Share this page!

Govind Persad Profile picture
Twitter logo
10 Apr, 4 tweets, 2 min read
This mechanistically backs up the evidence of vaccine benefits 10 days after *first* dose from the original Pfizer trial

Underscores the extremely strong precautionary and benefit maximizing case for surging vaccines to Michigan
We have the luxury of two very good options

We have enough supply that we could send MI more vaccines. Only Jeff Zients’ bizarre burden-insensitive conception of “fairness” prevents this

Or we could let MI extend dosing intervals by 2 weeks to get first doses to more people
But apparently sticking w/an ethically ungrounded Trump Admin holdover policy of giving vaccines only proportional to population (which many states aren’t doing intra-state), & an arbitrarily selected dosing interval, is more important than letting people in MI protect themselves
This by @ManvBrain is a good explainer on mRNA first dose protection after 10 days

google.com/amp/s/nymag.co…

And it’s not a new finding—the data discussed was analyzed Feb 17, nearly 2 months ago, in NEJM: nejm.org/doi/full/10.10…

US policy & public info should acknowledge this

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
　

Keep Current with Govind Persad

Govind Persad Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @GovindPersad

Govind Persad Profile picture
13 Apr
I agree that a pause isn't permanent & the FDA should track safety concerns

But forced "pausing" (AKA cancelling people's J&J appointments) isn't the right move

People should be given the info & allowed to choose

Deaths from Covid b/c you weren't vaccinated are permanent

1/3
This feels like Germany's mistakes on AZ's vaccine

I thought the "precautionary principle" popular there might be why nytimes.com/2021/03/19/wor…

But it seems telling people stuck on the trolley tracks they can't use a ladder to get out isn't confined to that side of the pond

2/3
Imagine if we'd had a J&J vaccine that was 10% less *effective* than our current one, but didn't potentially have any rare side effects

That vaccine would lead to more deaths than the one we have

Yet I'd guess FDA would have no problem letting people choose to use it

3/3
Read 4 tweets
Govind Persad Profile picture
20 Dec 20
For those following #ACIP vaccine prioritization debate - proposal to have 75+ alongside frontline workers in phase 1B is interesting, and different from prior discussion. But there are still pitfalls with any age cutoff, whether 75 or 65, as I explained in a comment to ACIP /1
Down Syndrome deaths are disparately high and happen before 75. 54%, 61%, and 69% of Black, Hispanic, and AI/AN deaths (respectively) happen before 75. I haven't seen US data on income x age at death, but a similar gradient is plausible, and may help explain the race data. /2
So I continue to think #ACIP should encourage states & localities to look at overlapping risk factors like housing+age as LTCF priority did and @CDCDirector suggested, rather than using age cutoffs that sweep in ppl at very different risk & exclude some /3
Read 6 tweets
Govind Persad Profile picture
20 Dec 20
Last (grumpy) thread about #ACIP vax prioritization before bed. Sure, there are some hard tradeoffs, though looking for overlapping risk should make it easier, & ACIP could have had better framing. But critics have been a real mess. Exhibit A, dishonest quoting (aka lying): 1/6
Redfield: need to"demonstrate that we as a Nation also prioritize the elderly (>70 yo) who reside in multi-generation households. Often our Hispanic, Black and Tribal Nations families care for their elderly in multigenerational households and they are also at significant risk."2/
Here, current @CDCDirector Redfield (hardly "Mr. Woke"), after endorsing long term care priority, is sensibly arguing for another multi-factor (age+housing risk) priority similar to LTCF, which would also address disparities for "Hispanic, Black, and Tribal Nations families" 3/6
Read 7 tweets
Govind Persad Profile picture
19 Dec 20
Thread on interconnected #bioethics problems in #COVID19 vaccine allocation: (1) the Stanford med center allocation debacle, (2) Rupert Murdoch, and (3) high-profile calls for age-only (“oldest first”) allocation policies. If you like (3), unfortunately you get (1) and (2). 1/7
People are right to be upset w/Stanford: see @CarolineYLChen excellent piece . But it’s not “algorithms”, it’s inputs. If your inputs are too simplistic (age-only, ignore exposure or medical risk), you get bad outcomes, e.g. no residents, senior WFH 1st 2/7
Same w/ Murdoch: . People are right to be upset. But age-only priority like the UK (start w/85+ or 90+), ends up prioritizing Murdoch over a 60 yo bus driver. Who lives to 90? We know the answer: more often, wealthier people. Need to consider other risk 3/7
Read 9 tweets
Govind Persad Profile picture
16 Apr 20
This op-ed by Harald Schmidt @PennMEHP is a hugely valuable contribution to the #bioethics debate over ventilator allocation, & would have applications to other scarce resources as well. Some thoughts /1
Modifying SOFA score w/"weights" based on race would be struck down in federal court (& certainly by this SCOTUS) under #ParentsInvolved precedent scholar.google.com/scholar_case?c…. Not endorsing that precedent, but crucial to recognize it. Area Deprivation Index is better approach /2
Rather than using Area Deprivation Index "weights" to adjust SOFA scores, it would be better to use the Area Deprivation Index as a tiebreaker within each SOFA-score group ("red" to "green"). Would likely save more lives of disadvantaged patients /3
Read 9 tweets
Govind Persad Profile picture
12 Mar 20
Glad to be able to contribute to growing discussion on a timely and crucial topic--fair health care allocation in the Covid-19 pandemic--alongside Zeke Emanuel & @DrPhillipsMD: nytimes.com/2020/03/12/opi…. A quick summary of our recommendations (mini thread)
1.The group getting first priority should be health care workers and other first responders.
2.For scarce curative interventions, like ICU beds and ventilators, the priority should be (1) saving as many people as possible, and (2) treating those who are likely to benefit most from care. This means treatment should not be allocated on a first-come-first-served basis.
Read 11 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

Like this author's thread?

Get emails when @GovindPersad has new unrolls!

Check out other threads from @GovindPersad!

Read all threads by @GovindPersad