I agree with Dr. @EricTopol. While we should prioritize looking at a single dose regimen as this piece suggests, I worry that the take-home message is that it's okay to skip the second dose or get a booster many months later. We don't know that.https://twitter.com/EricTopol/status/1339957304247033856 …
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @michaelmina_lab @angie_rasmussen
We're at odds because you are taking 2 large trials that were designed to test 2 doses and suggesting one dose might be fine w/o sufficient data. The point estimate of 52% has a lower 95% CI of <30%. After masks, aerosols, etc, the last thing the public needs is more confusion.
7 replies 1 retweet 52 likes -
The paternalism accusation won't work. I've worked very hard to work against that BS. What you are missing is that no one likes shots, no one wants to get a 2nd shot with more side effects. You're unwittingly supporting that convenient truth.
2 replies 0 retweets 25 likes -
Replying to @EricTopol @angie_rasmussen
I agree with this point. But I don’t see why we should not do the trials? Maybe our lines of communication are crossing incorrectly. I think we should do the trials. We should start today. Shouldn’t we?
3 replies 0 retweets 16 likes -
Was there are rationale for publishing in the New York Times rather than a scientific journal?
3 replies 0 retweets 8 likes -
Replying to @TAGHIVscience @michaelmina_lab and
That's the key point. This should have been in a sci journal commentary. Not everything is fit for NY Times--esp as the 1 shot theory has been getting attn by news and we are so early into just rolling out the authorized 2 shot protocol in an ecosystem where misinfo abounds.
1 reply 0 retweets 11 likes -
Replying to @RMCarpiano @TAGHIVscience and
Agreed. Already people are reading this as an endorsement of a one-shot regimen rather than a proposal for a trial. This is astonishing since yesterday
@zeynep was arguing that scientists are not doing a good enough job communicating nuance to the public.2 replies 1 retweet 18 likes -
Replying to @angie_rasmussen @RMCarpiano and
The idea for the one shot regimen—without a trial!—is already being pushed by very prominent politicians with a lot of power. I think the piece is pretty clear why this needs a trial. Of course I’m all for discussion especially since it needs resources and proper implementation.
2 replies 1 retweet 12 likes -
Replying to @zeynep @angie_rasmussen and
Clarity abt RCT a moot pt. Again, doesn't justify a NYT op-ed vs. sci journal commentary for expert discussion you say you seek. Implies a "well the horse already left the barn" rationale. If powerful politicians pushing misinfo a concern, then addressing that shld've been focus.
1 reply 0 retweets 7 likes
There seems to be broad agreement—here at least—that a trial is warranted and a disagreement on: if this should be a public discussion and venue. On the first I don’t think we have a choice. We haven’t since the beginning. That’s been an ongoing contention of mine. +
-
-
Replying to @zeynep @RMCarpiano and
On venue: Something like this needs attention and resources *and* public understanding—The fact I would argue exactly to prevent misinformation and misunderstanding. Doesn’t preclude other writing.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @zeynep @RMCarpiano and
"While we know that the single dose can protect against disease" seems like a strong statement - these were post hoc analyses, right? Your piece doesn't help any reader understand why post hoc analyses are problematic.
0 replies 0 retweets 4 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.