Yes the first COVID vaccines will face challenges, but the overall situation is quite promising. Thread.
First, we can’t predict how good the first vaccines will be - we need Phase 3 data. We shouldn’t assume they will be very effective, poorly-effective, or “so-so.” 1/
It's true that some "second wave" vaccines will be better, because they're intended to address gaps, but that doesn't mean the first vaccines won't be good.
Second, don't underestimate complexity of aligning multiple Phase 3 vaccine programs around a single master protocol. 2/
This would have delayed the Phase 3 trials, with a human cost. It's not just about companies aligning with each other and regulators - it requires rigorous matching of the placebo arm with multiple vaccine arms to avoid reaching the wrong conclusions about efficacy. 3/
Third, no matter how effective initial vaccines are, we’ll need to continue masks, physical distancing, etc, until high uptake achieved. Measures will be relaxed over time as population immunity increases. It was never going to be an “on/off” scenario when first doses arrive. 4/
Fourth, we should be able to make comparisons of efficacy and safety between trials, given that the trials are well-controlled and overlap in primary and secondary endpoints. This is routinely done with vaccines. Recommendations will be refined as effectiveness data gathered. 5/
Finally, early licensure of some vaccines won’t prevent testing of subsequent vaccines, given that: (a) placebo-controlled trials can continue in populations where the vaccine hasn’t been deployed;... 6/
...(b) we may identify correlate(s) of protection in the Phase 3 trials that preclude the need for large efficacy trials of subsequent products; and (c) other reasons, some of which are outlined in this paper from a WHO expert panel. 7/ sciencedirect.com/science/articl…
Yes we've never introduced multiple vaccines w/different profiles, and distribution, training, education, monitoring create huge complexity. Planning is needed across the system and with the public to avoid chaos. But 9 mos into the pandemic, the overall picture is promising. 8/
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
This is a thread on the use of antibody tests (serology) to gauge individual risk for COVID-19 infection. It's triggered by the recent @WHO guidance and the push for "immunity certificates" to get people back into the workplace. @jeremyfarrar@laurie_garrett@mvankerkhove 1/8
The science isn’t there, and it could get us into trouble for two reasons: partial immunity and risk perception. A history of COVID-19 and/or circulating antibodies may not translate to complete protection in all individuals. This is the case for circulating coronaviruses. 2/8
We’ll likely see spectrum of protection, with many people having "partial immunity," meaning that they can be reinfected but with less severe symptoms or no symptoms at all. These individuals may "shed" lower amounts of virus but could still infect others. 3/8