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. +
Senators tweeted about it, it went viral, got written up so much (misrepresented). It was a small study in a small journal! The journal ended up having to add an addendum. Barely helped. Anyway. Things can't be walled off. Totally open to how to communicate better!
-
-
Research (especially disaster sociology) says accountability and transparency help, but it is a rapidly changing environment so we're all going with some sense of things as we see them, here. And I think detailed explanations are good but always worth thinking about framing.
-
So I appreciate the feedback! As an addition, data-wise, I am particularly concerned that there won't be sufficient resources to track down and provide booster to older people who clearly are higher risk but more likely to miss it. (HCW will not miss it).
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
For now, *first* emphasize the absolute necessity to get the second shot until there are studies showing long term one shot scenario, then mention that there's a way to logistically to maximize getting 1st shot more widely if you know 3 week production rate exceeds 1st roll qty.
Thanks. 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.