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
Replying to
Good q. I know they exist, but med. ones (or at least unanticipated effects) come to mind for me: Sildenafil (Viagra) heart trial pts keeping unused pills; Minoxidil for high BP pts showing hair growth. Then, natural experiments offering... 1/
2
1
Replying to
It's a very interesting case study on the process of clinical trials and how things can go terribly wrong. I highly recommend reading up on it.
Replying to
Oh, here is one that came to mind--from social psychology: The Robbers Cave Experiment to study group conflict (like The Stanford Prison Experiment, another with ethical issues):
1
1