Yes, ideally there would have been a single-dose study as well. But here we are, and with a shortage that will mean many more people will die and everything else will be delayed. Personally, looking at that data, I'd quickly take one dose to give someone else a chance at one.
-
-
Show this thread
-
Maybe. There are 1256 people who did not receive the second dose in the trial. Yes, small group but what happened to them? I get it, ideally, we have a single dose study. Not so ideally, we have this data and a severe shortage. Seems worth a discussion. https://twitter.com/Valentine721/status/1337048321026875394 …
This Tweet is unavailable.Show this thread -
Pfizer reports "52.4% efficacy" for single dose but that includes the first seven days, before things kick in, when most new infections happened. At 10-12 days, the chart (eyeballing, no underlying data yet) looks ~80-85% efficacy. Unpleasant trade-off but reality is unpleasant.
Show this thread -
I'm hoping for immunology/virology people to tell us the potential trade-offs here. We know one side: due to shortages, hundreds of millions of people will not get vaccinated anytime soon. What does the calculation on the other side look like?
Show this thread -
At a minimum minimum, there should be an immediate single-dose trial launched, like yesterday. We sadly have a raging epidemic and will get results quickly but I think not giving this real thought now—and an explanation to the public—would be a grave mistake, given the stakes.
Show this thread -
Yeah, but given the stakes, "we don't know for sure so we won't vaccinate hundreds of millions" is not an acceptable answer. Shortage is a terrible trade-off, too. Why didn't they/we immediately launch a single dose trial after prelim data? They knew.https://twitter.com/sdbaral/status/1337053741015502850 …
Show this thread -
Look, folks, like all things pandemic, this is a trade-off. The immunology people should weigh in and explain to us about one side of the trade-off. The other side is a societal/ethical decision because we're bouncing potentially less efficacious against *not at all vaccinated*.
Show this thread -
This is immediately consequential. US plans to HOLD BACK for many millions now vaccination to preserve for second dose later.
@ScottGottliebMD—Pfizer board member—disagrees: "We should get as many shots in our arms as possible right now." https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2020/12/07/covid-vaccine-pfizer-board-member-disagrees-us-distribution-plan/3860363001/ …pic.twitter.com/6CGpcLlsSb
Show this thread -
Let me ask this. We know older people need the booster more (from published data). But why we wouldn't launch a single-dose effort (randomized/blinded within) for <65 which can answer the questions about durability while immunizing millions more?https://twitter.com/michaelmina_lab/status/1337078184597217281 …
Show this thread -
I wrote up the case for launching immediate trials to test a single-dose regime. Calling for volunteers among < 65 health-care workers for single dose and later booster seems like the minimal prudent response to this chart. We could know fairly quickly.https://zeynep.substack.com/p/vaccines-and-decision-making-with …
Show this thread
End of conversation
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.