Both in that discussion, here, and in the article I can find no mention of actual rates of suspected infections from this vector. You have a doctor who thinks that this is risky behavior by putting together the microbiome of the human face, and the nature of a neonate's immune status. This is the perceived risk, but the real risk can only be revealed by studying whether or not that risk is ever realized.
This isn't just academic, the public and media have limited ability to communicate important issues, and if this is a purely (or even mostly) hypothetical risk then that limited attention should be directed to issues that take or damage more lives.
I was especially curious about "...but if for good reasons you must kiss the baby there are some things that can reduce the infection danger you pose."
I tried to come up with a single reason why anyone would feel they "must" inflict so life-threatening an action as a kiss on a neonate, but failed. Maybe I lead a sheltered life.
> The herpes virus infection is one such example. In adults, herpes causes cold sores, but babies can quickly become seriously ill after catching the virus. If the herpes only affects the baby’s eyes, mouth or skin, most will recover after antiviral treatment. But if the virus becomes systemic and affects the baby’s organs, the infection is much more serious and can even be deadly. The younger the baby, the more vulnerable they are to infection by herpes, particularly in the first four weeks after birth.
Holy crap, this just made me paranoid about babies and their health in general. If anyone can allay my (newfound) fear by explaining why this might be overly sensational, please chime in. I’m suddenly extremely relieved my nieces and nephew are old enough that their immune systems are getting practice in the real world.
I remember when my friends’ baby was a premmie and I had to wash my hands before holding him. Now I think that should apply to all newborns. That much, I think, is reasonable and not paranoid.
>After the birth of his second child, Gilbert, a scientist who studies microbial ecosystems at the University of Chicago, decided to find out what's actually known about the risks involved when modern-day children come in contact with germs. "It turned out that most of the exposures were actually beneficial," Gilbert says. "So that dirty pacifier that fell on the floor — if you just stick it in your mouth and lick it, and then pop it back in little Tommy's mouth, it's actually going to stimulate their immune system. Their immune system's going to become stronger because of it."
Reminds me of a paper from Scandanavia- cooking bread generates acrylamides which are unhealthy.
If you read carefully enough you can see there is no real health effect in practical cases, especially when you consider how core breadlike foods are around the world. But it still generated a lot of press and literature, see for example https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8073677/
What a weird title when the article literally suggests kissing babies on the head instead of the face.
> Kiss their foot or the back of their head.
Even stranger when the article has, in it's first paragraph:
> As a clinical microbiologist, I assumed everyone knew that it was a terrible idea to kiss a newborn baby anywhere on its head.
Why is the baby in the header image wearing earrings? Doesn't eat piercing present a risk of infection?
Small discussion (24 points, 2 days ago, 9 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42228814
Both in that discussion, here, and in the article I can find no mention of actual rates of suspected infections from this vector. You have a doctor who thinks that this is risky behavior by putting together the microbiome of the human face, and the nature of a neonate's immune status. This is the perceived risk, but the real risk can only be revealed by studying whether or not that risk is ever realized.
This isn't just academic, the public and media have limited ability to communicate important issues, and if this is a purely (or even mostly) hypothetical risk then that limited attention should be directed to issues that take or damage more lives.
I was especially curious about "...but if for good reasons you must kiss the baby there are some things that can reduce the infection danger you pose."
I tried to come up with a single reason why anyone would feel they "must" inflict so life-threatening an action as a kiss on a neonate, but failed. Maybe I lead a sheltered life.
Why would anybody with cold sores put their mouth on anything, let alone a baby?
Nobody wants that infection.
> The herpes virus infection is one such example. In adults, herpes causes cold sores, but babies can quickly become seriously ill after catching the virus. If the herpes only affects the baby’s eyes, mouth or skin, most will recover after antiviral treatment. But if the virus becomes systemic and affects the baby’s organs, the infection is much more serious and can even be deadly. The younger the baby, the more vulnerable they are to infection by herpes, particularly in the first four weeks after birth.
Holy crap, this just made me paranoid about babies and their health in general. If anyone can allay my (newfound) fear by explaining why this might be overly sensational, please chime in. I’m suddenly extremely relieved my nieces and nephew are old enough that their immune systems are getting practice in the real world.
I remember when my friends’ baby was a premmie and I had to wash my hands before holding him. Now I think that should apply to all newborns. That much, I think, is reasonable and not paranoid.
It is not sensational, and you would do well to heed it for the first three months.
Exposure to germs and allergens is good for kids and helps build their immune system.
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2017/07/16/5370750...
>After the birth of his second child, Gilbert, a scientist who studies microbial ecosystems at the University of Chicago, decided to find out what's actually known about the risks involved when modern-day children come in contact with germs. "It turned out that most of the exposures were actually beneficial," Gilbert says. "So that dirty pacifier that fell on the floor — if you just stick it in your mouth and lick it, and then pop it back in little Tommy's mouth, it's actually going to stimulate their immune system. Their immune system's going to become stronger because of it."
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2012.10294
Hope that helps!
I don't think this applies to the first three months when contact should be more limited due to an undeveloped immune system.
.
This is not 100% true, it can be contagious without a visible sore
As long as this article is histrionically exaggerating the risks, let me make a histrionic exaggeration of my own.
Nonsense like this is why the public health establishment has almost zero credibility in conversations about low risk events.
Reminds me of a paper from Scandanavia- cooking bread generates acrylamides which are unhealthy.
If you read carefully enough you can see there is no real health effect in practical cases, especially when you consider how core breadlike foods are around the world. But it still generated a lot of press and literature, see for example https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8073677/
You're not doing your histrionics right. It's "articles like this is why Trump won".