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.
-
-
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 -
Replying to @stevenjfrisch @nataliexdean and
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
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
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. +
-
-
Replying to @zeynep @stevenjfrisch and
The public does fly despite the insanity of the idea. We get into tin cans hurling across the sky because commercial aviation has managed to establish trust and has a process for it. None of us know fully know all "the facts" of flying—it's beyond our scientific understanding.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @zeynep @stevenjfrisch and
You're not convinced by facts either when you take a vaccine. Even the people on this thread with the immunology degrees don't have all the facts. We trust the process and the vouching of it by other people.
2 replies 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.