Worth noting that no mRNA vaccine has ever been widely deployed for humans before. There was not a strong a priori reason to think that these vaccines would be even close to this efficacious. It was not clear that they would be protective at all.
-
-
Consequently, when designing the trials, it would have arguably been foolish to waste statistical power on inoculation regimes likely to show borderline protective effect, given what was known at the time.
1 reply 0 retweets 7 likes -
Replying to @Merz
Absolutely. Plus people were saying even a two year timeline was too optimistic. Do hoorah! On the other hand, they had this initial data months ago? If they had started then, we would already know by the time the second dose will come up. I wish we were more nimble in testing.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
I understand having the trial go for clearing the bar. I don’t understand why we are not a lot more aggressive with having more trials as quickly as possible given how much this is costing, both human and other costs.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
-
-
-
It would actually be interesting to see how medical ethicists might deal with such a trial at this juncture since the 2-dose schedule is now standard-of-care.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
The trial I'd really like to see is: Dose 1: mRNA Boost: AZ/Oxford
2 replies 1 retweet 6 likes -
The AZ vaccine is cheaper, easier to produce, and has considerably better storage characteristics. That protocol might combine the best characteristics of both platforms.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
Given we’re going to vaccinate millions, why don’t we launch trials within them? (Oh, right, leadership).
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.
