posted on October 16, 2004 06:14:53 AM new
On Detroit TV, they report that seniors are standing and waiting in lines for sometimes hours. In some cases being turned away when the supply of vaccine runs out.
While across the river in Windsor Ontario, the medical clinics that give these shots are virtually empty. The news reports that there is no flu shot emergency in Ontario. However doctors in Ontario will turn away Americans if they go there to receive a shot. They indicate the supply they have is for Canadians, and will be used to protect the population there.
Why is it that we in the US haven't prepared in advance for the flu season? I don't know how long the usable shelf life of the vaccine is, but the authorities in charge should have prepared well in advance.
As John Kerry says, under the present administration, you can't even get a flu shot.
posted on October 16, 2004 07:13:50 AM new
Yeager, lets be realistic on this one. There is no way anyone could have known that 50% of the countries supply would be lost. Now they are finding that everything that was shipped here by that company prior to the closure of the plant is contaminated and must be destroyed as well.
Of course there is also the issue of everyone rushing to get their shot now that news has broken when many would have waited another couple weeks when alternative supply chains would have increased their production to lessen some of the furor.
There are a lot of things that Bush can be blamed for but I don't think a conditions at a british plant are one among them.
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on October 16, 2004 07:46:20 AM new
According to fact check Bush was incorrect about the flu vaccine. NO flu vaccine was shipped from England. In fact the British blocked the shipment...not the U.S. as Bush stated in the Presidential debate.
Bush: Bob, we relied upon a company out of England to provide about half of the flu vaccines for the United States (sic) citizen, and it turned out that the vaccine they were producing was contaminated. And so we took the right action and didn't allow contaminated medicine into our country.
It's not true, as Bush claimed, that "we took the right action" in blocking "contaminated" influenza vaccine from entering the US.
Actually, it was the British and not the US that blocked shipment. The British Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, according to an Oct. 6 news release, suspended the license of Chiron Corp., the manufacturer of approximately 50% of the U.S. supply.
In fact, the Bush administration seems to have been caught by surprise when Chiron Corp. notified the US Center for Disease Control Oct. 5 that the company wouldn't be shipping the vaccine due to the British action. The US Food and Drug Administration didn't begin an investigation until five days later, according to an FDA news release .
It's also not clear how much of the vaccine is actually contaminated. The British agency said it suspended Chiron's license because of "concerns of possible microbial contamination." And the FDA news release refers to "findings concerning the contamination of some lots."
You can check the news reports that verify fact check here
posted on October 16, 2004 08:51:24 AM new
Should it surprise anyone that Bush lied about this? They are very angry in the UK that Bush blamed this mess on them.
Cheryl
. . .if you still try to defend the infamies and horrors perpetrated by that Antichrist- I really believe he is Antichrist- I will have nothing more to do with you and you are no longer my friend.. . - War and Peace, Tolstoy
posted on October 16, 2004 09:02:59 AM new
Can you imagine the state of our preparation for biological terrorism or in fact, any kind of terrorism when a flu shot cannot be provided even with several months notice???
posted on October 16, 2004 09:25:49 AM new
It is very reassuring to me that at there is at least ONE democrat here who still can be reasonable and fair minded and not blame the President for something he had absolutely NO control over. [three cheers from me ]
posted on October 16, 2004 09:29:59 AM newChiron Corp. notified the US Center for Disease Control Oct. 5 that the company wouldn't be shipping the vaccine.....
and she comes up with this:
when a flu shot cannot be provided even with several months notice???
posted on October 16, 2004 09:56:11 AM new
I am so happy that sucking sound coming from you is not directed toward me.
Your second comment makes no sense either. Wouldn't you think that a back up supply of flu vaccine would be a part of the vaccination effort in case a problem such as this developed.
Then too, maybe it's not wise to rely on one source for 50% of the flu vaccine. But when has the Bush administration exhibited wisdom of any sort whatsoever?
posted on October 16, 2004 10:27:15 AM new
I understand helen....never having been able to be fair minded nor reasonable yourself....it appears to be 'sucking up' in your mind. It was a well deserved bit of praise to one who IS reasonable and fair-minded and who deals in reality.
Don't go getting jealous or worried it will EVER be coming your way. No need to be concerned at all.
posted on October 16, 2004 11:33:01 AM new
ok - lets drop the histeria and talk facts. If Kerry was president today... we would be in the exact same position when it comes to these flu shots.
Since the Flu is constantly mutating, you cannot cannot hold a back stock on the vaccine. Well, that's not quite right, you can keep a back stock, but it won't be of any use because it will be for the wrong strain. Think about it people, if you could back stock flu vaccine for a year or two would this even be an issue? One of the other manufacturers could dip into their backstock and all would be well. But the that is not quite the reality.
The reality is that each company that produces the vaccines has a formula by which they determine what quantity of the vaccine they produce each year. It is determined by poluation growth/decline and yearly sales trends. To suddenly produce double the number they produce each year with no orders to match to them is fiscally irresponsible.
It is not the governments responsibility to provide a national supply of flu vaccine any more than it is the governments responsibility to provide a national supply of toilet paper. I am baffled at how you can blame a government administration for the effects of safety failures of a manufacturing plant in a foreign country that was contracted to supply a product to private industry.
Could someone please explain that one?
On a personal note - the thing that bugs the hell out of me about blanket blame assessment of every problem, no matter if it is justified or not, on the Bush adminstration is that when there are REAL issues, people ignore them because there have been so many piddling BS ones that they just stop listening.
Cheryl - I give the British people a little more credit than that.
In the words of Toby Zeigler (West Wing Quote to follow)
I don't remember having to explain to Italians that our problem wasn't with them, but with Mussolini!"
In other words, I don't think anyone is blaming the Brits. The problem was with a factory, not a nation.
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
[ edited by fenix03 on Oct 16, 2004 11:36 AM ]
posted on October 16, 2004 12:14:39 PM new "It is not the governments responsibility to provide a national supply of flu vaccine any more than it is the governments responsibility to provide a national supply of toilet paper. I am baffled at how you can blame a government administration for the effects of safety failures of a manufacturing plant in a foreign country that was contracted to supply a product to private industry."
Unlike you, fenix, I believe that it is the government's responsibility to provide health care and flu vaccination is certainly basic health care which can save thousands of lives every year. In addition to that, I don't believe that it is fiscally irresponsible to manufacture at least a substantial back up supply.
In my research on the problem I have discovered just as I suspected earlier that it is a mistake also to place so much responsibility for the manufacture of large percentages of vaccine with only a few companies. Dr. Charles Gonzalez, who is an infectious disease specialist for New York University Medical Center and professor of medicine at New York University School of Medicine, NYC said, "This is the result of the policy of putting all our eggs in one manufacturing basket," It seems that any idiot should know that. Now, I doubt that there is time to manufacture an additional supply.
RE...Your first statement stating that "everything that was shipped here by that company prior to the closure of the plant is contaminated and must be destroyed as well."
That is not supported by anything that I have read including fact check. All of the sources that I have read indicate that no contaminated vaccine was shipped. If you have a source, I would like to read it.
BTW.. I would hold a Democratic administration just as responsible as I do this Republican administration.
posted on October 16, 2004 12:48:01 PM new
::That is not supported by anything that I have read including fact check::
It was part of a BBC news report yesterday. They stated that checks of supplies already sent to the US showed the same contamination levels.
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on October 16, 2004 12:54:15 PM new
::Unlike you, fenix, I believe that it is the government's responsibility to provide health care and flu vaccination is certainly basic health care which can save thousands of lives every year.::
I believe that gasoline should never cost more that $1.50 a gallon and that the $3 in taxes I pay on every pack of cigaerettes that I purchase should allow me to smoke where ever I damn well please.... but that's not really how things work in the reality of our world. Kinda like how in the current reality of our nation there absolutely nothing that states that the government is responsible for your flu shot.
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on October 16, 2004 01:07:22 PM new
I also read what fenix said about the shipments. Also the article I read said that each year there are millions of unused flu shots that are not needed/used so they do normally over-produce them. To me, the media is again building this out of all proportion.
------------------
helen thinks just like a typical socialist....the government should provide for all our needs....be our nanny.
posted on October 16, 2004 01:11:01 PM new "I believe that gasoline should never cost more that $1.50 a gallon and that the $3 in taxes I pay on every pack of cigaerettes that I purchase should allow me to smoke where ever I damn well please.... but that's not really how things work in the reality of our world. Kinda like how in the current reality of our nation there absolutely nothing that states that the government is responsible for your flu shot."
When 36,000 people a year can die, I think that your concerns pale in comparison, fenix.
There are children with asthma, people with compromised immune systems and chronic diseases such as diabetes, aids, cancer and of course the elderly and very young who are in serious need of this vaccine. To fail to deliver the vaccine to these people is a failure of the Bush administration. Maybe we can learn by this mistake but only with the cost of thousands of deaths from the flu. Between 1990 and 1999 the flu has been responsible for an average of approximately 36,000 deaths in the U.S. per year.
People who need the vaccine this year...
all children aged 623 months;
adults aged 65 years and older;
persons aged 264 years with underlying chronic medical conditions;
all women who will be pregnant during the influenza season;
residents of nursing homes and long-term care facilities;
children aged 6 months18 years on chronic aspirin therapy;
health-care workers involved in direct patient care; and
out-of-home caregivers and household contacts of children aged <6 months.
BTW... The BBC report that you either read or heard was wrong about the contaminated vaccine being shipped to the U.S.
From their news report today..."The comments came as FDA scientists finished a week-long stint at the factory where Chiron had made about 48 million doses of the vaccine originally destined for U.S. use.
posted on October 16, 2004 01:29:13 PM new
Hey Helen - rather than copmplain that the government did not do something that it has no requirement to do - why not instead complain about the american companies that outsourced production?
When do you stop blaming the government for everything and actually hold those that do bear the responsibility responsible for their actions?
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on October 16, 2004 01:48:15 PM new
linda's attitude toward this issue doesn't surprise me but your's does, fenix. I've said about all that I care to about this issue...have to go out for awhile. One other point though before I leave...It's not a free flu shot program. I've forgotten the cost per shot but usually less than 20 bucks or so.
I didn't realize that you were on the fence on the health care issue, fenix. That surprises me.
posted on October 16, 2004 02:15:19 PM new
One part of the problem is as mentioned in several articles....
"When Glaxo introduced Fluarix in 1992, it didn't sell it in the United States because the U.S. market already was "well-served" by five to 10 other manufacturers, Halstrom said."
"Now that number has dwindled to two makers of injectible vaccines: Chiron, based in Emeryville, Ca., and Aventis Pasteur, a unit of France's Sanofi-Aventis S.A., which has a plant in Swiftwater.
------------------------
And there ARE several article that state shipments had been previously made to the US BEFORE the contamination was discovered.
------------------
helen says: Linda's attitude toward this issue doesn't surprise me....
it shouldn't....because I don't have an attitude. I don't think the President is responsible for the fact that we've lost 1/2 of the shots we expected we have. That's not an 'attitude'....that's reality. He didn't cause it to happen and with only two manufacturers to choose from the 50% from one isn't at all surprising as it would be if there were several different companies producing these.
posted on October 16, 2004 02:49:51 PM new
Helen - I am not "on the fence" about the health issue. Please refrain from assigning views
The fact is that there is absolutely no current regulation which requires the government to provide a national innoculation program. As long as that is the case its cheap and petty politics to attempt to lay them blame for the current situation at the feet of the government. I live in the real world Helen. I do not hold people responsible for not doing that which it was never their responsibility to do. For some reason, you seem to hold government responsible for everything that is not done the way you feel that it should be done whether their mandate states that they should or not.
Again there are companies that were paid to make sure that this was done correctly - they are the ones that should be held responsible. Pharmacuticals companies, health care providers, etc that decided to outsource production and not put in any type of stop gaps or onsight quality control which would have taken care of the issue long before it became an issue.
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
[ edited by fenix03 on Oct 16, 2004 02:51 PM ]
posted on October 16, 2004 03:28:47 PM new
OK, for those who think that if a person pays, for instance, $15,000.00 per year in income taxes alone, that they shouldn't have their government provide them a basic flu shot (the health of your nation), what is the person paying for? Why should the government be exempt from providing for it's people when the people pay them huge amounts of money, daily, monthly, yearly, for life?
fenix...I am not "assigning views". You have made your position perfectly clear. If you don't believe that flu vaccinations which save thousands of lives is a health care issue I can't rationally discuss this topic with you. When the contracting of vaccine orders is irresponsibly handled, I hold the agency that handled that job responsible. Hopefully, something will be learned from this debacle. For example maybe next year no single company will be responsible for 50% of the product....or maybe it will be found that better inspection is the answer. You are wrong, in my opinion, to downplay this problem because it represents a serious health risk for many in this country and all over the world.
I'm finished discussing this topic. We are too far apart to resolve any differences and I don't want to get involved in petty personal attacks again.
posted on October 16, 2004 03:50:53 PM new
Come on Krafty - be serious. Because our government is not a chinese menu where you decide each day which 3 of 12 services you want to serve you today.
We do not have a national healthcare program and to be quite honest, as disorganized and fiscally irresponsible as our goverment is, it's not something I think anyone really wants. Assistance in facilitating affordable healthcare? Yes! Government run healthcare? Good god no!
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
[ edited by fenix03 on Oct 16, 2004 03:56 PM ]
posted on October 16, 2004 03:55:34 PM new
::fenix...I am not "assigning views". You have made your position perfectly clear. If you don't believe that flu vaccinations which save thousands of lives is a health care issue I can't rationally discuss this topic with you.::
Helen - if you have not yet figured out that that is not even close to what I have said then you are right. You are desperatly attempting entirely different arguement with me. I have never once said that it is or is not a health care issue. I was reffering to the irrational practice of blaming the government for the shortages caused by a contaminated plant.
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on October 16, 2004 04:06:44 PM new
Good gawd Fenix. Don't use the word Chinese on a Saturday night in front of Twelve!
Seriously, if you have to pay to get a flu shot, the very people that will need it most are the ones that probably can't afford it, so it needs to be socialized so everyone benefits, imo.
posted on October 16, 2004 04:22:37 PM new
Fenix, just one more attempt...
Here is "what you have said",
"I believe that gasoline should never cost more that $1.50 a gallon and that the $3 in taxes I pay on every pack of cigaerettes that I purchase should allow me to smoke where ever I damn well please.... but that's not really how things work in the reality of our world. Kinda like how in the current reality of our nation there absolutely nothing that states that the government is responsible for your flu shot.
"The fact is that there is absolutely no current regulation which requires the government to provide a national innoculation program."
Now, I look at these two statements and to me they seem so viciously pragmatic when we are talking about almost 40,000 U.S. dead from flu. I'm sorry but maybe I have misjudged you.
]
