Why would anyone take a vaccine that is not safe & effective? Does he mean that the vaccine candidates being developed might not be safe & effective, but they will be distributed anyway? Does he mean that even if they don't work production infrastructure will be up and running?
If the former, then it is a potential public health disaster. If it is the latter, there is still a problem as there are several very different strategies being pursued that are likely to use somewhat different production facilities. There is the mRNA vaccine approach (Moderna), there is the DNA vaccine approach (Inovio), there is the recombinant adenovirus vaccine approach (Oxford University/Jenner Institiute), and I would assume that there are purified protein subunit approaches using purified recombinant Spike (S) protein. Each approach has certain advantages and disadvantages, but mass production of each will use somewhat different setups.
One other thing that Azar did not address - production of vaccine vials and rubber stoppers. It is my understanding that these little things can really affect distribution. The glass vials are made from a very particular grade of sand and the stoppers are made of a particular silicone rubber. Both are in short supply. Has this been addressed?
This kind of presentation is exactly why one should actually have vaccine experts familiar with all aspects of vaccine research and development present this information. Instead we get Trump sycophants and toadies or worse Trump himself trying to pass this "information" to the American people. These guys just step on their own dicks when they try to tell us what is happening.
= new reply since forum marked as read
