OK, bc of Stanford Med #COVID19 vaccine algorithm fiasco & N@te Silver’s recent tweet re: vaccine priority guidelines, I have to talk about one of my favorite topics! I even drew an illustrative Venn diagram! (I’m already imagining @rdpeng rolling his eyes. I’m sorry, Roger!) 1/
Key background 1: Because of limited supplies of #COVID19 vaccine, a federal advisory board making recommendations about the order in which people should get vaccinated (don’t get distracted: these recs are non-binding; real action is at state level) 2/ nytimes.com/2020/12/20/hea…
Key background 2: Infection fatality rates (IFRs) for #COVID19 increase markedly with age. Note the y-axis is on a log-10 scale. The IFR for COVID-19 for an 80 yo is literally ~1,000 times greater than for a 5 yo & ~100X greater than for a 40 yo 3/
So that should settle it, right!? Age is the most important consideration for COVID-19 death burden so the older people should have first dibs on vaccine, right? Right…? Well, now let’s talk about Stanford Health Care!
4/
Key background 3: Most states have started vaccination with hospital-based health care workers.
5/
Stanford’s hospital had to decide which HCWs would get vaccine first. Stanford decided to prioritize older people over younger people in first round of vaccination. Cool, right?
To explain, here’s the promised Venn diagram! I drew three circles: 1 circle for high risk of exposure to virus (left), 1 for high risk of infection *if* exposed (right), and 1 for high risk of death/grave sickness *if* exposed *and* infected (bottom). 7/
The Venn diagram distinguishes btw exposure and infection because #SARSCoV2 is not highly infectious if proper mitigation is in place. Exposure is not enough to cause infection. Infectiousness thrives in particular conditions:
Further, high IFR for older age groups is a “conditional” statistic. IFR = risk of death *IF* one is exposed to #SARSCoV2 virus & *IF* one is infected with that virus. This Venn diagram makes this explicit: Bottom circle is IFR. But 2 other circles also matter for death risk
9/
Now back to the Stanford! Many hospital MDs have high exposure risk (left circle) but low workplace infection (right circle). By now, most US hospitals have decent mitigation (ventilation & adequate-although limited-PPE), so infection risk relatively low during clinical care 10/
If argument to prioritize vaccine by age based on the bottom circle (theoretically high IFR), the decision to prioritize HCWs is based on the left circle (theoretically high exposure). Others have written interesting threads about this moral tension.11/
In general US popn, when you prioritize by age (bottom circle), you prioritize lots of folks at virtually no risk of exposure & infection (not ideal). *But* you also sweep in high-exposure, high-infection-risk older folks actually at highest risk of #COVID19 death (dark green)12/
But what happens when you apply the age priority scheme (select by IFR, conditional risk of death) to a population selected on the basis of their theoretical level of *exposure*? You get this!
You get ludicrous results like a wealthy 68 yo Stanford Health Care radiologists and executives who work from home in spacious houses getting prioritized ahead of 29 yo residents with two roommates who work in the ED every day. 14/
Once you restrict to hospital-based MDs (purple in Venn diagram), age prioritization loses advantage of getting some of the highest risk folks (dark green) incidentally. With Stanford MDs, you’re not getting any of highest risk people--but you get older WFH Stanford docs! 16/
I wrote a related @Biostatistics commentary. Applying algorithms (like one that prioritizes vaccination) to a new context can give really biased results if you don’t understand the mechanisms by which the algorithm worked in your original population 17/
This thread was originally going to include a whole other general discussion of tension btw prioritizing based on age vs exposure & infection risk, but I’ll save that for another day. Basically: while prioritizing by age seems like a no-brainer, it’s often more complicated 18/
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Been thinking a lot about this, especially the “for a paycheck” part. I have many relatives working in jobs where it’s impossible to distance, avoid closed spaces, etc. It is 100% a failure of govt (US senators esp) to provide money for businesses & workers to stay home...1/
But me getting on a soapbox about
the stimulus bill US should have passed this summer is neither here nor there for my relatives who need to make decisions today about work, even when they know perfectly well (thanks to yours truly!) that their work environments are not safe 2/
If I sat in my home office or in my empty campus office typing away about how “everyone should just stay home & this would all be over, The End,” I’d have no credibility with them. (They love me though, so they’d just 🙄 & quietly ignore my posts. 😂) 3/
Recent paper published on impacts of #COVID19#K-12 school closures on well-being of students over the very longterm. This topic of major interest to me, but paper not great. Thread critiques methods & interpretation informatively & constructively!
I particularly appreciated @ikashnitsky’s critique. I believe her use of “deterministic” corresponds to #epitwitter term, “causal”. @MariaGlymour What do you think of her assessment of this literature?
Ok, LOL. Looking back, @jburnmurdoch’s tone is more acerbic than I recalled. I only note this bc I posed this thread as a model of constructive critique in tweet 1 but some of the tone spicier than my personal ideal. 😂
Someone close to me is in this vaccine trial. I am so moved by every single volunteer for these trials. They took a risk to give the world a tremendous gift. I’m literally crying. The world owes them so much...
And it looks like all the severe cases were in placebo group, so vaccine may not just reduce risk of getting sick overall but also prevent severe illness. 🙏🏾
Also some promising news about placebo arm folks: “Dr. Zaks said Moderna’s study results were so strong that the company felt an ethical obligation to offer the vaccine to the placebo group as soon as possible.” From @nytimes. Stay tuned
.@ER_Mayeda cautions, Methods of correcting for selection bias, eg, IPW, only as good as understanding of selection processes that gave rise to data. Reminds me of polling in 2016 & 2020 US elections. When system is dynamic, can’t rely on past trends; need other ways of knowing
Reading this article (in which I'm quoted near the end), I realized why I have such a strong visceral reaction to some of the negative coverage of @ProfEmilyOster's work on #COVID19 and schools...prospect.org/coronavirus/wh… 1/
..The treatment of @ProfEmilyOster reminds of 2016 press coverage of @HillaryClinton! An outsized focus on that woman's flaws had big long-term consequences.(I'm not a media studies or communications person, so I may be totally off, but I swear there's a PhD thesis in here! 2/
On to my promised tweets on #epitwitter data about #SARSCoV2/#COVID19 among children and particularly in school settings. It's less comprehensive than I hoped, but I'm trying not to let the perfect be the enemy of the good... 3/
Again, many great quotes but this one deeply resonated with my personal experience: “Yet when Black women ‘do say no to additional projects, we are seen as anti-team player, unwilling to be collegial,’ Lima-Neves said...”2/
The most galling thing said to me in 2020 was from a senior leader in response to my asking him why his leadership team was all-White over many years despite the presence of talented non-White faculty (like myself)...