@DiseaseEcology @US_FDA @rebeccajk13 @Steve_Bellan I may not be explaining well, and it's a subtle thing I'm trying to say. I think it is important to know effect on serologic infection. My point is that there may well be a vaccine that 1) makes disease less likely/severe, 2) makes shedding much less and 3) permits seroconversion
@DiseaseEcology @US_FDA @rebeccajk13 @Steve_Bellan Such a vax would look good on the disease endpoint (esp if they use our approach or similar to correct for missed infections), but null on the infection endpoint. This vaccine would be very good for herd immunity (and direct protection) but the analysis might miss that fact.
@DiseaseEcology @US_FDA @rebeccajk13 @Steve_Bellan Basic issue I think is that infection and infectiousness => seroconversion but seroconversion !=>infectiousness
@DiseaseEcology @US_FDA @rebeccajk13 @Steve_Bellan Put one more way (then going to bed) -- would like to have an endpoint of infectiousness, and I don't currently see a simple practicable way to do that -- neither symptoms nor infection (seroconv) is synonymous, but monitoring someone for virus continuously is expensive
@DiseaseEcology @US_FDA @rebeccajk13 @Steve_Bellan Maybe also confusing -- my thread started "we anticipated this need in paper last year" & the 2nd part was "wonder if this need is the key q'n, and therefore if our approach fully solves the most important problem" -- it does solve an imp prob, but still more thought needed
