This will be a short post this week, not really that much new information going on in the world of pediatric infectious diseases. That's not to say pediatric healthcare providers aren't super busy, but the new information being published/promulgated isn't earth shattering. This again reminded me how important it is to avoid listening too closely to those who may tend towards sensationalizing health news without focusing on what's important. How do healthcare providers and the lay public sort through all the information?
A case in point is the recent wave of respiratory viral infections taxing pediatric healthcare settings. I've seen too many news reports touching on RSV but failing to give parents and families enough information on warning signs for more severe disease. I suspect this contributes to a lot of unnecessary visits to urgent care and emergency rooms for children with mild respiratory disease. Fortunately there are a few online resources that demonstrate the specific breathing signs that could warrant escalating to medical intervention.
We also need to be cognizant of the type of information being presented. For example, a Pfizer press release about antibody formation following the new bivalent covid vaccine. First, these are data announced by a for-profit company and not subject to any peer review. It is essentially an advertisement. Also, remember that these are just numbers, what we really want to know is how it protects against severe disease, and we don't have that data yet. Also, we'd like to know how it protects against new covid variants, not older ones. I'm not saying to ignore the information, it is important in understanding the immune response of bivalent vaccines. Just consider the source and the practical relevance of the data.
My last example, and then I'll try to silence my curmudgeonly comments for the week, is a recent report suggesting that individuals with more side effects following covid vaccination may be more likely to have higher antibody responses. Overall the studies on this particular subject have shown mixed results, and furthermore virtually everyone develops good immune responses regardless of whether they experience side effects or not. Again, monitoring this type of information is very important, it could lead to better understanding of how to improve vaccines, but it's not anything that would help anyone decide their own level of protection.
Shakespeare's play to which I referred in my title contains warning of sorts about the dangers of mis/disinformation. How did he know we'd be dealing with covid 400 years later?