We've been told this was coming for months. Playing at semantics only proves your ignorance.
It's not semantics. The virus didn't show up until this spring. How do you make a vaccine without the virus? You can't just guess at what the viral envelope is going to resemble, and then produce a vaccine and just hope that it contains some of those proteins.
I mean the vaccine just rolled out in Canada this past week. They had the vaccine, but needed to perform at least some tests with it.
So my question is not semantical at all. How do you get a proven vaccine for a new pandemic?
The US food and drug investigated and tested the "swine flu" vaccine months ago, and declared it "safe" (barring the very few cases which are going to prove the rule). The US F&D is a very conservative element, and does not take its job lightly.
The virus appeared in April. You cannot have a "proven" vaccine for a brand new virus, that hasn't even been used over one entire cycle of infection.
I can't get the vaccine (over 65), until it's released to us old fogies later in Nov., at which time, I shall. Any media hysteria concerning "side effects" should be documented and wafting away by that time.
I'm getting mine November as well.
For the record Nug, I'm not saying people shouldn't get the vaccine, I was merely pointing out that not getting a vaccine for a pandemic flu, just because the vaccine is unproven is asinine. It's not really proven until it's used wide scale. The whole point of vaccinations on mass scales like this are to reduce the pool of susceptible individuals, and thereby decrease the spread of infection.
We won't know how successful that is, which is not necessarily the vaccine efficacy, but more likely the efficacy of the vaccination program, until after the outbreak has passed.