|
Edited on Mon Oct-26-09 11:23 AM by Kurt_and_Hunter
I am biased because I know people in the federal flu-fighting infrastructure and have seen their dedication and long hours in administration after administration. They are good, serious people doing a thankless job.
Influenza is CDC's most persistent priority and the second biggest funded disease at NIH (I think it is after cancer and ahead of AIDS) because a global killer influenza (comparable to the pandemic flu of 1918, the most spectacularly deadly epidemic since the plague) can appear at any moment in time. Like Californians, epidemiologist's always have "the big one" in the back of their minds.
The short-falls in H1N1 vaccine production are due to unforeseen difficulties with the novel virus and a host of testing procedures, many of which were put in place after the bad swine flu vaccine of 1976 (or was it '75?). People want a vaccine both fast and safe and the two are not always compatible. And this year we had to develop H1N1 vaccine while also doing our annual seasonal flu vaccine.
Every year we launch into the unknown... every strain is different and vaccine development for different strains always involves unknowns.
I think the current swine flu vaccine shortage situation is a potential time-bomb for the administration if the disease breaks bad.
On the other hand, the swine flu vaccine situation was a disaster for Gerald Ford because the disease didn't break bad. The strain was less dangerous than expected and the vaccine was unusually dangerous. (Partially because it was rushed because the strain was expected to be very bad...)
It's thankless.
You are always proving a negative -- you issue dire warnings in hopes that people will modify their behavior so the dire scenario doesn't materialize. If everything works the anti-flu infrastructure will always appear to be crying wolf.
|