![]() |
| David Livermore and NDM-1 |
h/t Mark Vander Weg
Pondering vexing issues in infection prevention and control
![]() |
| David Livermore and NDM-1 |
![]() |
| CNN's advice for KPCs? - Eat Yogurt |
Dan, Mike and I have frequently posted on content from the NY Times. As most of you have heard, on Monday the NY Times began charging for digital content. This is the so called pay wall or pay fence or pay sponge. I have no problem paying for digital content as I subscribe to the Economist, National Geographic, etc on my iPad with specific apps or through Zinio, which is a great app if you haven't tried it. What troubles me with the Times current plan is that they are charging me based on what device I use to read their content. I mainly read the NY Times (and everything else) on my iPad and phone. With other digital subscriptions this doesn't matter since I pay a single amount and can access on any device. For example, the Economist charges $110 for a year subscription no matter how I read their content. The NY Times, however, has decided that they will charge $15/4 weeks ($195/year) to read on a phone and an additional $20/month ($260/year) to read the same content on an iPad, for a total of $455/year. Crazy.So there is another measles outbreak, this time in Minnesota. Unlike recent experience with mumps, in which outbreaks are associated with vaccine failure (over 60% of cases occurring among recipients of two mumps vaccines), measles outbreaks occur primarily among the unvaccinated, and are sustained by those who reject or avoid the MMR (see prior posts here and here). Of the 13 confirmed Minnesota cases, 5 were too young to be vaccinated, 6 should have been vaccinated but were not, and 2 so far are of unknown vaccine status. Regular updates can be found on the Minnesota Department of Health website. There’s also an interesting article in the Star-Tribune about resistance in the local Somali community to receipt of MMR, out of fears of….you guessed it, autism.
We’ve covered this ground before—go here for our prior posts on the anti-vaccine movement. We recently had some local news coverage of a pediatrician who was declining patients if the parents refused vaccinations. I believe this is a perfectly reasonable position for a pediatrician to take. In fact, if a pediatrician does accept anti-vaccine families, he or she has a duty to warn all the other patients in the practice of the increased risk to infants or immunocompromised children from being in that office waiting room.
In many parts of the country, as rates of COVID-19 are declining and vaccination coverage is increasing (albeit with substantial variati...