And the birch log breaks and you're up to your waist in glacier water and it's dark now and you still don't know quite where you are. You're in a situation you never would have considered letting yourself get anywhere near.
-
Show this thread
-
No single decision was that stupid. No single risk that you took was that huge. But you're big trouble now, because the risks compound and at every step there's turning back. This is how you get in trouble in the mountains from the moment you go off plan
11 replies 4 retweets 114 likesShow this thread -
Carl T. Bergstrom Retweeted Carl T. Bergstrom
^*no* turning back [ And darn it, I screwed up the threading. This was supposed to be in there somewhere. Doesn't matter for the vaccine analogy, but it was a part of the story. I mean, it would be, if there had been such a story. ]https://twitter.com/CT_Bergstrom/status/1345207446873096193 …
Carl T. Bergstrom added,
Carl T. BergstromVerified account @CT_BergstromAfter an hour of pushing through undergrowth, you step out onto an open ledge—and it's not at all where you thought you were going to end up. You can keep pushing for that back side of the peak, but but it'll be dark in two hours and you're many miles from camp.Show this thread1 reply 1 retweet 31 likesShow this thread -
So does that mean we shouldn't consider a 1-dose strategy? I guess it depends how well you think the analogy holds. To me it does feel like taking one more risk after a run of bad breaks (fall wave, slow rollout, UK strain) in hopes that *it* will be the one that bails you out.
10 replies 2 retweets 74 likesShow this thread -
But it's just that, an analogy. I'm trying to explain why shifting to a one-dose strategy feels so risky to me, not make a definitive argument about what we should be doing at this stage in the pandemic.
13 replies 5 retweets 121 likesShow this thread -
Case in point, via
@LonesSmith We'll see more of this sort of thing the further off plan we go.https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/01/health/coronavirus-vaccines-britain.html …20 replies 7 retweets 64 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @CT_Bergstrom @LonesSmith
That is such a misleading hotline for what they’re actually planning to do. I read the actual guidance documents. It essentially says make every effort to match types but if the first vaccine is not known and especially if the individuals high risk, do not withhold the booster.
1 reply 4 retweets 46 likes -
It doesn’t even say it’s a good idea & notes the lack of interchangeability. It just says if you got a high-risk person that’s probably not gonna return and if you don’t know the first type, go ahead with what you have—better than nothing. I don’t get why the headline or a story.
2 replies 0 retweets 28 likes -
*headline
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Indeed the document makes it clear this is in exceptional circumstances only. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/948757/Greenbook_chapter_14a_v4.pdf …pic.twitter.com/Tdzx4bTTUL
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes
Yep
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.