Is this about our article? We do not suggest there is "no possibility of benefit for the majority of children". We are questioning whether EUA's for child vaccines are appropriate at this stage. These are different points. Indeed we urge a wider rollout after full approval.
-
-
Replying to @WesPegden @pafournier and
"EUA’s should be considered for children at genuinely high risk of serious complications from infection" - based on the evidence, this is true of all children, therefore why argue against EUAs?
3 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @pafournier and
Is this a game where I reply to something you say and then you ignore it and say a completely different thing to see how long I will keep replying?
3 replies 0 retweets 43 likes -
-
Replying to @GidMK @WesPegden and
Perhaps I misread your piece, but it seems to argue very strongly that there is no possibility that an EUA could be of benefit for the vast majority of children, unless they have a "genuine" risk. Happy to have this clarified
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @pafournier and
Our argument is not that only a small number of high-risk children could benefit from an EUA. We argue that for most children the benefit is small enough that the risk/benefit assessment requires care, and that the accelerated "emergency" regulatory framework is not appropriate.
1 reply 2 retweets 33 likes -
Replying to @WesPegden @pafournier and
But you specifically say that EUAs are appropriate for high-risk children. So what's the threshold here for a "high-risk" child as opposed to one who is at only a 1 in 50,000 risk of death? How is that determined?
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @GidMK @pafournier and
The point of this portion of the article is not to direct regulators to a decision of precise subgroups of kids to authorize an EUA for. It is to acknowledge that the population-wide risk for children should not necessarily determine whether EUA's are issued for any subgroups.
1 reply 0 retweets 12 likes -
Replying to @WesPegden @pafournier and
Again, it comes back to the question of risk, which is I think where we disagree. What level of risk would you say is acceptable to consider an EUA for COVID-19 vaccines?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @pafournier and
Personally I'd suggest the risk should be signif. greater than, say, the typical winter burden of respiratory illness. Due to the nature of exponentials (in risk), a wide range of thresholds are consistent with a view that most kids are below the threshold, most adults above it.
2 replies 0 retweets 18 likes
Given that the risk of both general respiratory illness and COVID-19 are exponential in gradient (although COVID-19 has a far steeper curve), I'm confused by that argument
-
-
Replying to @GidMK @WesPegden and
As to whether the risks are the same or greater, it does somewhat depend on which evidence you rely on. If you use our paper, the risk is very similar for those aged 0-15, but the estimates from the Pasteur institute are higher for young children
3 replies 1 retweet 1 like - Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.