The role of vaccine manufacturers in pandemic threats is limited to what its designation directly implies, that is to manufacture vaccines upon demand regardless of whether such demand is real or is itself manufactured. Being profit-oriented private entities, its main concern is not so much as to promote public welfare although it may effect so incidentally and necessarily. While the main issue in this case is the propriety of a national immunization program given the surrounding circumstances, vaccine manufacturers cannot be expected to involve itself as much as the other participants.
After all, regardless of the outcome of the case, the risk that has been taken by manufacturers is relatively little, if not none at all; the government will purchase their products even before actual production. At most, what can be expected of manufacturers is limited to ensuring the safety, effectiveness and availability of what is demanded of them especially during crucial times. That said, the role of manufacturers can be viewed as being outsiders in pandemic cases, without direct interest in the outcome of others’ decisions.
It is this quality of relative indifference while also being one of the participants that makes manufacturers a perfect observer, being able to look at the case at just the right distance so that facts are accessed almost first-hand, and allowing the case to be viewed in an objective, disinterested manner. In this case, the only challenge for manufacturers is merely to produce enough vaccine to allow distribution before the next flu season.
They need not concern themselves on the purposes, ratios and the existence of evidences and threats. Their only goal is to comply with the orders. What is curious about this case is that such nonchalance, understandable on the part of manufacturers, also characterizes the other participants who are supposed to be most interested in the outcome of the case, although in a different and less palpable way. Looking at how the case was handled, it can be easily inferred that the motivation is far from public good.
The case started when some athletes in Mid-Athlantic University contracted influenza. Out of the 23 strains submitted for identification, 3 remained unidentified and four, uncertain. Months prior to the school outbreak was the discovery of avian flu virus in Asia and the confirmation of possible human to human transmission. Subsequently, one of the athletes died. This caused a series of speculations, initiated by a single column that referred to a pandemic that happened in the United States in 1918, involving avian influenza.
Public officials starting from the bottom to the White House officials, one-by-one became involved to determine the proper course to take in order to prevent the perceived danger of a pandemic. Needless to say, the public, the media, health care industry and some organizations got involved until the issue boiled down on whether it is proper to have a nationwide immunization program or to consider stockpiling as an option until more evidence is gathered to justify a national immunization program.