How can we be most rational about rare adverse events after vaccination? I discussed the risk of #GuillainBarre syndrome after the @JNJNews#vaccine with @ShyannMalone this morning. Some thoughts in this thread (1/n)
2. I have been speaking with several "on the fence" people. Not yet vaccinated, not fully opposed to vaccination. They are all intelligent, thoughtful individuals. They can quote me the numbers in terms of risk, and acknowledge the very low risk of adverse events post-vaccine.
3. They do not seem to have a misunderstanding of the raw numbers, though they do tend to have a pessimism bias: "sure, the risk may be 1 in 100,000, but I just know I'll be that one".
4. One recurring theme? The problem of agency. They feel that a bad outcome, after a choice they made actively (to get vaccinated) feels worse than a bad outcome of a passive choice (not getting vaccinated / getting infected).
5. They anticipate the regret they will have if they happen to have a (rare) vaccine side-effect. It is more acute because it was THEIR choice. I'm sure some psychologist can tell me what this is technically called, but it seems fairly uniform.
6. So I think we need to start being a little more clear that, at this point in the pandemic, if you live in the US, getting COVID-19 is also a choice.
How amazing is it that it is a choice at this point?! But it is.
The way you choose not to get it is by getting vaccinated.
7. In other words, there's no sitting on the sidelines here. Inaction (with regard to vaccination) is a choice to accept the consequences of infection in you or your loved ones.
8. This feels harsh as I read it. And I'm sure some of you have a better way to phrase it. But I think we need to give the same sense of agency to people who choose NOT to be vaccinated as to those who choose to be vaccinated.
9. Straight talk - most people who get COVID-19 do fine. But a substantial portion don't; more than 600,000 have died in this country.
Nearly all people who get vaccinated do fine - a miniscule portion don't.
No matter what, we're all making a choice. (/rant)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Do we need a third dose of @pfizer#vaccine? I spoke with @ShyannMalone about the data (and lack thereof). Key point to remember: antibodies are *supposed* to decline with time. Not a compelling indication for booster. Show us B/T cell data please.
Not enough time to discuss "why not?" - as vaccines are safe, effective, and plentiful. They are definitely NOT plentiful outside of the US - extra stockpiles could potentially be shared to reduce cases elsewhere (and the variants that arise from them).
Data stronger to consider third dose in immunosuppressed patients. Reasonable given the small population size, outsized benefit.
JUST OUT in @NEJM: Safety / Efficacy data for @novavax COVID-19 vaccine.
-89.7% efficacy against symptomatic COVID-19
-86.3% against alpha variant (B.1.1.7)
-96.4% against other variants
-NO hospitalizations, NO deaths in vaccine arm
DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa2107659
Brief thread:
@NEJM@Novavax The @novavax vaccine is a (spike) protein-based vaccine, with an adjuvant that psychs up the immune system. This is older tech, like pertussis / Hep B vaccines - and may (?!) be more acceptable to those who are a bit nervous about mRNA vaccines.
@NEJM@Novavax This report is on the UK trial - 15,000 participants. Half got placebo, half the vaccine (which is 2 doses, 21 days apart).
UK means this is mostly white people, though US data seems similar.
Folks, we need to talk about this Vitamin D trial. I have no stake in this game - take Vitamin D if you want but this pre-print is super sus. (THREAD) papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cf…
The paper is presented as a randomized trial of vitamin D supplementation in hospitalized patients with COVID. Interesting and important question! And the results appear dramatic:
If true, this would be one of (if not THE most) effective treatments for COVID. But there are problems...
Thread to discuss our new RCT (ELAIA-1) appearing in @bmj_latest that showed some unexpected results in the world of electronic alerts for acute kidney injury. bmj.com/content/372/bm…
Thread:
Even a mediocre vaccine can end the pandemic. But there are some caveats. I wrote about this on vox.com last week, vox.com/21528373/vacci…
but here are the highlights: (1/n)
Let's assume that, on average, every person with COVID-19 can infect 2 additional people (a bit lower than the R0 of 2.5 but makes math easier). (2/n)
To stop the pandemic, we need to prevent disease in 1 out of every 2 people.
So if the vaccine is 100% effective, we'd need to vaccinate 50% of the population.
(Technically vaccinate or infect 50% of the population but trying to stay simple.)
(3/n)