So, immunologically speaking, I don't disagree. But if we are going to change the recommendation (1 dose, delayed 2nd, etc)-then we are going to have a lot of ppl who mistrust us even more. We've asked ppl to follow the science/evidence. We've asked ppl to trust us (scientists)..
-
-
Especially given J&J was trialed later *and* in UK and South Africa with their big VOC spread, I'm not completely convinced there will easily be a statistically significant difference among them—whatever the—not completely comparable—efficacy numbers we are seeing in headlines.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I really like that idea. Knowing that AEs drive some hesitancy will want to add in likelihood of adverse events, especially those that aren’t actually associated w the vax (I get a lot of Bell’s palsy questions-which of course has no association w the vaccines)
-
Right. We track AEs to the hilt—as we should. It's excellent. Instead of touting how well we track them and try to give the data context, we just track them and make them publicly available without the necessary messaging push. And then they get weaponized by the misinformers.
End of conversation
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.
Once I get the J&J data, if there is granularity, I may do a power calculation on how big a sample we'd need to even tell them apart from results.