I don’t think you are seriously engaging with people who ask hard questions about this proposal. Yes trials should be run. Is there a way to advocate for that quietly, without spreading the *possibly* dangerous line that people only need one shot?
So, what do you think would be more effective to prevent this moment? Imagine, if, in March 2020, instead of saying masks were *harmful*, our public health leaders including Dr. Fauci had said: what about cloth masks and please don't hoard the N95s because there's a shortage?
-
-
I think your example makes my point stronger than I could. There is no "behind the scenes" thinking we can hide from the public and expect it to work out well. That just makes it easier for others to *convince* the public that the experts are not telling them the full truth.
-
I think you are double dealing here. Either people can understand or we can’t. If people can understand that the benefits of studying a one-dose regimen, then they surely can understand that public health officials went ahead with a two dose regimen until the new studies came in.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
I agree with you entirely about the past. The question I raise is whether an energetic, public campaign that raises any doubts at all about a two dose regimen could have corrosive effects that might swamp the benefits of a good study about a one dose regimen.
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.