Yes, this is exactly what is meant by a follow on study to assess the non-inferiority of a single dose. I think we’re all saying the same thing! This is worth studying further in a rigorous trial. But I don’t think we should tinker with the current rollout for EUA populations.
-
-
Replying to @nataliexdean @zeynep and
The concern I have with this is the phase I data showing high total IgG titer but low nAb. Short term protection after dose 1 may be due to high levels of lower quality Abs, whereas much more potent Abs after 2nd dose may provide good longer term protection, plus the higher nAb
2 replies 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @stgoldst @nataliexdean and
All of this strikes me as reason to risk just-in-time delivery of a timely shot #2 (so more people can get vaccinated sooner) if that seems likely to be fulfilled on time, but not strong enough data to change regimens and forgo shot #2.
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
This seems better for optics as well. The plan is to give the second shot, but if we ran out of vaccine due to unmet deadlines, at least we get the pandemic far more under control while waiting for more doses in the pipeline.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Yes, that's an important point. "We did a clinical trial but decided to take a guess at an alternative regimen" is not the way to start a campaign about how safe and well tested vaccines are.
1 reply 0 retweets 23 likes -
I wish I could like this more than once.
2 replies 0 retweets 19 likes -
Replying to @nataliexdean @RidleyDM and
Sociologically speaking, of course we can't start with "we didn't test this" but I think we can certainly start with rapid trial and intermediate data, along with explaining the trade-offs. The public mistrusts arrogance and lack of transparency, not complexity and honesty.
2 replies 1 retweet 7 likes -
Replying to @zeynep @nataliexdean and
I think the medical profession (not addressing you guys at all!) really conflates these. They assume we can't tell people about uncertainty and trade-offs and then we end up in suboptimal positions, but we don't even get the trust because complexity/uncertainty isn't the problem.
1 reply 0 retweets 13 likes -
Replying to @zeynep @nataliexdean and
My guess is that if we had prelim data & asked for volunteers in non high-risk groups (for example, HCW: risk by exposure status not age), we'd be surprised by the update. The public can absolutely follow discussions of trade-offs under uncertainty if it's truly transparent.
2 replies 0 retweets 13 likes -
Replying to @zeynep @nataliexdean and
There is a meaningful percentage of the country's population who are certain that COVID-19 is a hoax and there's a larger percentage, perhaps ~50% of the population, who are likely to refuse vaccination, at least initially. It's easy to overestimate the audience.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Those numbers are at that scale exactly because of a history of *underestimating* the audience which is then worsened by the deliberate misinformation. There is a history here. If you don't trust people, they will never trust you back.
-
-
Replying to @zeynep @nataliexdean and
I would argue that Trump and his predecessors in propaganda leverage a simple truth: a large percentage of society are both easily seduced by lies and also impervious to factual arguments as an antidote.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @stevenjfrisch @nataliexdean and
In contrast, I think the sentiment expressed above is exactly why we're failing to compete with lies despite extraordinary scientific achievements, like vaccines. For one thing, it's not lack of trust in facts, it's lack of trust in experts. +
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like - Show replies
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.