A Tale of Two Countries: How Bush Helped Make the Flu Crisis

Published on October 19, 2004 By blogic In Politics

Bush supporters have tried to argue that the Bush administration bears no responsiblity for this year's critical shortage of flu vaccine.

This is from Medical News Today:

Last August UK officials, with the same information the US officials had, decided something had to be done in case the Chiron supplies, 14% of UK supplies, went belly up. The US officials decided to believe Chiron and gamble 48% of their supplies on an assurance that everything would turn out fine despite some worrying set backs.

When October 5th arrived, the British authorities pulled the plug on the Chiron, Liverpool, supplies. US authorities were caught out - nothing had been done in advance, the country had allowed itself to get into this situation.

[snip]

Even without this crisis, the UK authorities have always had a situation where they can fall back on six or seven suppliers that have been pre-approved by UK authorities. The US, on the other hand, only has two - one of which has let them down. Had the US had more pre-approved suppliers, had the US started to do something about this problem last August when alarm bells were ringing, had the US…….? This is what many Americans are now starting to ask.

The American Health Dept saw no reason last August to do anything, says their spokesman Tony Jewell. Americans hear him and ask, so why did the British have a reason, you both worked on the same information, didn't you?

America's only other supplier, Aventis, may have upped supplies if they had been asked in advance - say last August - said an Aventis spokesman. But no one from the US approached them on this matter, not till after Oct 5.

That really sums things up. Two governments were working with the same information -- that there were potential problems with the flu vaccine supply. One government handled it well, while the Bush administration displayed incompetence. As they have done on the Iraq quagmire, you can see the Bush administration refusing to take responsibility for this, blaming everybody but themselves for the choices made by the Bush adminstration. As flu season approaches, we can only hope seniors and children won't die because of this administration's poor judgment.

Comments (Page 2)

drmiler

on Oct 19, 2004

Reply #14 By: Grim Xiozan - 10/19/2004 3:50:18 PM
Everytime I got a Flu shot; I have gotten sick.
Everytime I did not recieve a Flu Shot; I have NEVER gotten sick.

I am seeing a pattern here, the shot gets you sick to keep from getting sick so is it that important to me or low-risk/no-risk people?

Hell NO!!

- Grim X (ACHOOO!!!)

Do you know how the vaccine works? It gives you a mild dose of the flu being vaccinated for so your body will develop antibodies to fight that strain. Does everyone realize that the shot you get is only good for one type of flu?

Myrrander

on Oct 19, 2004

the shot gives you a dead virus, not a mild dose, and it's for 3 strains...the nasal spray is a weakened virus and gives you a mild dose of the flu, I'm not sure how many strains...my info came from the CDC...

Grim Xiozan

on Oct 19, 2004

Yes I know how it works but so far I have never had any strain of Flu but have serious complications from Flu Shots (example Acute Pharyingitis (sp?) after one flu shot and was laid out for about a 1 1/2 weeks).

Each year the shot has to be updated because the strain is ever changing. For the past 2 years I have not taken a Flu shot and suffered no illness whatsoever.

Does it ultimately affect me as an extremely low-risk person to need the flu shot?

- Grim Xneeze

Daiwa

on Oct 19, 2004

Hate to burst your bubble, GX, but that was just a coincidence, had nothing to do with the flu shot. Flu shot season is also the fall cold season.

You are correct about the vaccine being updated every year based on the CDC's best educated guess as to which viral strains are likely to be most prevalent, but it's just a guess and can be wrong, as it was last year.

Words are insufficient to express my anger at people trying to hang the shortage on Bush. Truely shameful demagoguery is all this is.

Cheers,
Daiwa

blogic

on Oct 19, 2004

Almost ignored by the conservatives is (1) Bush was warned of this danger three years ago and (2) the UK was confronted by the same situation (obvously, at the same time) and handled it much better.

The British had the same info, and responded to the problem. The Bush administration stuck it's head in the sand. Aventis -- the other major supplier of flu vaccine -- says they could have upped the supply, if only the Bush administration had asked. We already know the British would have.

But no, the conservatives don't think the Bush administration could have handled this better.

Daiwa

on Oct 19, 2004

Almost ignored by the conservatives is (1) Bush was warned of this danger three years ago and (2) the UK was confronted by the same situation (obvously, at the same time) and handled it much better.

Not ignored at all. Once again, who was responsible for reducing the number of suppliers? What was the nature and intent of what you are calling a "warning"? Was it specific to the 2004 vaccine program or a general warning that having put all our eggs in two baskets was perhaps not too frickin' smart and we should consider undoing the Clinton policies that reduced our number of suppliers? When did we know that 2004 was the problem year? August of 2004. Also how many doses would be needed for the population of England & how many for the U.S.? Aventis saying they could have increased production if they had been asked is correct, but no one knew they needed to be asked until August. Had they clairvoyantly made twice what the government ordered and no problem occurred had with Chiron's production they would have had to throw half their production run away. That would certainly have helped them remain viable and ensured they'd be around for next year.

The only statistical comparison that holds up is that Britain, a country one fifth the size of the U.S., has 9 manufacturers of vaccine, while the U.S. has 2 sources, only one of which is domestic. You should be asking who was responsible for that, not who failed to call Miss Cleo.

I repeat, stick this where it belongs.

Cheers,
Daiwa

drmiler

on Oct 19, 2004

Reply #20 By: blogic - 10/19/2004 7:06:36 PM
Almost ignored by the conservatives is (1) Bush was warned of this danger three years ago and (2) the UK was confronted by the same situation (obvously, at the same time) and handled it much better.

The British had the same info, and responded to the problem. The Bush administration stuck it's head in the sand. Aventis -- the other major supplier of flu vaccine -- says they could have upped the supply, if only the Bush administration had asked. We already know the British would have.

Again I'll repeat. you don't know this for fact.

messybuu

on Oct 19, 2004

I never received the flu vaccine, yet I'm still alive. I must be a ninja!

Bungy32

on Oct 19, 2004

First of all, I think the flu vacine is over marketed to people who probably don't need it. As a country, I think we need to seriously reconsider our investment in unnecessary and ineffective vacination -- especially when evidence suggests that the overuse of vacines and antibiotics tends to create even stronger pathogens. Moreover, frankly, the shortage isn't that short, really. All in all, this is pretty much a non-issue.

Second, as a non-issue, I am pretty tired of its play in the current political quagmire (Hey, Iraq doesn't have a monopoly on the mires of quag!) I was disgusted when it was a lead question in the third debate, and I empathized with President Bush when he seemed to be surprised that that was the first question Shiefer wanted to throw him. (Read that sentence again. Not only did I, an open queer liberal, agree with Bush but I also empathized with him. For a moment, anyway.)

Third, while I think it is wrong to try and turn this non-crisis into something that is Bush's fault, I don't think turning around and arguing that it was Clinton's fault makes much sense either. Those of you who express your disgust at how folks want to pin this on Bush and then turn around and so easily claim it is "yet another mess inherited from Clinton/Gore" might want to rethink the logic of your arguments. Because if this really is the result of a bad policy on Clinton's part, I'm thinking Bush has had four years with a sympathetic congress to change things -- but he hasn't. (Note: I am not trying to put this back on Bush. I am AGREEING with you that Bush is not responsible for this non-crisis. Let's just leave it there and move on. )

Grim Xiozan

on Oct 19, 2004

I think we are all more likely to die in a car accident than a Flu.
I am with Messy, except I am a Pirate Ninja.
I say 'argh!' while I throw a Shuriken at you!!

- Grimrate Xinja

Daiwa

on Oct 19, 2004

As flu season approaches, we can only hope seniors and children won't die because of this administration's poor judgment.

Just for good measure, that tag line is the most despicable part of the whole pile of dung. blogic has no shame whatsoever.

Cheers,
Daiwa

eieio

on Oct 19, 2004

Those of you who express your disgust at how folks want to pin this on Bush and then turn around and so easily claim it is "yet another mess inherited from Clinton/Gore" might want to rethink the logic of your arguments.

Bungy32

There is a lot of difference between specifying the factors that led to the near total absence of US companies producing vaccine and insinuating that Bush will be responsible for the possible deaths of seniors and children.

Daiwa's point is that there has been no attempt by blogic to discuss what led to the vaccine shortage. He is using the shortage as a political tool to discredit Bush. The merits of his argument aren't important to him, the political coup is the primary concern.

That said, I agree that the situation regarding the restrictive laws that led US companies to abandon vaccine production needs to be remedied. Laying blame, especially for political gain, serves no purpose other than self interest and as a tool to obtain power.

messybuu

on Oct 19, 2004

The whole thing reminds me of that episode of South Park where Native Americans give the South Park people SARS to drive them off the land so that they could build another casino.

blogic

on Oct 19, 2004

Hi all,

I was fairly clear that I was interested in the linked piece's discussion of how the US and the UK learned about the potential shortage at the same time, and the US -- unlike the UK -- chose to do nothing. The piece focuses on that, as did I. Aventis has made it clear that had the administration asked at that time, instead of earlier this month, they could have provided more vaccine.

The administration is now finally pursuing that strategy, which is a good thing, but implies that the linked piece is correct that Bush could have done this earlier.

I really don't see how you can deny the validity of the piece's thesis, when Bush administration is now moving to deal with the problem the exact way the piece suggests.

I have a three year old nephew and a 93 year old grandfather, so as you might imagine, this is something I care about.

Lee1776

on Oct 19, 2004

Does anybody notice the similarity between the way Government took control of the national Vaccine purchases and Kerry's plan to have the Government take control of the national pharmaceutical purchases?

How is it that the man who is blaming the current President for F**king up the vaccine supply with a faulty system, is not taking any flak for the fact that he wants institute the same system of bulk fixed rate Government run purchases from other countries, for all our medicines.

That's My Two Cents

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!