Read on Twitter
It's very interesting to me how this debate is evolving.
First, note how people are willing to tolerate some uncertainty in the data given the public health emergency. That's appropriate. It's still science-based reasoning.
Second, I would argue something a bit different...1/ https://twitter.com/Bob_Wachter/status/1345741327330263042
First, note how people are willing to tolerate some uncertainty in the data given the public health emergency. That's appropriate. It's still science-based reasoning.
Second, I would argue something a bit different...1/ https://twitter.com/Bob_Wachter/status/1345741327330263042
I would not argue for a '2nd shot deferred strategy.'
I would argue for a 2-shot strategy, but relying more on the supply chain to provide 2nd dose on time, not sticking vaccines in freezer to save for that 2nd shot.
It's a bit different, but based on the same reasoning... 2/
I would argue for a 2-shot strategy, but relying more on the supply chain to provide 2nd dose on time, not sticking vaccines in freezer to save for that 2nd shot.
It's a bit different, but based on the same reasoning... 2/
What does that mean? It means that some people might have a delayed 2nd shot if the supply chain does not keep up. But most people will get the 2nd shot at 21/28 days.
But it avoids keeping vaccine in warehouses just to make sure everyone gets 2nd shot exactly on time....3/
But it avoids keeping vaccine in warehouses just to make sure everyone gets 2nd shot exactly on time....3/
As I previously mentioned, Pfizer had some people get the 2nd shot up to 20 days late in their phase 3 trial - they were still analyzed.
I'm trying to figure out how many. But allowing some delay in rare circumstances would be consistent with the RCT. https://twitter.com/walidgellad/status/1345334133506019328?s=20
I'm trying to figure out how many. But allowing some delay in rare circumstances would be consistent with the RCT. https://twitter.com/walidgellad/status/1345334133506019328?s=20
