What about an immediate call for volunteers for a randomized group among the many millions who'll get the first shot? Data-wise, some of the initial groups aren't that high risk at the moment (<65 HCWs). The vaccine shortage is going to have huge implications on overall deaths.
-
-
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.
4 replies 2 retweets 49 likes -
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
The arguments being made are frustrating. Im just saying we should consider it and test it. This is a problem with twitter. Read the whole series of three tweets - I’m suggesting here to trial it - not just change course. Twitter can be a terrible platform for science comms.
3 replies 0 retweets 13 likes -
Replying to @michaelmina_lab @nataliexdean and
With all due respect, and I’m a fan, your original tweet set a very different tone
1 reply 0 retweets 7 likes -
Replying to @notdred @michaelmina_lab and
Agree. Just like we often only read or remember headlines, A LOT of people probably read the top of this tweet-which potentially undermines an already fragile foundation of people’s trust in public health & the vaccination program-w/o reading the finer points made.
2 replies 1 retweet 4 likes
I think the people who follow him and read the top tweet can follow the nuances; plus I think the lack of trust we experience is due to our failure to trust the public with details and complexity. I generally agree with headline problem but this isn't a misleading headline.
-
-
Replying to @zeynep @jakescottMD and
FWIW, I put myself in the category of "laypeople who follow epidemiologists, immunologists, and virologists and are pretty good with nuance" and I initially misread both him and you as saying we should immediately pivot to a one-dose regimen while supply is limited.
0 replies 0 retweets 2 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.