{"id":1231,"date":"2022-01-06T16:09:36","date_gmt":"2022-01-06T21:09:36","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/businesspartners2convince.org\/?p=1231"},"modified":"2022-01-09T16:19:20","modified_gmt":"2022-01-09T21:19:20","slug":"on-medical-grounds-podcast-ratzan-interview-on-variants-antivirals-vaccinations-health-literacy","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/businesspartners2convince.org\/on-medical-grounds-podcast-ratzan-interview-on-variants-antivirals-vaccinations-health-literacy\/","title":{"rendered":"On Medical Grounds Podcast: Ratzan Interview on Variants, Antivirals, Vaccinations & Health Literacy"},"content":{"rendered":"
BP2C Executive Director Dr. Scott Ratzan joined the ‘On Medical Grounds’ podcast<\/a> with host Dr. Jane M. Caldwell to discuss Variants, Antivirals, Vaccinations & Health Literacy. The two discuss new oral antiviral treatments for COVID-19, the new Omicron variant, a comparison of antiviral pills to preventive measures such as vaccination, health communications, health literacy and diplomacy. Click on the link above to listen to the podcast. A full transcript of the podcast is also available below.<\/h5>\n
TRANSCRIPT<\/p>\n

9. Variants, Antivirals, Vaccinations & Health Literacy<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

Dr. Jane Caldwell:
\nWelcome to the\u00a0On Medical Grounds<\/span>\u00a0podcast. I\u2019m Dr. Jane Caldwell, your host.\u00a0On Medical Grounds<\/span>\u00a0is a casual, friendly place where you can find an authentic audible blend of timely scientific and medical knowledge. We talk with experts about their experiences and knowledge, the utilization of new therapies, and challenges within the world of healthcare. Select podcasts offer continuing medical education credits for those of you needing an additional why you should listen. We provide perks to all posted podcasts by linking content so you can drink in more if you so choose.<\/p>\n

Dr. Scott Ratzan has a lengthy, impressive, and unusual resume. Before he received his medical doctorate degree from the University of Southern California Medical School, he studied rhetoric and debate at Occidental College. At Emerson College, he received a master\u2019s degree in communications which emphasized ethics, public relations, political and health communications. As a pioneer in the areas of health communication and diplomacy, he co-authored \u201cThe Definition of Health Literacy\u201d in the journal\u00a0Health Promotion International<\/span>. Dr. Ratzan co-directs the Master\u2019s Program in Health Communication for Social Change and is a distinguished lecturer at the CUNY School of Public Health and Health Policy. He holds adjunct professorial appointments at Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, Tufts University School of Medicine, and the University of St. Andrews School of Medicine.<\/p>\n

Dr. Ratzan is the editor-in-chief of the peer-reviewed\u00a0Journal of Health Communication: International Perspectives<\/span>. His books include\u00a0The Mad Cow Crisis: Health and the Public Good, Attaining Global Health: Challenges and Opportunities<\/span>, and\u00a0AIDS: Effective Health Communication for the \u201890s<\/span>. He is co-founder of the educational initiative CONVINCE, which stands for COVID-19, new vaccine, information, communication, and engagement. Hello, Dr. Ratzan, and welcome to\u00a0On Medical Grounds<\/span>.<\/p>\n

Dr. Scott Ratzan:
\nThank you, Jane. Happy to be here today.<\/p>\n

Dr. Jane Caldwell:
\nIn this podcast, we will discuss new oral antiviral treatments for COVID-19, the new Omicron variant and we will also compare these antiviral treatments to preventive measures such as vaccination. Also given your background, we\u2019ll touch on ways that health professionals can achieve improved health communications and advocate for health literacy and diplomacy. If you would please, tell me how you manage to combine the disciplines of rhetoric, debate, and medicine.<\/p>\n

Dr. Scott Ratzan:
\nWell, Jane, thank you for that introduction. As you mentioned, I\u2019ve been engaged with all sorts of areas of how we look at health challenges. My first work, when I first finished medical school in the 1980s, was when AIDS was first identified, and it was clear that we needed more than a medical response to address the challenges that we faced with the HIV virus and that\u2019s where we really needed to combine the disciplines. Fortunately, I had known during my early career in medicine\u2014I went to the Harvard Kennedy School of Government, studied health policy as well, as you mentioned, with the degree at Emerson in communication. It was clear that we needed to have a proper emphasis with an evidence base. Fortunately, years later, I was able to establish the program in health communication at Tufts Medical School and Emerson College and now lead Health Communication for Social Change master\u2019s program at CUNY School of Public Health in New York.<\/p>\n

These disciplines now have evolved and there\u2019s 40 programs in the United States, many medical schools, schools of public health, schools of communication around the world have emphasis in health communication, combining an evidence base amongst theory and practice for, I should say, centuries when you think about how medicine began early, that it was not just the science. It was the art and the ability to give people information to make decisions and health and wellbeing. It\u2019s a long answer, but I\u2019m happy to be engaged with the field and it\u2019s more prominent than ever these days with COVID.<\/p>\n

Dr. Jane Caldwell:
\nThat\u2019s excellent. Could you please give us the definition of health literacy?<\/p>\n

Dr. Scott Ratzan:
\nYeah. I was fortunate to identify health literacy as a challenge as mentioned in the global environment with\u00a0Health Promotion International<\/span>\u00a0and others, but then worked with Dr. Ruth Parker at Emory and we developed a definition of health literacy that\u2019s now adopted in the Affordable Care Act as well as the activities on the national and state level. We\u2019ve defined it as the degree to which individuals have the capacity to obtain, process, and understand basic health information and services to make appropriate health decisions.<\/p>\n

The reason why it\u2019s important to think of health literacy as a fundamental part of our health system is it\u2019s not just the individual\u2019s need to learn and it\u2019s not just the doctors or the learned intermediary, the pharmacist, the physician assistants, and others who are engaged to give people the information, it\u2019s also to simplify the system to make it easier to make the right choice for health and that\u2019s why we\u2019ve called it appropriate health decisions with health literacy, and that\u2019s where our research is engaged. It\u2019s even evolved today into vaccine literacy to also help make it easier for people to choose vaccination. It\u2019s been a very exciting field to see it grow as well in concert with health communication.<\/p>\n

Dr. Jane Caldwell:
\nHow does that differ from health diplomacy?<\/p>\n

Dr. Scott Ratzan:
\nWell, diplomacy is generally thought of as interaction between states. It goes back to the French in the 17th century. We have diplomacy at the state department of course, but we also now have health diplomacy and the office of AIDS and PEPFAR is all linked to developing again, programs and projects from USAID. I spent a couple years in Washington working for the agency where we were trying to not only give donor-based for development but teaching people and using diplomatic skills and policies that make it easier to advance health. That\u2019s where I think also we need, we\u2019re trying to do, some people have already called this vaccine diplomacy, to give vaccines, but giving vaccines does not promote vaccination. You need the policies and the communication in place, and that\u2019s where health diplomacy is the overarching construct.<\/p>\n

Dr. Jane Caldwell:
\nOkay, well, let\u2019s apply those definitions to education and communication during the COVID-19 pandemic. Here in the U.S., the FDA has authorized, and I told you I had trouble pronouncing this, molnupiravir, is also looking at Paxlovid\u2122 as two new oral antiviral drugs. Both are pills with a five-day treatment course and each pill has been found to improve the outcome of high-risk patients infected with COVID. Dr. Ratzan, how should the healthcare community respond to the news of these new treatments?<\/p>\n

Dr. Scott Ratzan:
\nWell, first of all, it\u2019s great to see that the scientific and medical progress of applying the knowledge and skills that we\u2019ve had over the years, initially, of course, with mRNA vaccines that were more experimental and now the main vaccines around the world, as well as the work that we\u2019ve done over years for antiretrovirals with HIV and others. While molnupiravir, as well as Paxlovid\u2122, seem to be the first generation of medicines that will stem COVID, we need to say for your listeners that only molnupiravir has been approved at this juncture for emergency use authorization by the FDA for use, and Paxlovid\u2122 is under review. We have seen, however, during COVID, one, speedier review for emergency use authorization, but secondly, companies have been much more proactive of putting information out on the hopeful nature of their medicine. One, being approved, but two, on the ability to stop the virus from replicating.<\/p>\n

We have heard in both cases after the FDA review with the Merck drug called molnupiravir, that it does have at least some efficacy, it looks like at about 30% of cases, at least what was promoted in the FDA review. There are some groups that it\u2019s not approved for such as pregnant women and others, but it is a medicine that the U.S. government has invested a lot of money to buy the doses, and Merck is projecting 10 million courses of the drug that are available by the end of the year.<\/p>\n

Dr. Jane Caldwell:
\nSo this is for outcomes for high-risk patients only, is that correct?<\/p>\n

Dr. Scott Ratzan:
\nWell, essentially, for better or worse, the best arsenal that we have and we\u2019ve had, the only way we got rid of smallpox was through vaccines. The only way we got rid of polio was through vaccines, and the likely way that we\u2019re going to be able to really stem COVID is through vaccination. There are some people, however, whether they\u2019ve had two doses, or now it\u2019s recommended to have three doses as the full set, some are calling it a booster. Some are saying it\u2019s really what the Pfizer and Moderna vaccine should have had are three doses. While people are not fully covered, there have been some breakthrough infections, and others that are not covered at all are having some infections.<\/p>\n

These drugs are indicated once someone has both symptoms and a positive test. Then, they are suggested or prescribed by a physician to take the medicine for five days. They\u2019re not easy medicines to take. You have to take three pills twice a day in the case of the Paxlovid\u2122, at least what they\u2019re applying for emergency use authorization. The molnupiravir, you\u2019re also going to take three pills twice a day. I should have mentioned that the Pfizer one they\u2019re actually asking for two other drugs because there\u2019s a combination drug with Paxlovid\u2122.<\/p>\n

Dr. Jane Caldwell:
\nSo the high-risk studies, they looked at administration of these oral antiviral pills within three to five days after the COVID symptoms appeared. I guess timing is pretty important for the efficacy of these antivirals. Could you elaborate on the symptoms of COVID-19 and what the tipping point should be for medical intervention?<\/p>\n

Dr. Scott Ratzan:
\nWell, first of all, the symptoms I think, I\u2019m hopeful, that people know, as you mentioned, health literacy, that people know if they have a fever or chills, a cough, shortness of breath, fatigue, muscle or body aches, or headache, that those could be symptoms of the flu. But if you lose your taste or smell, more of a sore throat, congestion, and possibly even nausea or vomiting or diarrhea, you may have a symptom of COVID, in which case the first thing one should do is, if you can, which is what I think the U.S. is also trying to do, is you can take a test that will be reimbursed and free, according to the last iteration by President Biden, that will show\u2014you can do an at-home test but then, of course, you need to see a physician to get a proper PCR test. You have to have a positive test before these drugs will be prescribed. It\u2019s one, the symptoms people should know about, and then two, the positive test. You can\u2019t just take these medicines as a prophylaxis on its own.<\/p>\n

Dr. Jane Caldwell:
\nWell, I\u2019m glad you mentioned that because that was my next question. Can it be used as a post-exposure prophylaxis?<\/p>\n

Dr. Scott Ratzan:
\nWell, I guess in some ways you can call it a post-exposure treatment once if you\u2019re post-exposed and positive. That\u2019s what the label seems to have, that you need to be tested positive.<\/p>\n

Dr. Jane Caldwell:
\nI see.<\/p>\n

Dr. Scott Ratzan:
\nOr you can take these drugs and the government\u2019s going to pay for them. And this Paxlovid\u2122 is $530 for five days and $700 for molnupiravir. I\u2019m also stumbling on it, if I can say, but they\u2019re buying these. These are $700 courses. You do have to go see a physician. You do have to have it prescribed. Then the physician will prescribe it after a positive result of a test.<\/p>\n

Dr. Jane Caldwell:
\nCan these pills prevent us from getting COVID?<\/p>\n

Dr. Scott Ratzan:
\nWell, these two have not been applied for in that regard. However, there is a new monoclonal antibody called Evusheld\u2122 approved by the FDA last week. That\u2019s an injectable for people who can\u2019t get vaccinated who have compromised immune systems. That is a pre-exposure prophylaxis, but that\u2019s a very different medicine and that\u2019s also just approved and only for people who have moderate to severely compromised immune systems. Of course, those could be people on chemotherapy of all ages, or there\u2019s also an indication that it\u2019s been approved if someone had a history of severe adverse reactions to COVID vaccines. They also could take this pre-exposure prophylaxis Evusheld\u2122 as prescribed.<\/p>\n

Dr. Jane Caldwell:
\nI see. So the big question this month is will it be effective against the Omicron variant?<\/p>\n

Dr. Scott Ratzan:
\nWell, it seems that nobody knows right now if we could just call it that. The data is not all in on the Omicron variant and how all the vaccines are going to stand up. We\u2019ve talked about, I mentioned, the mRNA vaccines most people know now as the Pfizer or the Moderna. There\u2019s also a Johnson & Johnson vaccine which is adenovirus, which was a single dose, also recommending boosters. Each of the companies that have been making these have put out some preliminary data that they believe that theirs is effective. They\u2019re not saying a hundred percent effective and they\u2019re not saying zero. I think the data still needs to be collected and then we will know. But the one thing we do know about Omicron variant is that it is more infective. Over the last day, at least the data in the UK reported, it\u2019s tripled in the number of people it\u2019s infected, but the data in South Africa at this point does not seem to show that it is more deadly.<\/p>\n

However, when I listened in on the last CDC briefing, they say this virus has tricked us before. The Omicron variant already has 30 mutations and if we have an Omicron plus variant…. We did have a Delta plus variant that was in the press a little bit. Some of these become more virulent and a couple of mutations as it keeps circulating because we don\u2019t have a fully-vaccinated population. It is likely that a new variant or a new plus variant, if I just call it that or a new mutation, will change the nature of it. It could outsmart the vaccine. It could make it more deadly or it could make it less. The only thing I would say to Omicron and to all of the listeners is, we know that it is not over yet. This is not the end of what we\u2019ll see for mutations. This is not the end of frankly what we\u2019ll probably see for medications as well as they work\u00a0in vivo<\/span>\u00a0rather than as they keep going through.<\/p>\n

As people know the pharmaceutical approval process, we also have what is called post-marketing surveillance. Now that these medicines will be out, we will survey in a very hopefully comprehensive way to see one, if there\u2019s any side effects, and two, how well the efficacy is on the five-day regimen that we began speaking about earlier, Jane.<\/p>\n

Dr. Jane Caldwell:
\nI\u2019m going to get super technical here concerning mutations. Do you know if the mutations are single nucleotide, single point mutations, or if there are frameshifts?<\/p>\n

Dr. Scott Ratzan:
\nWell, I don\u2019t really want to say that I\u2019m an immunologist nor a virologist on this. I think it would be speculation for me to say. The point is that these drugs do seem to work very well on where they actually insert in the RNA, in the sequence and interfering with the replication, and whether it\u2019s the nucleotide, as you mentioned, or others, I think that needs to be more, shall I say, in the medical science of figuring out where\u2019s the right place to attack this virus just as we found in HIV.<\/p>\n

Early in HIV we were trying all sorts of mechanisms and the protease inhibitors seemed to work the best, but then we knew that we needed NNRTIs. We needed a whole variety of medicines in combination. And then even looking at the medicines that now have been used for pre-exposure prophylaxis on HIV, all of these evolve. We\u2019re learning quite a bit on the coronavirus. And we have been tracking coronaviruses with other SARS and Middle East Respiratory Syndrome and others. I think we have a good arsenal, but I\u2019ll leave that up to the scientists who are developing these medicines to develop the right safety profile and efficacy.<\/p>\n

Dr. Jane Caldwell:
\nDo oral antivirals like vaccines pose some, albeit small, inherent risks to the patient?<\/p>\n

Dr. Scott Ratzan:
\nEverything we do in life has a risk, right? Crossing the street I used to say was something we learned in grade school. You look both ways before you go. Now I have a telephone and texting and other pieces that people have forgot some basic things like that. There\u2019s an inherent risk every time you get in a car. We try to eliminate that, so we put on seat belts. We have airbags. We have safety measures in cars. We have traffic lights. All of these have some sort of risk. Every medicine we take has some sort of risk as well as every vaccine that we take. However, in the case of COVID or coronavirus CoV-2 and SARS CoV-2, we know that this virus and this constellation of COVID-19, which could be both a short term, short term hospitalization, and lung failure and cardiac failure, to long COVID, which has other sequelae that we keep learning about.<\/p>\n

All of those risks from the virus itself are much worse than any of the risks that we found with both the vaccines as well as with these medicines. That\u2019s with the FDA, and in the case of these medicines, even the CDC, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practice, and then a CDC advisory also suggests on these medicines, have identified the risk being quite small orders of magnitude with the medicines less than the actual disease itself in this case. That\u2019s why we have the approval process. Just like we would on deadly cancers and others, we are willing to accept some risks and the risks, in this case, are very small.<\/p>\n

Dr. Jane Caldwell:
\nI\u2019m just concerned that the general public will now think we have a pill for that, why bother to get a vaccination for COVID? Should healthcare providers continue to stress vaccination over the use of these medications?<\/p>\n

Dr. Scott Ratzan:
\nJane, 100%. It\u2019s a great question. Great concern. I\u2019m concerned. I know that many in the public health community are concerned. Medicine is concerned that we cannot rely on a pill to get us out of this pandemic. We can\u2019t rely on injectable antibodies. The vaccine is the only way that we\u2019ll be able to work toward getting herd immunity or getting it to a level that it becomes like another flu. I think every expert that\u2019s speaking on television, every expert on your podcasts, every expert that is working with their medical groups, whether their grand rounds to a local level, should stress the top three pieces are get a vaccine, get your first, second, and third dose vaccine if you\u2019re not there yet and promote vaccination for people where you work, for people who you interact with, whether it\u2019s at churches, synagogues, sporting clubs, what have you, and promote the vaccination as the norm.<\/p>\n

Nobody questioned, at least in my generation, getting a polio vaccine. We don\u2019t have polio on this entire hemisphere. There a few countries that have cases under a hundred a year. Years before, we did the same with smallpox. People would get the vaccine. There\u2019s no reason why we shouldn\u2019t start to think of this vaccine the same way.<\/p>\n

Dr. Jane Caldwell:
\nYou\u2019ve been a tireless advocate for health education. Where did we go wrong in communicating to the public about the need, the efficacy, and the safety of the COVID vaccines?<\/p>\n

Dr. Scott Ratzan:
\nWell, where did we go wrong? First and foremost, we had the identification of this disease early on, now almost two years ago December. That\u2019s why it\u2019s COVID-19. We\u2019re in 21. We had a public health emergency of international concern that was called and later named a pandemic. Early in this country, we had an administration that didn\u2019t want to believe we would have more than 15 cases and it would go away. And we did not create a trusted source of information that we would have, whether it\u2019s at the governmental level or medical level, that we knew that one, this is a real disease with these real deaths. We\u2019re still seeing over a thousand people a day die. We\u2019re going to have 800,000, 800,000, actually repeat that number, of people that will have died in this country in less than two years from COVID.<\/p>\n

We didn\u2019t warn people well enough in a systematic way and, frankly, didn\u2019t have the same sort of testing that would be available that would stop people from doing risky behavior or spreading it. We didn\u2019t communicate well enough of the need for masks. We even had government saying don\u2019t buy a mask, do buy a mask. Masks do work, don\u2019t work. We debated over what kind of mask. We just had very poor communication coming out of the gate to the point now that people don\u2019t know, who do I trust anymore? Do I trust the CDC? Do I trust Anthony Fauci, who some people … We track trust numbers in which institutions people trust. They\u2019re going down everywhere. They\u2019re going down in the medical community. They\u2019re going down in NIH, CDC, scientific community. Part of the issue also is, is that we have a decentralized system that even if we don\u2019t have a trusted source, we have the ability for people to call themselves experts on these gated communities of, whether it\u2019s Facebook, Instagram, creating YouTube channels, and so forth, where they\u2019ve been able to promulgate conspiracies; the fact that COVID doesn\u2019t exist, or there are other treatments that were not proven such as hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin or others.<\/p>\n

We have confusion that\u2019s fostered and hence … I\u2019m a believer in effective health communication is what we need. That\u2019s only a part of it. The communication also needs to have the trusted messengers, the high integrity sources, which are probably your listeners, the doctors, and people in the health profession, doctors, nurses, pharmacists, and others. Academic pharmacists and academic scientists and professors continue to be at the highest level of trust and ability to help people make the right decisions for themselves in health. They\u2019ve either been silenced, or, in some cases, shoved aside by the cacophony of political challenges to medicine, science, and vaccines as we know it.<\/p>\n

I never thought we would see this in this country so quickly, but we almost have a perfect storm. Then the virus outsmarts our system and our system might be a twentieth-century system that\u2019s evolving in a twenty-first-century world, and we need to do better. We\u2019re fortunate that we\u2019re having this discussion that we have vaccines and medicines. Imagine we had to wait another year for a vaccine. How many more deaths would we have had? But the fact that one person dies any day that could have been prevented from vaccines is really disheartening to those of us in medicine and public health.<\/p>\n

Dr. Jane Caldwell:
\nCan you give us three ways that healthcare professionals can foster education and improve understanding of COVID-19 in their communities?<\/p>\n

Dr. Scott Ratzan:
\nWell, three ways. First is to listen. Try to understand why people have not gotten the vaccine. We know that there are early adopters, people that will get the latest medicine or the latest vaccine as soon as it\u2019s out. If you remember now over a year ago, people were clamoring, well almost a year, clamoring to get the vaccine as soon as possible after it was approved. \u201cWhy am I not first on the list? Why am I not there?\u201d And even some of the healthcare providers listening probably said, \u201cI wasn\u2019t first on the list. I wanted to be.\u201d But there were many that we\u2019ve learned, and we call these late adopters people that haven\u2019t got their vaccine yet, and we were calling this nearly over in July, and then we had the Delta variant.<\/p>\n

We call these late adopters. And if you listen to these late adopters, they need to hear more from their doctor. They need to hear more about how this will help them have their life better and back and how this will protect them and their families from getting sick against a new variant even. You have to listen. Are they late adopters? And then address with more than one issue. It\u2019s not just take it because I say you should take it because it\u2019s approved.<\/p>\n

The second thing we need to do is make this a social norm. It\u2019s no big deal. You know you need to carry a driver\u2019s license to drive a car. It\u2019s a privilege. Well, we might need to have vaccination cards or vaccination QR codes or something on our phones that most people have that then says, it\u2019s fine to know that I\u2019m safe, protecting myself and others, and make that more of a norm. Not as a barrier, but as a norm.<\/p>\n

Thirdly, we need to have physicians and others involved in their communities as leaders in the sort of health diplomacy as we called it. That we\u2019re not just talking to our patients in our practice, we\u2019re also in the hospitals where we work, making sure that all health workers and everybody who\u2019s a contractor or everybody who\u2019s there, also is one, vaccinated and practicing good public health and hygiene measures whether it\u2019s handwashing, social distancing, masking. It\u2019s at the individual level. It\u2019s at the social norm. How do we change society level? And then it\u2019s at the level of where we work and live.<\/p>\n

Similarly, with our, like I say, the social capital where if we go to churches or sporting clubs or restaurants, or other places where we live our lives. I think it\u2019s a huge challenge to get everybody out to think that way. You would think it would be easier. But we\u2019ve been fortunate by medical science solving most of the challenges, but medical science is only part of it. It\u2019s the social science that we need to get people to be vaccinated, or we\u2019ll hit over a billion dead in this country. We\u2019re nearly 800,000. It\u2019s really, really sad.<\/p>\n

Dr. Jane Caldwell:
\nWell, before we close today, is there anything that you would like to add that I didn\u2019t ask?<\/p>\n

Dr. Scott Ratzan:
\nOh, wow. I mean, we could keep going, Jane, this has great, this has been a great conversation, and I don\u2019t want to end on a pessimistic note. I do want to try to end on an optimistic note and we do tracking surveys at CUNY School of Public Health. I have a study that\u2019s funded to work on what we call STRIVE, a Scale for Trust and Intent to Vaccinate where we\u2019re really looking deeply at the trustworthiness of the message and the messengers and who people get that from and then their intention to vaccinate. We\u2019re finding some promising opportunities.<\/p>\n

We have a group in New York called the New York Vaccine Literacy Campaign where we\u2019re working with community groups to also promote vaccine literacy. And then finally, an acronym we call CONVINCE and CONVINCE USA where we\u2019re working with Vaccine Equity Cooperative and others, and CONVINCE stands for COVID, new vaccines, information, communication, and engagement. And the information is what we\u2019ve been talking about here today. We need to be armed with the latest scientific data and knowledge and so forth. The communication, let\u2019s do that appropriately with our patients, our communities, our family, our co-workers.<\/p>\n

Then the engagement and needing to engage in society to have, whether they\u2019re workplace policies for people that be the norm that I\u2019m going to be vaccinated and also the norm that if I\u2019m sick, I\u2019m not going to go to work. Or if I feel like I\u2019m getting COVID, I take the home test that\u2019s free or my company pays for it at work. We are going to have to get to a phase where it\u2019s just normal to test if you think you\u2019ve got something or keep your vaccines up to date and wear a mask and other things as appropriate. But this is going to take an all of society approach and we don\u2019t have that yet.<\/p>\n

Again, I want to end optimistically. We can have it and I think the medical groups will continue to step up. I work with the American College of Preventive Medicine and one of their Vaccine Confident Ambassadors, as they call it, are trying to fan out with preventive medicine docs and others, but we need to do this with everyone. I think retail pharmacy, CVS Health, what they\u2019re working on with their health hubs, I know that they\u2019ve, I think, delivered 35 million vaccines. This is no longer solely in our medical practices, in our offices or our clinics or our hospitals. This is in retail sites. Eventually, we\u2019ll continue to see more devolve as we have with telemedicine also of people making decisions based upon information they get.<\/p>\n

I think we can do it. I appreciate the opportunity, Jane, to speak with you and your group here today to hopefully put this in the right perspective and get us back to a new normal if I call it that. Or a normal where we can live amongst COVID and control it in a way and not have COVID control us, which is a fear for many people.<\/p>\n

Dr. Jane Caldwell:
\nWell, thank you, Dr. Ratzan for taking time from your busy schedule to discuss COVID and health literacy. We truly appreciate your positive and innovative approach to health communications.<\/p>\n

Dr. Scott Ratzan:
\nWell, thank you. I\u2019ll look forward if there\u2019s any feedback or any opportunity to do this again with you, Jane. It was a very enlightening discussion.<\/p>\n

Dr. Jane Caldwell:
\nThank you for listening to the\u00a0On Medical Grounds<\/span>\u00a0podcast. We know your time is valuable. The resources that were referred to in this podcast can be found at onmedicalgrounds.com. Please be sure to check the subscribe button to be alerted when we post new content. If you enjoyed this podcast, please rate and review it and share it with your friends or colleagues.<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

BP2C Executive Director Dr. Scott Ratzan joined the ‘On Medical Grounds’ podcast with host Dr. Jane M. Caldwell to discuss Variants, Antivirals, Vaccinations & Health Literacy. The two discuss new […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":1232,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3],"tags":[],"acf":[],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/businesspartners2convince.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1231"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/businesspartners2convince.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/businesspartners2convince.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/businesspartners2convince.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/businesspartners2convince.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1231"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/businesspartners2convince.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1231\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1233,"href":"https:\/\/businesspartners2convince.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1231\/revisions\/1233"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/businesspartners2convince.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1232"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/businesspartners2convince.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1231"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/businesspartners2convince.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1231"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/businesspartners2convince.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1231"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}