic when you refuse to even read the article cited in the opening post.

So where does that leave us? Well basically you have suggested this is a scare tactic by the "desperate left wing" which I guess could be construed as an answer to question #2. However, you haven't given a very supported answer to this question. As far as question #1, completely ignored.

As I said before, this transcends election year politics. The election results will be final in just under two weeks, that doesnt mean this issue is going to go away. Let's assume for a second that Bush does retain his office as you are hoping. Then what? As I cited in the opening post he and Cheney have been saying we don't have any vaccine because producers are afraid of what their liability might be, yet he has a bill sitting on his desk waiting to be signed that will remove that liability. If Bush is elected, what is he going to do to ensure this doesn't happen again, and to address question 2 yet again - does this possibly indicate that we might not be quite as prepared for a biological attack as we think we are. If we can't even get flu vaccine to people who need it across the country, what is going to happen if someone releases small pox in multiple locations around the country and people are dying and paniced? Think we might have supply and distribution issues just like we are having now? I sure do.

On the other hand, this doesn't necessarily change under Kerry either, he hasn't put forth any plan that I have seen. However, at least he seems to acknowledge it as a problem from his statement.

I no longer care about the election, I have cast my vote and I'm just waiting to see what happens. No one is going to change their mind based on anything I say or write in the next two weeks. But this is an issue which will still be around on November 3rd Aquilla, so you can dismiss it as a scare tactic by the "desperate left wing" all you want, but you are kidding yourself if you think that is going to make it go away.


You have a point Mrs. P, but if you substitute "antidote" for "vaccine" I still have a point and the very same production and distribution issues are in place.


Several thousand people die each year because of the Flu Yehoshua. The article I cited puts that number at about 36,000 a year. It effects people who are either very young or very old the most, and guess which category most of our congressmen and women fall into? I think that would be considered a health risk.

2. The question was raised that if we can't get flu vaccine to our citizens, how could we prevent a bioterrorism attack from spreading? Is this simply a scare tactic or does the flu vaccine shortage point to deficiencies in our system and procedures which would be exposed during a bioterrorism attack?

I honestly don’t think the two are related. As has been discussed in other threads, flu vaccine is not a moneymaker for drug companies, so they don’t make it. Only two companies manufacture it, it cannot be stored, so when one company’s batch is contaminated, only half as much is available. I see no plot here. I do think drug companies should be given some sort of incentive to participate in manufacturing flu vaccine each year, or increased funding into research for a synthetic vaccine that does not require the long incubation period.


The flu kills tens of thousands of people every year (20,000 in the US alone). And theoretically, a pandemic could kill tens of millions (as it did in 1918). Flu is very serious business. And if military personnel can be charged with destruction of property for injuring themselves, the Commander in Chief ought to be held to the same standard. A healthy adult is just as susceptible to getting the flu as one in the high-risk group; it's just that the chances for serious complications are less in a healthy person.


That's a complete fallacy, as pointed out by WebMd (and many, many doctors). It is impossible to get the flu from a flu shot.

In the event of a chemical attack, unless you have an actual antidote on your person or right inside the house, the odds are you won't make it. I don't know of antidotes to bio attacks, except for antibiotics and medication...in which case the distribution channels at present seem to be working (albeit expensive). Otherwise, does anyone feel they need a gas mask? That's more likely to help in the event of such an attack than anything else. Now, if the idea of a gas mask sounds silly to you, I'd say the flu shot/ bioterror anticdote/vaccine connection is a reach. Or yes, a "scare tactic".

Are these tens of thousands of people healthy adults? What percent of the 20,000 who have did in the US where health adults like the President and the Senator?



I stand corrected.

Not interested in taking bets on which of the two is the nicest guy. No further comment deserving.

Would you care to document that statement?

I remember Kerry losing his voice and having what was reported as a "cold" shortly before the first debate. There are hundreds of common cold viruses and they do nothing to create immunity against the flu. Besides, flu season hasn't really started yet.

Both Kerry and Bush should get flu shots because of the number of people they contact campaigning, unless of course, Kerry really did get a very early case of flu.

I imagine the flu vaccine shortage is due to a case of the government putting all it's eggs into one basket. If we get more *reliable* companies to produce the vaccine, I imagine we'll avoid situations like this in the future.

As for this being a troubling indicator of our government failing to protect us from Bio-terror, I wouldn't worry about terrorists using influenza as a weapon. Now tell me this, when did the government start mass producing anthrax or ebola vaccines for the US populace? If you wanted to worry about bio-terror, I'd imagine the flu would be at the lower end of the top 10. So they wouldn't exploit deficencies in a system that doesn't exist. Unless there's a program for ebola vaccination that I don't know about...

I think you misunderstand the point I am trying to make titus. I am not suggesting that terrorists might attack with influenza, that would be rather inefficient. I am also not suggesting that we need to mass produce anything, at least not in excess of what is needed.

But, what this little episode does suggest is that we do have problems on the supply end with influenza and likely on the distribution end as well. So given that, doesn't it make you wonder if we aren't going to have similar problems for other types of vaccines and antidotes? The government generally doesn't have tons of ways of doing things, they have a process and they stick to it.

Thankfully we haven't had to deal with a bio-terror attack, but that also means that whatever system we do have in place is unproven. So I think that is the question I'd like to get to, does this influenza thing represent a systemic problem or is it a fluke? If we are scrambling to prepare for something we know is coming each year like clockwork, how exactly does that inspire confidence we are equipped to deal with the unknown? Or is the answer that we don't, people die and we respond?

I'll try this again since my first reply was apparently "inappropriate".

1. Is the Flu vaccine shortage this year due to systemic problems with our health care system or is this a stroke of bad luck? If it is due to systemic problems, what are they?

Yes, they are systemic problems left over from the 90's. From The Whitehouse website we have the following......



So yes, there is a systemic problem with the manufacture of the flu vaccine. Perhaps there is something the federal government can do about it. From the same White House article.....



Didn't mention tort reform there, but that might help a bit too.


2. The question was raised that if we can't get flu vaccine to our citizens, how could we prevent a bioterrorism attack from spreading? Is this simply a scare tactic or does the flu vaccine shortage point to deficiencies in our system and procedures which would be exposed during a bioterrorism attack?

I don't see any connection whatsoever between the flu vaccine and "bio-terrorism". That, and given the fact that this article appeared in the NYT "political" section as opposed to the health section leads me to believe that this is nothing more than scare tactics in a political season. This despite of course, CJ's altruistic purposes of posting this important topic. I completely agree with him that this is an issue that must be addressed regardless of who wins in November.

Update:


52% effective, helpful for the elderaly, not really need for the young and healthy. I think Kerry can donate his and Edwards flu shot, maybe not Edwards children or the famous Mrs. HK, but Kerry could afford to.

The reason for the shortage? From the CDC website



Seems like a bit of a fluke to me. Then again, government interference in the drug market kills thousands yearly.Looks like once again government has interfered with the free market (this time the British government) to the detriment of millions.

1. The shortage of flu vaccines is a problem for the nation, and indicative of our economy and it's relationship with our healthcare system. Relying on the UK for such a large portion of our vaccines was irresponsible regardless of how easy or economically feasible it was.

The relationship to Mr. Bush is vague. I find it nearly entertaining that people turn this into party politics. How exactly did Mr. Bush cause this? I'd like to see the logic. As you will recall, during the debate Mr. Bush explained that this was a function of relying on an external source for over 1/2 of our vaccines.... and that he suggested that healthy/young people just skip this year. I'd have hoped that we could've figured this out ourselves.

Being a Marine reservist eligible for a second deployment, I am eligible to get a vaccine. However, I have decided that it's really not a necessity... I suggest that this is an easy solution. Medical professionals, the elderly, children, etc should be the ones to get them...

2. Relating a flu vaccine to bioterrorism is absurd unless you're suggesting that someone would infect our nation with influenza, which has never happened. In respect to equating this to other viruses (germ agents, etc) there is little or no basis for argument. Our nation has large stores of small pox vaccine, for instance. The flu vaccine is the only viral vaccine largely dist. within the US on a yearly basis to adults.

Relating this incident to partisan politics is absurd. I have a hard time believing that the Kerry camp is so desperate that they equate a flu vaccine shortage caused by contaminated chemicals in the UK to national security. Bioterrorist wouldn't spread a virus that the American public carries commonly. They also wouldn't spread a virus this non-threatening.