This is extraordinarily optimistic.
https://twitter.com/saraecook/status/1319739200502194179
To be clear, it's not impossible, and OWS surely has assumptions to support this. And yes we must be ambitious.
But many will assume and/or communicate that these *targets* are what they can *expect* to happen, when there are many unknowns and execution risks. 1/
But many will assume and/or communicate that these *targets* are what they can *expect* to happen, when there are many unknowns and execution risks. 1/
A few big ones: (1) we don't have *any* efficacy data, incl in elderly; (2) manufacturing scale-up is complex and delays very common; (3) first-time cold-chain, distribution and logistics; and (4) presumably more than one vaccine needs to succeed for this to happen; etc. 2/
As we've learned repeatedly, we need to get better at communicating risk and unknowns. And we need to be clear about what we *hope* will happen vs. what is *likely* to happen, taking those risks and unknowns into account. Leaders' credibility and public trust depend on it. 3/
Similar view from @ScottGottliebMD in conversation with @margbrennan, calling the timeline "aggressive" and explaining why.
I'll maintain "extraordinarily optimistic" and reiterate the need to separate "best case" from "base case."
I'll maintain "extraordinarily optimistic" and reiterate the need to separate "best case" from "base case."
https://twitter.com/FaceTheNation/status/1320388112942551040?s=20
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
