A single line often inverts meaning once you see what it
answers, so neighbouring messages are always shown.
-
but unfortunately it's not what they doinghttps://www.forbes.com/sites/brucejapsen/2020/06/02/fauci-modernas-phase-3-covid-19-vaccine-trial-will-include-30000-young-and-old-individuals/#316e15174f75
-
I'm _super_ worried about Moderna... Just not convinced that thing is safe.
-
Basically for Moderna they are immunizing/placeboing 30,000 people then sending them out to see how many get infected.
-
They _really_ need to do that trial in high-transmission areas - i.e., not the North East!
-
2020-07-23 08:53
Robert F. Garry
Agree - maybe not safe but even more dangerous - it may not work at all or very well - either would be a setback.
-
Yeah, it's unclear to me - definitely appear to be "not safe", but as you say - it could be even worse. I'm super worried this is going to be Trump's next political trick - he would have _no_ hesitation pushing a vaccine through where we have very little or no data on population-wide safety
-
A small controlled trial of 300 people - maybe fewer- would get you the same information - does it work? you could have an answer in less than a month then move on to the next one if it doesn't. What are they telling these 30,000people - go out to bars? try to get infected. Probably not, but if they are giving them the proper advice - mask upsocial distance etc - you should have VERY FEW infections in the 30,000. Who did the power calculation to get30K?
-
Population-wise safety another issue - I doubt that any of the 30,000 are in at risk groups - old - respiratory illness,obesity etc.
-
Yup, very true - I'm just very worried that those 300 people wouldn't fully understand what they're signing up for. Need the safety data on the vaccine in any case, which already requires a lot of people - but I guess it depends onwhether we want (a) safety, or (b) efficacy data first. If the latter, challenge trial makes sense.