No it’s not pointless. You said originally that this vaccine was covered under The 1988 Act. It is not.
It is covered under 2005 PERP ACT. There is a huge difference.
it was fast tracked w/o due diligence. So unless given protection status under PERP the pharmaceuticals would had been liable. And that’s because the drug isn’t vetted properly.
It may be a huge difference to you, but the results are the same and all vaccines are covered under the 1988 Act if they are fully approved. Which any of these would be if fully approved. I did use the 1988 Act comment prematurely without considering the EUA status and the PREP Act. I will admit that, but the fact remains the same that no new unique legislation was passed for the Covid vaccines as was being implied. It wasn't explicitly stated, but it was implied. All I was doing is pointing this out.
You also implied that the PREP act had not been used for a vaccine in the past under the EUA. It is true that it hasn't been used nationwide for the obvious reason because we haven't had a nationwide pandemic since the passage in 2005. I pointed out that it wasn't the only application of the PREP act for a vaccine (Ebola).
So your point that you are trying to make is that I applied the 1988 Act prematurely due to the EUA status of the Covid vaccines? Does that make you feel better that I acknowledge it was premature and that they are currently covered under the PREP act?
