What does this mean? - Page 2

[mamakay]

Originally Posted by carriebft

"unknown serotype"

So you're talking about the 45 cases here?
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5811md.htm

A vast majority of those are going to be NTHi, according to the ABCs distribution reported. And that's been increasing steadily since at least 1997 (probably before). And 45 cases isn't that much more than where we would have been at in previous years. Plus, the flu season hit late this year, and most cases of invasive bacterial disease follow a viral illness like flu. So it will probably slow down from here on out.

[mamakay]

Originally Posted by carriebft

in the report this week they said that hib numbers don't seem to be rising but also said this:



http://www.pediatricsupersite.com/view.aspx?rid=38450

You'd think the b/non B distribution would be about the same for the samples that haven't been serotyped yet, wouldn't you?

[carriebft]

I have no idea. I just don't get how both the idea that "they are just paying more attention" AND "we still have a ton of untyped cases" can both be true. If this was all hypersensitivity to Hi cases, I would think more of them would be typed; and it seems like the people studying this are somewhat alarmed by the number that are going untyped.

It just all adds on to my anger about this whole situation...like another poster said a few posts back, the anger isn't at unvaccinated kids (when it comes to me) it's just pretty spread out to other areas, though. My kids are vaccinated and have no immune compromising problems, but DD2 will not be able to get the boosters if things stay as they are now.

I made a thread a while back wondering why they (doctors I have talked to, even my own) could say that the 4th/5th dose is OK to skip right now but not tell us the risks of the loss of the those boosters. Now this area is seeing an a lot of invasive hib cases when it has been a while since any, yet we are also, according to that article, still not typing cases to really get an idea of what is going on.

So, yeah, there's more I could write but I think you get the point of my frustrations

[mamakay]

I have no idea. I just don't get how both the idea that "they are just paying more attention" AND "we still have a ton of untyped cases" can both be true

But we don't necessarily have more untyped cases this year than in previous years. And most of those untyped cases are going to be NTHi, anyway.

If this was all hypersensitivity to Hi cases, I would think more of them would be typed;

It's not a matter of sensitivity; it a matter of "risk communicating" via press releases and "earner media".

and it seems like the people studying this are somewhat alarmed by the number that are going untyped.

What makes you think that? Are there more cases going untyped than in previous years?

[carriebft]

Are there more cases going untyped than in previous years?

I'd have to look back over the old reports-- but, even if we have the SAME amount, I would think that was weird since there is suppose to be heightened awareness which would mean more efforts to type-- like, the PA health department release on the first 5 cases here said specifically that they require serotyping of all suspected cases.


But I did look back through the old MMRW and they all showed zero cases of type B Hi in PA all the way back to 2003 (the charts didn't show years before that)

I also wonder if, because the plant that was shut down was here in SEPA (right near where I live actually), are we more affected by the shortage? are we having a harder time even getting the primary doses? I know of a few people who couldn't even get dose 1 on time here.

[mamakay]

I'd have to look back over the old reports-- but, even if we have the SAME amount, I would think that was weird since there is suppose to be heightened awareness which would mean more efforts to type-- like, the PA health department release on the first 5 cases here said specifically that they require serotyping of all suspected cases.

Well, the ABCs guy said most districts do report well, so maybe all PA cases are being serotyped.

[mamakay]

Seriously...read the second half of this meeting and tell me if the recent Hib cases aren't being marketed...

(no copyright)

http://www.izta.org/transcripts/Vacc...Transcript.pdf

Earner media, however, is free exposure. It gives more credibility. It’s something that’s written in the newspaper, so people believe it more.

So who are your audiences? Certainly the media is a key audience and parents concerned and/or or need for childhood vaccines is your primary audience.

Some of the media tactics that you probably already have used include holding events and press conferences, putting out an audio news release, sending B-roll,

Moving into how to reach the media, which is slide 23, it’s important to first identify your local media. Know who they are and what they want, even what their vices are. Determine a spokesperson.

So what is news? News is something that’s currently on television, on radio, and in the
newspapers. It’s what people are talking abut on the radar screen. If it’s local, it’s to your advantage, because you can approach your local media with that local angle. Is it timely? Is it something that’s emotional or intriguing? And how do you make immunization newsworthy? Some of the ways — certainly San Diego made this newsworthy, [because] there was a disease outbreak in San Diego of measles.

On the next slide we’re going to be talking about how to deliver your messages to the media. First of all, you want to choose the very best avenues, so consider, you know, do you want it to be a feature, or do you want it to come out as a news release.

The media interview — remember that every question is an opportunity to deliver your
messages, and always circle back to your messages. If you start to get off track, remember what the first message is that you want to communicate, and go back to that.

The CDC has a whole department devoted to courting the media, and they hold conferences studying how well they're doing with influencing parental thinking with their media messaging.

[mamakay]

I guess what I'm saying is, Carrie (and I hope I haven't run you off) that there's not a "greater awareness" among people in public health. Rather, the CDC's vax marketing department has just decided to "go media" with Hib to parents, and they might or might not be seeing a real phenomenon with an increase in Hib.
But I see no reason to assume that the 2007 and 2006 Hib cases weren't concentrated local "outbreaks". This is just the first time the CDC decided to make those cases a media issue, with press releases and USA Today stories.

I think the day will come when these stories are issued about pneumococcus, too. And the media won't report on staph in the same article, just like they're not reporting on NTHi now. Because the CDC is very adept with communicating with the media, whereas "we" are not involved with any of that at all.

[carriebft]

no i am definitely listening! I had just gone to bed last night I am not surprised by the PR campaign.

I think the thing that is angering me the most after reading all this is that we just aren't getting the information we should be getting on the loss of the boosters and what can mean and, also, if they are going to bombard us with information on these hib cases and create worry, why not ALSO give us some useful information on when the manufacturers are going to start getting their butt in gear....or at least explain to us why it takes soooo long to get supply back up.

I hope that the coming months make it clear that this above average amount of cases for this area is an isolated coincidence!

[MissRubyandKen]

I hear you on that Carrie. Its what frustrates me about the whole vaccination issue. Lack of real, solid information and numbers. If we are supposed to be able to trust and use their numbers to make an informed decision why isn't there a clearly visible effort for accuracy and investigation of consequences? Imo if a vaccination is added to the recommended schedule there should be legislation for oversight on a federal level for the disease, bacteria, or virus, that is is intended for, before and after introduction. Why should we vaccinate based on numbers that do not represent facts? I want real numbers! I do understand what a massive undertaking this would be, but each state has its own diseases that are supposed to be reported already. I do not think health care professionals take this seriously at all and wish the effort could be more concerted. I looked at my state's #'s and am having a very hard time believing they are accurate or representative of the the true amount of cases for some of the diseases.

From my perspective it does seem that the risk benefit ratio for $$$ is taken much more seriously then the risk/benefit ratio for health.

[mamakay]

I think the thing that is angering me the most after reading all this is that we just aren't getting the information we should be getting on the loss of the boosters and what can mean

They don't know what's up with that yet. They're doing colonization studies right now to try to figure it out, though.

also, if they are going to bombard us with information on these hib cases and create worry, why not ALSO give us some useful information on when the manufacturers are going to start getting their butt in gear....or at least explain to us why it takes soooo long to get supply back up.

Because this is coming from their marketing department. The people putting the media packages together designed Clorox commercials and stuff before getting hired by the CDC. They are trying to motivate people to want vaccines, not inform people of the situation. Their objective is to "increase demand for vaccines" and that is it. Nothing more, nothing less. They wouldn't even be mentioning the vaccine shortage at all if it wouldn't make them look incompetent and threaten their credibility.

[amnesiac]

Originally Posted by mamakay

Because this is coming from their marketing department. The people putting the media packages together designed Clorox commercials and stuff before getting hired by the CDC. They are trying to motivate people to want vaccines, not inform people of the situation. Their objective is to "increase demand for vaccines" and that is it. Nothing more, nothing less. They wouldn't even be mentioning the vaccine shortage at all if it wouldn't make them look incompetent and threaten their credibility.

The very last thing I saw at the NIC this week was about marketing vaccines to gen-x moms.

[Deborah]

What is the NIC?

Darned acronym soup...

[mamakay]

National Immunization Conference?

[amnesiac]

[Deborah]

Thank you!

That really isn't an abbreviation that everyone will recognize.

[japonica]

Originally Posted by amnesiac

The very last thing I saw at the NIC this week was about marketing vaccines to gen-x moms.

What did they say? Do you have a link? I'm just interested. They always generalize that Gen Xers tend to question authority and go against the grain, so just wondering what their marketing strategy is...