I have specific questions! I get the durable immunity unknown. What about shorter term? That's where the trade-off is most severe. (Besides the need for launching immediate trial...)
-
-
Replying to @zeynep @yellingatwind and
I mean, the data are publicly available. It looks like one dose is good at preventing disease at least for a few weeks. That’s the science on this specific vaccine.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @stgoldst @yellingatwind and
That's only "what's on the table in front of us" which is not all we know . I'm gonna cc
@michaelmina_lab on that. We're talking about potentially being able to vaccinate an extra billion people in 2021.1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Armchair epidemiologist (self-certified) Retweeted Armchair epidemiologist (self-certified)
re-upping my suggestion that got lost in stringhttps://twitter.com/yellingatwind/status/1337075852895342592?s=20 …
Armchair epidemiologist (self-certified) added,
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @yellingatwind @zeynep and
Again, I actually don’t understand why in the framework of the analysis you’re proposing theres a need for input from immunologists. The scientific limitations of this approach are very clear.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @stgoldst @yellingatwind and
Because the scientific limitations of refusing to discuss trade-offs have been very clear in this pandemic.
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @zeynep @yellingatwind and
But you know the possible downside from an immunological standpoint, and dispensed with it. So, can move forward without scientists now.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
The immunologists I know are pretty good at predicting the immunology of unknown viruses, based on other viruses. While they always want to wait for studies, their priors are important inputs to considering the risk/rewards.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @yellingatwind @zeynep and
Right, and
@VirusesImmunity among others has helpfully predicted a single dose won’t provide durable immunity. You’ve said durability is irrelevant because it’s an emergency. So you don’t need immunologists anymore for this!2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @stgoldst @yellingatwind and
Where did anyone say irrelevant? The question before us is that, given the shortage, there's a case to launch an immediate single-dose effort (maybe for the <65 group) based on a reasonable understanding of short-term immunity—till we have better data from the single dose.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
There are a lot of other shortcuts we are taking, including the chosen endpoints. We're about to spike the placebo arm with the EUA rather than expanded access. Potentially doubling the vaccinated is worth this discussion.
-
-
Replying to @zeynep @yellingatwind and
Fine, but you understand the durability issue. So you don’t need further input on that. If what you want is immunologists to sign off on a single dose, that’s a different matter. That’s what it seems like.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
By all means, have the conversation. I’m not opposed to that. Giving my scientific opinion is not censorship. I disagree with the proposal, is that not allowed?
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
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.