Thread by @DrJayVarma

I worry that many commentators who opposed the Biden booster plan in the US succumbed to the same problem that mucked up mask guidance in Spring 2020: framing a supply-based recommendation (we don't have enough) as an evidence-based recommendation (you don't need it) 1/

https://twitter.com/joshtpm/status/1465351309004005377

I think it's much more credible to say "We wish everyone could wear a medical-grade mask, but we simply don't have enough right now so you need to sacrifice for healthcare workers" VS. "You don't need a medical-grade mask" (unspoken: because we don't have enough). 2/

In the first framing, you can then follow up by saying "We are working to produce more, and we think that by X date we will have enough for everyone." 3/

Similarly: "We wish everyone could get a booster right now, but you'll be better protected if we use those doses first to protect everyone on earth then start boosters here on [date]" is far more credible than "You don't need a booster dose" (unspoken: we need them elsewhere). 4/

Our best evidence today (subject to change, of course) is that most people will benefit from 3 doses of an mRNA vaccine. It reduces #COVID19 both directly (protect you) & indirectly (protects community -> fewer breakthroughs). /end