Wow!
"Why did the researchers test two different doses?
It was a lucky mistake. Researchers in Britain had been meaning to give volunteers the initial dose at full strength, but they made a miscalculation & accidentally gave it at half strength..."
nytimes.com/2020/11/24/hea
Conversation
Replying to
Reading the article now but that's a pretty huge mistake for a clinical trial (I'm guessing it was during clinical trials, but I'll RTFA and find out).
2
1
Ok, this is a major WTF moment for me:
"Surprisingly, the vaccine combination in which the first dose was only at half strength was 90 percent effective at preventing Covid-19 in the trial. In contrast, the combination of two, full-dose shots led to just 62 percent efficacy."
1
1
Replying to
Yeah, the trial raised a bunch of interesting, impt q's. As per immunologists/vaccinologist, lower 1st dose may have overcome a common immune response in 1st dose in a way that can limit efficacy. Also, impact of COVID19 prevalence where trial arms were located.
1
1
Replying to
On a more general scale, I'm always fascinated how research mistakes can lead to amazing discoveries. You are a sociologist -- can you think of any famous research mistakes in your field that lead to interesting discoveries?
2
This wasn't necessarily a mistake, but I was always fascinated by the Milgram Shock Experiment. Would something like that ever get pass an IRB? I sincerely doubt it -- My guess is that such an experiment would be viewed as unethical. Similar to the Stanford (?) prison experiment
Replying to
Oh yeah. It is basically used as a textbook example in ethics training.
1