Interesting piece that to me reads as ACIP making a bunch of value judgments without being clear that they’re doing so.
I left more sympathetic with Dr. Walensky’s decision not to accept some ACIP recs that were based on contestable value judgments 1/4
nytimes.com/2021/10/25/hea…
I left more sympathetic with Dr. Walensky’s decision not to accept some ACIP recs that were based on contestable value judgments 1/4
nytimes.com/2021/10/25/hea…
Why not use vaccines to prevent milder cases? This is value judgment city ⬇️
I think we should protect people worldwide from severe disease first, but since that wasn’t ACIP’s reason, this insistence seems confusing. Don’t we vaccinate against varicella & flu, even if mild?
2/4
I think we should protect people worldwide from severe disease first, but since that wasn’t ACIP’s reason, this insistence seems confusing. Don’t we vaccinate against varicella & flu, even if mild?
2/4
This reasoning is bad⬇️
Letting people in high risk groups *opt* to receive a booster need not mean that “everyone in those groups needs a booster today”
Booster access should not be based on speculation about how boosters affect people’s perceptions of 2 shot vaccination!
3/4
Letting people in high risk groups *opt* to receive a booster need not mean that “everyone in those groups needs a booster today”
Booster access should not be based on speculation about how boosters affect people’s perceptions of 2 shot vaccination!
3/4
This misuses the concept of evidence. Weak evidence ≠ no evidence.
Strongest evidence: 2-shot vaccination
Weaker evidence: boosters
“Not evidence based”: sticking berries up your nose
Experts need to find ways to communicate about degrees of evidence, not do this ⬇️
4/4
Strongest evidence: 2-shot vaccination
Weaker evidence: boosters
“Not evidence based”: sticking berries up your nose
Experts need to find ways to communicate about degrees of evidence, not do this ⬇️
4/4
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
