Share this page!

Katherine J. Wu, Ph.D. Profile picture
Twitter logo
18 Dec, 6 tweets, 3 min read
1/5 with such expansive booster recommendations, the phrase "fully vaccinated" is only getting murkier, and a lot of experts are pushing for the CDC to change it.

but is it even the right way to be looking at our COVID-19 vaccines?

theatlantic.com/health/archive…
2/5 the term implies a kind of finality - something we can't really have when we're still figuring out the ideal regimen, and what vaccines are supposed to accomplish, and how often we'll need to update them

theatlantic.com/health/archive…
3/5 we could change the definition now as a kick in the pants for people to get boosted. but what does that do for the unvaccinated? and what happens if we need to change it again? and are we really sure that boosters are third primary doses?

theatlantic.com/health/archive…
4/5 we need better goal setting, and some humility. I, like several others, would prefer we switch to "up to date" - an already-used term that's flexible enough to accommodate individual differences in health, time since last vaccination, and changing environmental circumstances
5/5 thank you to @celinegounder @jasonlschwartz @gleehms @DrPaulOffit @Boghuma @SaadOmer3 for weight in on this. the science is essential, but so is the way we talk about it.

theatlantic.com/health/archive…
*weighing

if only I could type

• • •

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

Keep Current with Katherine J. Wu, Ph.D.

Katherine J. Wu, Ph.D. 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 @KatherineJWu

Katherine J. Wu, Ph.D. Profile picture
20 Oct
hi there! are you mourning the loss of your antibodies, months out from getting your COVID vaccine? don't be—your absolute numbers might be down, but the average *quality* of the antibodies you have now is much higher than it was before. 1/

theatlantic.com/science/archiv…
that's the silver lining of "waning"—which, honestly, I prefer to see as a refinement, a sort of weeding out of mediocrity, rather than some mass culling of protection. 2/

theatlantic.com/science/archiv…
all this centers on the immune system's ability to evolve over time. months after vaccination, your cells are still learning about the virus, and sharpening their SARS-CoV-2-sniping skills. it's actually kind of amazing, and yes, VERY Squid Game. 3/

theatlantic.com/science/archiv…
Read 4 tweets
Katherine J. Wu, Ph.D. Profile picture
3 Sep
I wrote about how vaccine effectiveness is (surprise!) a very, very complex thing.

This is a dive into some of the science behind recent reports of post-vaccination infections and sicknesses, and why the numbers seem to so often conflict. 1/

theatlantic.com/science/archiv…
The key is that vaccine "protection" can take many forms, depending on what our goals are. Some forms of protection are easier to achieve than others. Vaccine effectiveness is not a monolith, which means certain safeguards can hold while others slightly falter. 2/
And when certain types of vaccine protection do seem to wane, there can be a multitude of explanations. Disentangling them can help us deal with them. Remember that infection is a push and pull between pathogen and host; a change in either one can tip the balance between them. 3/
Read 8 tweets
Katherine J. Wu, Ph.D. Profile picture
16 Aug
I know a lot of people are frustrated and angry right now. But it doesn't help anyone if we mock, ridicule, slander, or portray the unvaccinated as our "enemies," or being on the virus's "side."

Being unvaccinated is not a monolith... 1/4
theatlantic.com/health/archive…
And the ways in which we describe vaccines and vaccination really, really matter.

People sometimes try to say that they're referring only to people who are "willfully" unvaccinated. But that's an oversimplification... 2/4

theatlantic.com/science/archiv…
Fear, lack of access, lack of education, exposure to misinformation, etc. often co-occur. And even those who have been acting in misguided ways deserve our compassion.

In a pandemic, you also can't will the virus to infect only the people you're angry at. 3/4
Read 4 tweets
Katherine J. Wu, Ph.D. Profile picture
13 Aug
There's really nothing else out there *quite* like a vaccine: something that protects everyone's health *by* protecting individual health.

I wrote about how many of the vaccine analogies we default to struggle to capture public health. 1/

theatlantic.com/science/archiv…
Finding a perfect analogy is tough. You'd ideally want a tangible tool that can benefit health on multiple scales; something that varies in performance, according to local conditions; something that addresses a threat that is infectious. 2/
Don't get me wrong, I love a lot of the analogies we've all used, and I think they still have their place. But they might be subtly signaling to a frustrated and confused public that vaccination is merely a personal decision, with penned-in consequences. 3/
Read 7 tweets
Katherine J. Wu, Ph.D. Profile picture
10 Aug
Pediatric cases of COVID-19 are spiking across the country. 1/

theatlantic.com/health/archive…
I wrote about how some of that is the sheer arithmetic of a more transmissible variant, tearing through a largely unvaccinated population—but also about the very valid concerns parents have about Delta's severity. 2/

theatlantic.com/health/archive…
It's a very tough time to be a kid under 12, or a caregiver for one. To know that there is ever-present danger, and to not be able to access one of the most powerful tools that can fight it. 3/

theatlantic.com/health/archive…
Read 8 tweets
Katherine J. Wu, Ph.D. Profile picture
30 Jul
howdy!

remember Ct values? those numbers spit out by certain types of PCR tests, including some of the ones we use to test for the coronavirus?

let's talk. 1/
Ct values correlate with how much viral RNA is in the sample. so if you're running several samples on a test platform, and some have higher Cts, those have *less* RNA (it's a reverse scale; Cts count how many times you have to copy the genetic material before it's "visible") 2/
Ct values do not tell you if the viral RNA belongs to an intact virus or an infectious virus. they also don't measure how directly "transmissible" someone is. to measure transmission, we need epidemiological data - how are *actual humans* spreading the virus? 3/
Read 5 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

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

Like this author's thread?

Get emails when @KatherineJWu has new unrolls!

Check out other threads from @KatherineJWu!

Read all threads by @KatherineJWu

:(