As we come even closer to gaining access to the covid-19 vaccine, there are still some controversies and backlash regarding scientific support and deadline achievements. During the Trump administration, we were able to accompany the president’s goals towards executing and distributing the vaccine. Trump’s ambitious circulation and distribution plans now seem to be causing scientists to question the true composition and effectiveness of the vaccine, and whether or not it was prudent to impose and demand such ‘rushed’ deadlines.
The promise of a cure has been around since mid-July 2020, and this promise was also accompanied by what seemed like an impossible and very ambitious deadline: 12/25/20; however, as we approach the deadline and as people grow restless and demanding, scientists over at the Pfizer drug company, seem to be insecure with the vaccine that is scheduled to be available on Monday (12/14/20). This insecurity is mainly due to the fact that this vaccine was rushed into being manufactured since it was ‘meant’ to be accessible in such a short time frame, considering the allotted period between when the pandemic was declared to the time when the promise for a cure was announced.
The presence of unrest and uncertainty does not leave a positive note on hospital’s administrative sectors, Pfizer’s annual gross income, and most importantly, on the mental and emotional state of being of the American people, especially those who compose the high-risk portion.
I believe it is important to be made aware of these turbulent pieces of information as it relates to the vaccine, since it does not only reflect what our future may look like, but it also relates to whether or not we can fully trust what drug companies claim to be distributing; in this case, if the vaccine is truly a cure, or if it is some kind of rushed drug cocktail that serves as a quick fix measure to meet a government-imposed deadline.
Additionally, it is also important to mention the fact that the most crucial aspect of this analysis behind the ‘promise of a cure’, is not so much the economic or political consequences; but the medical consequences that will be imposed onto society should the vaccine be distributed without any regulations or safety boundaries, just so it can meet the scheduled delivery.
Finally, I would like to acknowledge that the point of view presented throughout the portrayal of facts, might be considered pessimistic, however, I see it as being cautious since when it comes to the future of public health, even when talking about the possibility of a cure, it is best to be safe rather than sorry.