In fact, the new H1N1 virus is similar to seasonal flu in its severity. In the United States, influenza regularly ranks among the ten leading causes of death, infecting up to twenty per cent of the population. It kills roughly thirty-five thousand Americans every year and sends hundreds of thousands to the hospital. Even relatively mild pandemics, like those of 1957 and 1968, have been health-care disasters: the first killed two million people and the second a million... Meanwhile, the virus has now appeared in a hundred and ninety-one countries. It has killed almost four thousand people and infected millions of others. The risks are clear and so are the facts. But, while scientists and public-health officials have dealt effectively with the disease, they increasingly confront a different kind of contagion: the spurious alarms spread by those who would make us fear vaccines more than the illnesses they prevent.
In fact, the new H1N1 virus is similar to seasonal flu in its severity. In the United States, influenza regularly ranks among the ten leading causes of death, infecting up to twenty per cent of the population. It kills roughly thirty-five thousand Americans every year and sends hundreds of thousands to the hospital. Even relatively mild pandemics, like those of 1957 and 1968, have been health-care disasters: the first killed two million people and the second a million...
Meanwhile, the virus has now appeared in a hundred and ninety-one countries. It has killed almost four thousand people and infected millions of others. The risks are clear and so are the facts. But, while scientists and public-health officials have dealt effectively with the disease, they increasingly confront a different kind of contagion: the spurious alarms spread by those who would make us fear vaccines more than the illnesses they prevent.
We asked some doctors and public health experts, will such an ambitious immunization program work? What worries you most?David Ozonoff, epidemiologist, Boston UniversityGregory Dworkin, pediatric pulmonologistRobert Blendon, Harvard School of Public HealthKevin Pho, primary care doctor
We asked some doctors and public health experts, will such an ambitious immunization program work? What worries you most?
One thing is certain, according to Blendon: "The longer the gap between [enacting] a law and people getting instant benefits, the more you can raise uncertainties about it."
More discussion of the time line and need to show something for the effort here.
For good measure, let's not overlook where those four doctors who stood alongside the president happen to practice medicine. Let's see, there was... - Dr. Hershey Garner (from Sen. Blanche Lincoln's home state of Arkansas) - Dr. Mona Mangat (from Sen. Bill Nelson's home state of Florida) - Dr. Richard A. Evans (from Sen. Olympia Snowe's home state of Maine) - Dr. Amanda McKinney (from Sen. Ben Nelson's home state of Nebraska). I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that these four were not just chosen at random. Call it a hunch.
For good measure, let's not overlook where those four doctors who stood alongside the president happen to practice medicine. Let's see, there was...
I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that these four were not just chosen at random. Call it a hunch.
Any health-care overhaul that Congress and President Obama enact is likely to have as its centerpiece a fundamental reform: Insurers would not be allowed to reject individuals or charge them higher premiums based on their medical history. But simply banning medical discrimination would not necessarily remove it from the equation, economists and health-care analysts say... Cognizant of the threat, lawmakers are trying to neutralize it.
Any health-care overhaul that Congress and President Obama enact is likely to have as its centerpiece a fundamental reform: Insurers would not be allowed to reject individuals or charge them higher premiums based on their medical history.
But simply banning medical discrimination would not necessarily remove it from the equation, economists and health-care analysts say...
Cognizant of the threat, lawmakers are trying to neutralize it.
No wonder K Street gets upset if they can't write the rules.
One in every 91 U.S. children has an autism spectrum disorder (ASD), which is higher than previous estimates, a national survey of parents showed. It's unclear, however, whether the finding reflects an actual increase in the prevalence of autism and related disorders, Michael Kogan, PhD, of the Health Resources and Services Administration, and colleagues wrote in the Oct. 5 issue of Pediatrics.
One in every 91 U.S. children has an autism spectrum disorder (ASD), which is higher than previous estimates, a national survey of parents showed.
It's unclear, however, whether the finding reflects an actual increase in the prevalence of autism and related disorders, Michael Kogan, PhD, of the Health Resources and Services Administration, and colleagues wrote in the Oct. 5 issue of Pediatrics.
More agenda-less research is good.
Now some researchers who have seen more of the data in confidential briefings are complaining that a fuller analysis undermines even cautious claims of success, and they are raising questions about the way the results were announced.
More commentary from Effect Measure.
If you are going to talk about it in the press, put the data out there for everyone to see. That's what happens when papers, even in preliminary form, are presented at conferences. If there is a finding of major importance to public health then you put it out there without peer review so everyone can see it as quickly as possible and form their own opinions.