[ad_1]
Two weeks ago, The CDC revealed that more people had been killed by the flu last year compared to more than 79,000 people in 40 years – and that the number of hospitalizations and illnesses was at record highs.
The CDC has identified one of the possible reasons for the high mortality rate: the number of people who had received an influenza vaccine was exceptionally low. Only 37% of adults received the vaccine, the lowest rate in eight years, and only 58% of children, a decrease of 1% from the previous year. Taking the flu vaccine is never huge; except for the elderly, adult vaccination rates rarely exceed 50%. But the sharp declines of last season may have been enough to increase the death rate.
Maryn McKenna (@marynmck is a contributor Ideas for WIRED, a senior member of the Schuster Institute for Investigative Journalism at Brandeis University and author of Big chicken.
It's a persistent mystery why influenza vaccines do not find more market, since the flu – that is the real flu and not one of the most common colds in the garden category – is an exhausting disease. But it is possible that the will of people to be vaccinated was stifled by reports that the vaccine for the 2017-2018 season was not effective, preventing the disease only 10% of the time during the summer season. influenza in the southern hemisphere and only 36% of the time in summer. United States.
At first glance, this answer makes sense: if a vaccine does not protect you from the disease, why take it? But the effectiveness of the influenza vaccine is more complex than the binary Sick or Not Sick. People who get vaccinated can still be infected with the flu. However, because they have been vaccinated, they are less likely to experience harsh symptoms, to be admitted to hospital or to die.
This nuance is especially lacking in the annual campaigns that encourage people to get vaccinated against the flu. It is difficult for health professionals to talk about the possibility that a vaccine does not always prevent disease. Even recognizing that the flu vaccine is flawed, this sounds like a violation of professional standards. This is an unexpected sign to the public that it is acceptable to have doubts about the vaccines as a whole. What they do: a RAND study conducted in 2010 after one of the worst influenza seasons among people who did not receive the flu shot, found that 28% of them thought they did not need it, 16% were not motivated search for it, and 14% answered "do not believe it".
A person who has dedicated his career to public health does not want to reinforce attitudes like these. But shifting the focus may be what is needed to change the mindset of the audience. The flu shot needs a new story to tell.
Most The vaccines we receive in our lives – measles, mumps, rubella, diphtheria – are given once or several times in childhood and protect for life. (The pertussis vaccine requires periodic recalls, as a reformulation in the 1990s that has reduced side effects has also shortened the duration of immunity that it confers.)
Influenza vaccines are fundamentally different. The organisms responsible for childhood diseases do not change in the course of their lives – the measles virus that circulates around the world is the same as it was 50 years ago – so it is possible to give a vaccine once. But the flu is changing all the time, mutating just enough from season to season to require a new vaccine formula and a new vaccine every year.
The annual rehearsal means that people are considering influenza vaccines differently: less as a medical and legal necessity, and more like a seasonal product, the health care equivalent of a Pumpkin Spice Latte, they can take or leave.
Optimistically, the influenza vaccine is a failure compared to other vaccines. "Hopefully if you get a vaccine, you do not catch the disease – it shows how well the other vaccines work," says Joseph Kurland, Infection Prevention Specialist at Hospitals and Clinics. for children from Minnesota, who is working to improve the acceptance of the vaccine. .
But flu vaccine gaps are the result of a complex set of factors: influenza vaccine formulation is a set of probabilities, based on informed assumptions six to 12 months before the season on the direction in which the virus will drift. The production of influenza vaccines is based on the productivity of millions of laying hens and the uncertainty of virus growth in all seasons.
Whenever one of these diseases worsens (the virus does not grow and vaccine stocks are insufficient, or forecasts fade and protection is insufficient), the vaccine is a blow to reputation. Selling the public on an imperfect product, which reduces risk but does not eliminate it, is a difficult task.
People think of influenza vaccines differently: less like a doctor and
legal necessity, and more like a seasonal product, health care
equivalent of a pumpkin latte with spices.
One solution might be to get the public message of perceived failures from filming to its documented successes. Several studies show that people who get the flu shot are less likely to become seriously ill. with the influenza vaccine on board, the risk of being hospitalized decreases by 37%. People vaccinated but hospitalized for influenza are 82% less likely to be admitted to intensive care. If they have been vaccinated and are still sick enough to need an ICU, their stay may be several days shorter. The effects are particularly important for pregnant women, who are 40% less likely to be hospitalized for flu-like symptoms, and for children, who are two-thirds less likely to die of influenza after being vaccinated.
These statistics are powerful, but they constitute a more complicated message than a mere guarantee of protection. And they illustrate a difficulty inherent in almost any crisis communication: it is easier to scare people with a tale of a terrifying illness than to seduce them with a calm representation of anything. More nuanced storytelling may be a public health goal.
"We try to avoid percentages and efficiency, and really try to tap into the emotional feeling of what people want for themselves, their family members or loved ones," says Nicole Alexander -Scott, doctor and director of Rhode. Island Health Department and Chair of the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials. "We report this to personal stories about patients, so it's real and not abstract."
The anti-vaccination movement has long since seized the power of
narrative, publish emotionally charged stories about children who
regressed after receiving the vaccines.
Hear a public health official consider that the power of storytelling is a big step forward. As a domain, he is wary of anecdotes, suspicious of his power of persuasion without data. As a journalist, it is not unusual to hear senior public health scientists reject the patient experience narrative as an "n on 1", which means a numerator of 1 out of a denominator of a presumed high number of jargon, as an anecdote that is not statistically representative. But journalism has long made these dramatic anecdotes have the power to attract people's attention – last week's reports showed that the flu can cause amputations, sepsis and organ failures. . The anti-vaccination movement has long since seized this power by publishing emotionally charged accounts of children who have regressed on development after receiving vaccines.
It would be quite symmetrical to see the public health claim claim this power. Deploying a narrative against the underestimated danger of influenza may not seem trustworthy to scientists, less accurate than numbers and percentages that confer credibility. But after the last influenza season, it seems clear that statistics are not a motivator for most people. It's possible that stories are.
Biggest cable stories
[ad_2]
Source link
