Comments on: Insights from the Paul Offit Interview, Part III: The Resurgence of Diseases http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2010/02/17/insights-from-the-paul-offit-interview-part-iii-the-resurgence-of-diseases/ Where science collides with life, slams into culture, crashes with politics, and gets totaled. Tue, 27 Sep 2011 17:28:30 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: P Sandelson http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2010/02/17/insights-from-the-paul-offit-interview-part-iii-the-resurgence-of-diseases/#comment-54805 P Sandelson Mon, 29 Mar 2010 13:15:07 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/?p=6780#comment-54805 If only 1 in 200 or 500 (some discrepancy!) people who carry the polio virus get paralysis - does anyone know how that happens; or even if that virus is to blame since it must have been carried by a great many people. A disease causing agent that only affects 0.2% of the population must have some addtional factor which is obviously of greater significance. Populations in the Indian sub-continent have been multiply over-vaccinated against polio but it persists. Some other cause is indicated. Strangely enough though - cases of polio go down in other places as cases of acute flaccid paralysis go up. Plus ca change... If only 1 in 200 or 500 (some discrepancy!) people who carry the polio virus get paralysis – does anyone know how that happens; or even if that virus is to blame since it must have been carried by a great many people.
A disease causing agent that only affects 0.2% of the population must have some addtional factor which is obviously of greater significance. Populations in the Indian sub-continent have been multiply over-vaccinated against polio but it persists. Some other cause is indicated.
Strangely enough though – cases of polio go down in other places as cases of acute flaccid paralysis go up. Plus ca change…

]]> By: Michael D. http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2010/02/17/insights-from-the-paul-offit-interview-part-iii-the-resurgence-of-diseases/#comment-49668 Michael D. Wed, 17 Feb 2010 16:15:46 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/?p=6780#comment-49668 I'm a bit confused here: Dr Offit said (from the above partial transcript): "And I think our country frankly asks a lot of its citizens when it asks children to receive vaccines against 14 different diseases in the first few years of life, which can mean 26 inoculations in the first few years, and as many as five shots at one time. I think that’s a lot to ask of parents, and for the most part, our immunization rates are excellent." This seems like excellent fodder for anti-vaccination quote-miners. I have not had a chance to listen to the interview, but does Dr. Offit clarify this point? Many anti-vaxxers make a similar-sounding argument, and I personally know at least one person who "slow-vaxxes" her kids for just this reason (i.e., a perception that an aggressive vaccination schedule or the receipt of multiple vaccines during a single office visit somehow "overwhelms" a young child's immune system). Perhaps Dr. Offit's point is that it "is a lot to ask" but keep up the good work!? I’m a bit confused here: Dr Offit said (from the above partial transcript):

“And I think our country frankly asks a lot of its citizens when it asks children to receive vaccines against 14 different diseases in the first few years of life, which can mean 26 inoculations in the first few years, and as many as five shots at one time. I think that’s a lot to ask of parents, and for the most part, our immunization rates are excellent.”

This seems like excellent fodder for anti-vaccination quote-miners. I have not had a chance to listen to the interview, but does Dr. Offit clarify this point? Many anti-vaxxers make a similar-sounding argument, and I personally know at least one person who “slow-vaxxes” her kids for just this reason (i.e., a perception that an aggressive vaccination schedule or the receipt of multiple vaccines during a single office visit somehow “overwhelms” a young child’s immune system). Perhaps Dr. Offit’s point is that it “is a lot to ask” but keep up the good work!?

]]> By: Sean McCorkle http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2010/02/17/insights-from-the-paul-offit-interview-part-iii-the-resurgence-of-diseases/#comment-49661 Sean McCorkle Wed, 17 Feb 2010 14:26:34 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/?p=6780#comment-49661 Its seems that, sadly, the one thing that usually motivates the public and governments into action is fear. All the usual political squabbling is quickly put aside for things like war efforts (in which there's a clear enemy to be afraid of). I've argued that the build-up of Big Science (i.e. space program, high energy physics) in the U.S. during the cold war was also achieved through fear-based arguments (i.e. telling congress: if you don't fund this, the Soviets will get there first). I say sadly, because science should be funded for its potential public benefits - its one of the things that civilized societies do. But that being said, what you've just pointed out above from the interview above really IS frightening. I've lived my entire life being completely unafraid of epidemics that I only read about in history books (smallpox, polio, TB) and now for the first time, its possible some of them might return. A public service campaign strategy should be able to use this effectively given that the target audiences are communities of educated populations. For sure, the fear IS legitimate in this case. Commercials showing old scenes of hospitals overflowing with ill patients in the pre-vaccine days with voice-overs saying "this could be returning if you don't vaccinate" would be completely justified. I guarantee it would work. Its seems that, sadly, the one thing that usually motivates the public and governments into action is fear. All the usual political squabbling is quickly put aside for things like war efforts (in which there’s a clear enemy to be afraid of). I’ve argued that the build-up of Big Science (i.e. space program, high energy physics) in the U.S. during the cold war was also achieved through fear-based arguments (i.e. telling congress: if you don’t fund this, the Soviets will get there first). I say sadly, because science should be funded for its potential public benefits – its one of the things that civilized societies do.

But that being said, what you’ve just pointed out above from the interview above really IS frightening. I’ve lived my entire life being completely unafraid of epidemics that I only read about in history books (smallpox, polio, TB) and now for the first time, its possible some of them might return.

A public service campaign strategy should be able to use this effectively given that the target audiences are communities of educated populations. For sure, the fear IS legitimate in this case. Commercials showing old scenes of hospitals overflowing with ill patients in the pre-vaccine days with voice-overs saying “this could be returning if you don’t vaccinate” would be completely justified. I guarantee it would work.

]]>