|
medpundit |
||
 |
 |
|
Friday, December 12, 2003In Akron, parents scurried Thursday to get their children some protection. Typical of a lottery, the first 100 families at the clinic at 66 Merriman Road in West Akron received tickets to get shots. Just to be safe, nursing supervisor Shawna Anderson said she asked a police officer, who was in the area, to stop by the clinic when it was time to inform parents that the final ticket had been delivered. There was no riot, but similar scenarios are playing out across the country. People are deluging doctor's offices and clinics to get flu shots. In fact, most of the hectic pace of the past few days has been due to responding to fears about the flu, not treating actual flu cases (at least in my office.) And many, many, more people than usual are asking that their kids be vaccinated. They're frantic after reading stories about the children who have died. However, most of those kids had other illnesses in addition to the flu: Several hospitalized children, and a few of the 10 who died, have had secondary bacterial infections, primarily streptococcus, said Dr. James Todd, head of pediatrics at Children's Hospital in Denver. And in an additional wrinkle, many have been co-infected with drug-resistant strains of bacteria. Once the provence of hospitals and nursing homes, drug-resistant bacteria have lately been gaining a toe-hold in the community-at-large. Having the flu weakens the immune system, which makes it even more difficult for the body to fight off the bacteria, especially if it can't get help from antibiotics. I can certainly understand the parents' panic. What parent wouldn't want to protect their child against potential death? But, things are not as scary as they seem. According to the CDC's latest available statistics (which are from two weeks ago): The proportion of deaths attributed to pneumonia and influenza was 6.5%, which is below the epidemic threshold for the week. I read that to mean that the death rate is about the same or lower than usual. Which is a good thing. And, since there isn't enough vaccine to immunize every man, woman, and child in the country, those at highest risk should still get priority. Which is why my children haven't received the flu shot. But, all of this panic about flu vaccines for a disease that has in fact killed very few people raises some very serious questions about the feasibility of the current CDC plans for a smallpox bioterrorist attack. (The current plan is to vaccinate the public only after an attack.) If public health clinics and doctor's offices are being over-run now with people wanting vaccines for an illness whose mortality rate is only 6%, imagine what it would be like for a disease whose mortality rate is 30%. And it looks like local health departments are even less prepared for that sort of eventuality. For shame. UPDATE: I messed up the mortality rate figures, as a couple of readers pointed out: I'm confused by your latest posting- you mention a mortality rate for the flu of 6%- surely you know it isn't that high or we really would have a reason for panic. The CDC puts the proportion of all fatalities for the week attributable to flu at 7% (up from 6.5%)- that's a very different number than a mortality rate. And: The proportion of deaths attributed to pneumonia and influenza was 6.5%, which is below the epidemic threshold for the week." I believe this refers to the % of all deaths related to pneumonia and influenza where as the 30% related to small pox is the % that die of those who have small pox--I would guess that the actuality mortality rate from influenza is much much less that 6.5% And so it is. Although the mortality rate from influenza varies from year to year, the latest statistics I could find were from 2001 when the mortality rate was 0.1%. posted by Sydney on 12/12/2003 07:17:00 AM 0 comments 0 Comments: |
|
