Fw: Survey suggests dangers of smallpox misunderstood

[Guest guest]

----- Original Message -----

From: " Kathi " <pureheart@...>

Sent: Friday, December 20, 2002 6:07 PM

Subject: Survey suggests dangers of smallpox misunderstood

> from Ilena........

>

>

>

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2002-12-19-smallpox-misconceptions_x.htm

>

> Survey suggests dangers of smallpox misunderstood

> By Anita Manning, USA TODAY

>

> BOSTON - Major reports released Thursday find that there is much

> misunderstanding among Americans about smallpox and the vaccine.

> Studies suggest that although it makes sense to vaccinate health and

> emergency workers to prepare for a possible smallpox attack, the

> vaccine is too risky to warrant mass immunization of the public.

>

> The studies are among six articles to be published Jan. 30 in The New

> England Journal of Medicine but released early because of their

> importance to the debate over smallpox vaccination.

>

> A national survey of 1,006 people by the Harvard School of Public

> Health found that despite public education efforts, many people are

> misinformed about smallpox:

>

> Though the last natural case of smallpox in the world occurred in

> 1977, 30% thought that in the past five years there had been a case in

> the USA; 63% thought there had been a case somewhere in the world.

>

> There is no treatment specifically for smallpox, but 78% said they

> thought there was a way to prevent death or serious illness.

>

> The vaccine's protection is thought to wane after 20 years, but nearly

> half who had been vaccinated decades ago thought they were still

> protected.

>

> Last week, President Bush announced a plan to inoculate 510,000 troops

> and offer the vaccine to a half million health workers and ultimately

> 10 million emergency workers. Vaccinations of the first health workers

> are set to begin in late January.

>

> The vaccine might be offered to the general public by 2004 or sooner,

> but a mathematical model created by researchers at the RAND Center for

> Domestic and International Health Security in Santa , Calif.,

> suggests that unless the risk of attack is significant, widespread

> vaccination would exact too great a toll.

>

> Bozzette and colleagues at the Department of Veterans Affairs

> and the University of California-San Diego, created models that

> suggested that if an attack occurred, current plans to isolate the

> sick and vaccinate those they have contacted would produce the same

> number of illnesses and deaths as a massive vaccination would.

>

> " For the public, it has to be a fairly hefty probability of a

> widespread national attack, otherwise you lose more lives in the

> vaccine campaign than you would save if the attack occurred, " Bozzette

> said.

>

>

> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

> http://www.BreastImplantAwareness.org

>

> --

> " Whatever a person thinketh in his heart so is he. "

>

>