The question I’ve asked is whether boosting this idea in the NYT and elsewhere as opposed to working behind the scenes to develop a trial has potential downsides. All I hear from you and Michael is that this approach has no risks.
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.
-
-
We may be talking past each other. I am aware of what you an MM are advocating for. I think you two are 100% correct that such a trial is essential.
-
I do *not* claim that advocating for this publicly is the wrong way to go. I am asking is whether it might be the wrong way to go. There are reasons not to advocate for this publicly. It would be great to discuss those reasons, admit that they have some merit when they do...
- 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.