As I said in the thread I know scientists *are* talking about it and I've appreciated following the discussions. But it seems like the discussions could be escalated to groups that have regulatory or policymaking authority or some other formal role in the process?
-
-
I think Gregg will empathize, given his history. I'm seeing projections of billions remaining unvaccinated in 2021—mostly global south, as it goes. The mRNA vaccines have been spectacular beyond expectation but their trials are also short term. We can/should trial for options.
-
Agree. We need to move quickly on trials of these vaccines and on those in pipeline.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
IMO a trial of 1 dose (plus placebo) vs. 2 doses would do the trick. I think we can answer this question without a placebo-only group (and I usually defend the need for placebo controls).
-
If there is a clinical demonstration that first shot induces sufficient antibodies to, at minimum, prevent severe cases and does so for months, then deferring second shot could make sense, even if it is ultimately required, no? See this: https://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-comments-made-by-tony-blair-suggesting-we-should-consider-using-all-available-vaccine-doses-in-january-as-first-doses-rather-than-keeping-some-back-for-use-as-second-doses/ …
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
The problem isn’t trial design. Every one of these options has been written up, designed, proposed. The problem is how many efficacy trials can a society support with finite # of investigators, volunteers, cash and morale, all in the face of multitudes of other important studies.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
- 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.