I am just hoping this is misreporting, otherwise this takes “we have had enough of experts” to a whole new level. Britain Opts for Mix-and-Match Vaccinations, Confounding Expertshttps://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/01/health/coronavirus-vaccines-britain.html?smid=tw-share …
This may not have enough data because it is presented as an alternative to not offering any booster at all so may not have a sample size with power. Do you think it should be trialed anyway? Seems like something to avoid except as desperate measure? (Agree they should track).
-
-
(What I’m asking is is it worth a trial because there’s a potential upside? Rather than let’s do this very rarely as last option and track in case it’s harmful? If it is indeed a rare last-resort offered as an alternative to withholding booster, efficacy is less of a concern).
-
If it is intended to be used on those that might drop out of the system, its hard to see how it would be monitored. Presumably they could sign informed consent to take the booster as trial but would we ever find out what happened?
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
It seems doubly worrying in some ways if it will be deployed on edge cases that are unlikely to return. Hence there will be no data collected on this.
-
Yes they should track if they do it, even rarely. That said, they had a real trial planned on this. (Not because of supply—to see if it was better.) I’ll track down what happened. That’s what I was wondering, why is there an expectation it might be better?https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/dec/08/covid-mixed-vaccine-trial-likely-to-begin-in-uk-next-month …
- 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.