All Vinay, Wes, & Stefan need to say is, "our article, had it been heeded, would have led to even more spread of COVID, threatening the lives of many more, and obviously now would have resulted in more children dying. It's clear now that emergency authorization was appropriate."
Instead, its a bit embarrassing to say, but they seem more interested in redefining their message (Stefan embarrassingly now claiming all they wanted was for ACIP to meet...) than admitting that there can be a downside to being too cautious during an emergency situation.
Of course, the title gives away the message which is... and I'm not kidding, "We should wait longer for more data to come in before making this decision." 
As of this writing, is abundantly clear that:
* unvaccinated people, importantly children drove our most recent waves
* myocarditis is NOT a significantly concerning risk of the vaccine for kids
* vaccination prevents death and illness from kids, INCLUDING when we consider risk
* unvaccinated people, importantly children drove our most recent waves
* myocarditis is NOT a significantly concerning risk of the vaccine for kids
* vaccination prevents death and illness from kids, INCLUDING when we consider risk
It is also abundantly clear that had any regulatory authority actually *listened* to these three, we would have more kids dying, more covid spreading, and we would have done so in caution of a side effect that is now not a concern.
Simply, "The article was best when disregarded"
Simply, "The article was best when disregarded"
I am not simply "dunking on a 7 foot rim" because these three were dangerously wrong.
Many of us who understand clinical care, the uniqueness of pediatrics, and child mortality were VERY CLEAR that their article should be disregarded, and these three mocked us.
Many of us who understand clinical care, the uniqueness of pediatrics, and child mortality were VERY CLEAR that their article should be disregarded, and these three mocked us.
I am used to being mocked, this is an online space. What I feel needs calling out is that ALL of our (now obviously not only legitimate but right) concern about their (now obviously wrong) article was labelled as "attacking," "bad faith," and "silly."
I am certain that Wes and Vinay can't, but I believe that Stefan is a good & smart person who should be able to clearly state something like my first tweet in this thread. I'm not expecting it, but I think its possible.
/fin, probably.
/fin, probably.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
