world

U.S. expects 100 million people to be vaccinated by February

36 Comments
By MANDEL NGAN

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© 2020 AFP

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

36 Comments

Comments have been disabled You can no longer respond to this thread.

What about Japan ?

Let's hope they don't take too long to approve the Vaccines.

2 ( +9 / -7 )

Yikes! I don’t recommend injecting untested vaccines into your body without at the very least finding out what’s in them first.

-9 ( +11 / -20 )

I’m considering taking time off work and going home if it means getting vaccinated faster.

11 ( +16 / -5 )

I won’t be in line for this vaccine, as I am not for the flu one

-11 ( +8 / -19 )

Yikes! I don’t recommend injecting untested vaccines into your body without at the very least finding out what’s in them first.

Good thing the vaccines for COVID-19 that are going to be approved have been tested very carefully, and that anybody that is interested can easily find out what is inside them.

8 ( +17 / -9 )

Don’t call me an anti-vaxer, I’ve been immunized against all sorts of things. However, when I found out that the companies making these are exempted from liabilities arising from possible side effects, it gave me pause.

Kind of reminds me of the GFC: privatise the profits, socialise the losses.

2 ( +11 / -9 )

What about the other 2/3 of the population?

2 ( +5 / -3 )

That is a very optimistic number. Almost unrealistic.

7 ( +9 / -2 )

The US was lucky to have Trump in charge when the pandemic happened.

-15 ( +5 / -20 )

when I found out that the companies making these are exempted from liabilities arising from possible side effects, it gave me pause.

Well, you found out something not true, companies are constantly in vigilance and the vaccine tested to corroborate they are what waspromised, they are fully liable if the government find out anything is wrong.

People try to manipulate others using that false argument all the time, but investigating a little becomes clear it is false.

4 ( +11 / -7 )

Since vaccines usually take up to ten years to approve, I will gladly stand aside and let someone be a guinea pig first. Anyone who actually believes that they have managed to get a safe vaccine made in less than ten months is really unaware of how many safety protocols have been ignored in the rush to get this vaccine out.

I REALLY hope that they got it right but my gut says wait and see how 100 million or so react over a one year period first. A vaccine that can leave you in a worse health condition or even dead is never better. Why play Russian Roulette with this vaccine?

1 ( +9 / -8 )

What about the other 2/3 of the population?

They won't be able to fly.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

While I am not against a vaccine, I have no intention to rush to take the first one available. I'd rather wait and see if there are any problems or side-effects appearing first. Especially as I keep hearing bad rumours about Pfizer's record.

The fact that so much haste is being made to bring out a barely-tested vaccine is ringing alarm bells.

-3 ( +8 / -11 )

"Let's hope they don't take too long to approve the Vaccines"

Let's hope they properly vet whatever vaccine comes out first.

-1 ( +8 / -9 )

Since vaccines usually take up to ten years to approve,

Yes, but surprisingly, some people do not think shrinking the timeline from 10 years to less than a year is not rushing it!

they are fully liable if the government find out anything is wrong.

No, they are liable if the government can prove that they knowingly lied or omitted important information. But good luck getting the government to prove that, considering many ties to Big Pharma. Despite these ties, Big Pharma has often paid massive fines because of wrong doing.

Also, after a participant in India's AstraZeneca clinical trial sent a legal notice alleging that the vaccine caused him to develop acute neuro encephalopathy, the agency carrying out the trials threatened to take legal action against him for maligning the company’s reputation, seeking damages in excess of $13 million.

Good thing the vaccines for COVID-19 that are going to be approved have been tested very carefully,

Not for long term side effects.

-5 ( +5 / -10 )

Food for thought https://theintercept.com/2020/08/28/coronavirus-vaccine-prep-act/

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

Since vaccines usually take up to ten years to approve, I will gladly stand aside and let someone be a guinea pig first.

Vaccines do not require many years to be developed, that is only the case for diseases for which the easiest way to make them do not work for some reason. For a new disease, that has no such problems there is no need for time to be dedicated to solve those non-existant problems.

On the other hand you are still a guinea pig, because you are exposed to higher risk from the natural infection, for which more and more side effects are being found.

Yes, but surprisingly, some people do not think shrinking the timeline from 10 years to less than a year is not rushing it

That is because it is not, there was no special problem to solve, and clinical trials finished under a year has been done before for vaccines that are in use right now, without any problem in safety nor efficacy.

So yes, it is very easy and simple to prove there is no need for any rushing to have this vaccines. Not by governments but by the public health professionals around the world, it would be insane to think those who actually work for the health of others are all included in a secret conspiracy to make everybody (including themselves) sick, just nonsense.

Not for long term side effects.

Yes they do, and with much better results than for the natural infection for which more and more long term problems that could even be permanent have been found.

Since no such problems have been found in vaccine volunteers it is safe to say that vaccines have lower risk for short AND long term problems compared with the infection.

0 ( +6 / -6 )

Yikes! I don’t recommend injecting untested vaccines into your body without at the very least finding out what’s in them first.

Would you understand it if you were told? Do you understand what's in the other medicines you take, right down to the molecular structure?

2 ( +7 / -5 )

"Since no such problems have been found in vaccine volunteers it is safe to say that vaccines have lower risk for short AND long term problems compared with the infection."

So, on record, are you ok with drug companies being exempted from liabilities re the vaccine?

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

So, on record, are you ok with drug companies being exempted from liabilities re the vaccine?

Why would I? I just demonstrated that vaccine companies are NOT free from liabilities.

Why do you think every single lot of every single vaccine to be used in humans is tested by experts employed by the government to make sure is safe and effective? its precisely to make the companies liable for anything bad that could happen, fines, jail, rescind approval for their products, etc. etc.

2 ( +7 / -5 )

Well Astra Zeneca is https://www.reuters.com/article/us-astrazeneca-results-vaccine-liability-idUSKCN24V2EN

-2 ( +5 / -7 )

And Pfizer also it seems. This is why I am going to hold back a little before getting a vaccine

https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2020/08/14/579150.htm

-2 ( +5 / -7 )

@virus rex

Well, you found out something not true, companies are constantly in vigilance and the vaccine tested to corroborate they are what waspromised, they are fully liable if the government find out anything is wrong.

People try to manipulate others using that false argument all the time, but investigating a little becomes clear it is false.

No, what @LDMT said was true: "the companies making these are exempted from liabilities arising from possible side effects".

In Japan its been understood for months that the Japan government will cover liability claims for any vaccine they get. Actually, I read it again just yesterday here on JT:

*"In the event that vaccination causes serious side effects, the revised law states the government will cover medical expenses and disability pensions as part of relief measures and shoulder damages on behalf of the vaccine suppliers."*

https://japantoday.com/category/politics/japan-enacts-law-to-make-coronavirus-vaccines-free-to-residents

Perhaps you should be the one doing a bit of investigating before making false arguments....

-1 ( +5 / -6 )

Well bully for Japan. Seems Australia is getting a raw deal though.

And I will be waiting a little to be on the safe side regardless. Just in case.

https://theconversation.com/who-pays-compensation-if-a-covid-19-vaccine-has-rare-side-effects-heres-the-little-we-know-about-australias-new-deal-147846

0 ( +5 / -5 )

While US is busy with vaccine plan, its number of Covid deaths is inching nearer to 3000 daily. That reflects the deaths of 911. Imagine a 911 everyday, how best could US deal with it?

Actually, is the nation coping?

1 ( +6 / -5 )

120,000 Americans are in hospital with Covid-19, the highest numbers since the pandemic outbreak,

5 ( +7 / -2 )

Well Astra Zeneca is 

And Pfizer also it seems

Liability claims by particular are not the only kind of liability a company can have, if the government takes responsibility for that specific type, in order to promote public health and economic recovery, it can do it, that still do not mean the company is completely free of responsibility, it just mean it has to respond directly to the government for any problem.

No, what @LDMT said was true: "the companies making these are exempted from liabilities arising from possible side effects".

No it is not, not having liability would mean not having to answer to anybody in any shape for problems caused, this is a wrong use of the word, in reality it is just one single kind of liability that government will shoulder in order to make things easier for the particular, because the other option is let them lose endless trials without any compensation because they would have to prove that any problem occurring cannot be caused by any other reason but the vaccine, which in many cases is impossible. If the government makes a special system to compensate the hurdle lowers a lot because particulars now only have to prove the vaccine could be the cause, which is infinitely easier to do.

The companies can still be penalized, fined, etc. directly by the government and that can even happen without a single person getting damaged, government facilities testing the vaccine lot before it is use by the public can have proof of problems used for this purpose. That means the companies still have liability.

Search for the NIID and the national vaccine certification (国家検定), that will let you understand more clearly your mistake.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

90days x 24hrs. x 3600 seconds divided by 200,000,000 as two vaccination doses are to be given. Now let your little pocket calculator speak, instead of me. You can also only divide by that 100,000,000 - the fun and the smile in your face will be the same.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Biden will be very well remembered for this vaccine, while Trump will only be remembered as expediting it's need through his absolute failure with dealing with the US virus. Of course, I suspect the "time machine mentality" is going to come into play again for the Republicans: It'll be Biden's virus, but Trump's vaccine (although of course the virus is Obama's fault, originally). Same as it was Obama who started the war in Afghanistan, but George Bush who killed OBL, Clinton's fault for 9/11, Trump who lifted the economy and not Obama's work, Trump who raised unemployment, CHina's fault for it going down, etc.

5 ( +9 / -4 )

Overpromising and underdelivering is not a good way to begin... Hope they can meet such an ambitious schedule. My understanding is that they will need to innoculate about 70% of the population to bring it under control.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

I will not be one of the 100, 000,000.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

@Virusrex

First I am not an anti vaxer nor am I opposed to the development of vaccines for this or other potentially harmful illnesses or diseases. I truly hope this vaccine is successful.

Regarding the Liability Issue: I believe the vaccine manufacturers are in fact exempt from liability. In the United States this was accomplished through the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA) which was passed by the U.S. Congress in 1986. This law actually allows people to file a petition for compensation to the Court of Federal Claims and the U.S. Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary is to be identified as the respondent. The U.S. Government actually takes liability, not the vaccine manufacturer. I will add this link (I believe it was referenced before also).

https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2020/08/14/579150.htm.

Also this one: http://sonorannews.com/2017/07/03/vaccine-manufacturers-exempt-liability/

Regarding the vaccinne: I have been talking to a good friend of mine who is a physician in the U.S. He has advised that myself and my family wait to take the vaccine. His concern is that the vaccine is a messenger RNA vaccine (mRNA). From his understanding the drug manufacturers have taken a different approach than create a weakened virus (which takes several years to develop) and are using the mRNA vaccine. This type of vaccine has never been used on a mass scale. Also the previously fastest mass produced vaccine was the vaccine for the mumps which took more than 4 years to develop.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/pfizer-covid-shot-is-fastest-ever-vaccine-to-be-approved-in-the-west-first-licensed-mrna-jab-in-history/ar-BB1byYZm

Based on the above my physician friend (and many of his colleagues) are choosing to wait. He has his own practice but his acquaintances who are physicians working in hospitals are worried that they will be forced to take the vaccination.

In the end we will all need to make an educated decision on the vaccine for ourselves and our families unless the vaccine becomes mandated by law (which I believe is a real possibility in the U.S.).

Most likely the vaccine will be mandated for internatoinal travel so at some point those of us expatriated in Japan will have to take the vaccine.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

I believe the vaccine manufacturers are in fact exempt from liability.

You are making the same mistake as others, confusing the general term of liability ("the state of being responsible for something, especially by law.") with a very particular term of "Liability claims from particular".

They are not the same thing.

The national childhood vaccine act do not liberate any company from being held responsible for a bad product, or even a bad batch of inferior quality for example, it only frees them from being directly sued by a particular, the government takes this specific responsibility and pays compensation as long as the problem may have been caused by the vaccine without going for the full trial where they would have to prove the problem can only be produced by the vaccine.

The companies still are subjected to be responsible for their product, and if for example the side effects are much more important or numerous than what the company said it where according to the clinical trials (or if the trials were not properly done, etc) It is then punished directly by the government eliminating the license for the vaccine, or with fines, or if something criminal was done by putting the people responsible on trial, etc.

Unfortunately your friend is not well informed about the technology, mRNA has been used for many years before not only for vaccines against infectious diseases but also for gene or cancer therapies in dozens of studies, and even if this was the first time it was used tens of thousands of people being inoculated give a really good idea of what to expect in a larger scale. Every single cell of your body is chocked full of mRNA, is part of what is necessary to make any protein. And in comparison is much safer than a weakened virus, because the mRNA encodes only for one single protein, a weakened virus such as the SARS-CoV-2 have more than 20 other proteins it produces during infection, some of which are made specifically to mess with your immune system.

The covid vaccine is only the fastest being produced if you count from the isolation of the antigen, for mumps the requirements were much different, the technology was much more primitive so the development took much longer time, but for example if you count only from the clinical trials there are other vaccines (for rotavirus for example) that follow a similar schedule with a Phase III that lasted for 6 months.

One logical problem that make a lot of people to be mistaken is to think that the options are to be completely safe or risk problems with the vaccine, in reality the options are to have problems with the vaccine or with the natural infection, and since we already have data pointing out to several long term disabilities and risks after COVID-19 infection (even asymptomatic) that still means that a vaccine approved is less risky than not being vaccinated.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

The vaccine manufacturer is not liable if the vaccine injures, paralyzes, or kills you, or gives you autism. They are only liable if the government can prove that they knowingly lied or omitted important information. That is why vaccine packaging inserts generally list many side effects linked to the vaccine. If it can be proven that the manufacturer has data that shows a link and they do not list it in the insert, they are liable.

If someone is ...... enough to risk taking the vaccine as soon as it is available, I hope they will at least insist on first seeing the packaging insert.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

@Virusrex

Thank you for your reply. Also you have provided some good information. We still disagree on this one.

I understand the difference between the use of the term liability. However it appears to me that at least Astra Zeneca (in the United States) has negotiated indemnification into the contracts which is a different term with a different meaning. Yes the government can pull their product off of the market but that is much different than being exposed to civil liability. By the way I do understand the intent of the law and somewhat agree with it as if manufacturers were fully exposed to liability it would be hard to get anyone to make a vaccine.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-astrazeneca-results-vaccine-liability-idUSKCN24V2EN

Regarding the use of mRNA I believe the technology has potential however a successful mRNA vaccine has never been created before (as shown in the links below). This will be the first. Also the technology is not so tried and true. It is an interesting story how the technology came to be.

https://www.statnews.com/2020/11/10/the-story-of-mrna-how-a-once-dismissed-idea-became-a-leading-technology-in-the-covid-vaccine-race/

https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/mrna-vaccines-what-they-are-and-how-they-work/ar-BB14uSTc

You and I seem to disagree however the discussion is a good opportunity to learn from each other (I have learned some things from your posts).

Regardless we will find out how effective and safe the vaccine is soon enough and again we will all choose when to take the vaccine (as of now).

3 ( +3 / -0 )

The vaccine manufacturer is not liable if the vaccine injures, paralyzes, or kills you, or gives you autism.

No vaccine has autism listed as a possible negative effect, and it does not have to pay anybody for autism any way because vaccines have been completely demonstrated as not related to autism. Anybody trying to claim damages because of autism is immediately rejected even on the vaccine court, because now it is clear that vaccines are not even a possible cause for it.

However it appears to me that at least Astra Zeneca (in the United States) has negotiated indemnification into the contracts which is a different term with a different meaning. 

As long as the company can be punished for not providing a safe and effective vaccine (to the standards strictly required by the government) then it has liability. The article only repeat the usual situation where the normal, expected, predicted side effect claims will be absorbed by the government.

The lack of success of a vaccine (by any technology) depends on many things, price, disease prevalence, necessary immune response for prevention, easy of handling, etc. A new disease simplify reaching success even if only because there are no other options that are better in any of these senses. The doctor you know that wanted to wait is not doing it because he is anxious about the vaccine success but its safety, and specifically because of the safety of the mRNA, for this purpose it is enough to prove that a large amount of volunteers have been inoculated with mRNA without any important side effects.

If you go to clinicaltrials.gov and search for mRNA you can see the number of different trials on humans that have been done.

https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?cond=&term=mRNA

Hundreds of studies are included (not all are about using mRNA as the therapeutic intervention) all of them with various numbers of participants and done over the last several years, so it is not like this technology appeared this year and it is being tried for the first time in humans. It has been tried repeatedly without any specific problem by the mRNA, so it is quite reasonable to think this time it will be the same. Being cautious is fine, after all the final results for the phase III have not yet been published, but thinking mRNA is the dangerous part is not rational (specially if compared with attenuated virus vaccines, that are much more dangerous in comparison).

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites