I’m happy to engage, but the one part that think most about is the public sphere. So the question you raise—and it’s penumbra—is the one I actually think most about, and has had most of my career focused around. I’m not new to that part at all. The immunology is for the experts.
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.
-
And we (Michael and I) are advocating for going ahead with a two dose regimen while *immediately* going ahead with a trial—should have started yesterday. Which is the exact point this started from. I'm answering the "weaponization" charge separately.
- 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.