Weak yes - which is why we need the study. However, the data we DO have shows a 92% efficacy among people without a second dose. I don't see how this is so weak we should not seriously consider it. 2/983 vs 28/1059. Durability unknown - some ppl go out to 108 days.
So this is too interesting to discuss in tweets, but my sense is that the best way to get ahead of it is to run with it, before they do, but in an accurate and comprehensive way. Acknowledge shortcomings, etc. Somewhat based on research on "data voids" +
-
-
..but I agree there is no single easy way and hence I think these are really important, valuable discussions. If single dose trial is a good idea, I prefer that we run with it, along with all the caveats before the reckless versions gets out there (and it will). That's my sense.
-
But as discussed, not if the sci/empirical evid. jury is still out. Good idea or not a different issue from concern/goal to address misinfo abt it and its potential impacts. Comes down to framing for a lay audience & using tactics like eg truth sandwich... 1/
- 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.