Stunned. Just stunned.

I've been seeing a lot of discussion around the dosage gaps recommended by government for the Astra/Oxford & Pfizer/BioNTech vaccines. My thoughts on the potential benefits & risks of such an approach, and the need for much greater transparency around these decisions. Thread.

The UK govt announced recently that both the Oxford & BioNTech vaccines would be now administered with a gap of between 4-12 weeks (so prioritise administration of first dose, given limited resources).

What is the basis of this?

The basis that's been discussed seems to be that
1) the first dose is likely to confer some degree of protection against disease, so better to roll this out as fast as possible, and
2) that for Oxford/Astra efficacy may be higher when the gap between doses is greater.

I discuss some of the technical details around the Oxford trial below for those interested in these. If you'd just like a summary of this, please skip to the summary tweet titled 'SUMMARY'.

What does published evidence show? The Astra/Oxford data are a bit messy because of protocol changes during the trial. This is because the trial was originally planned as a single dose trial, but a booster dose was added when developers realised that this would likely help.

#BREAKING
U.S. charges political scientist Kaveh Afrasiabi with acting as an agent of #Iran's regime.

https://t.co/fsmrOtgImm

Afrasiabi is a known Tehran apologist & strongly defends the world's number one terrorist Qassem Soleimani.

"Afrasiabi was actually a secret employee of the Government of Iran & the Permanent Mission of Iran to the UN who was being paid to spread their propaganda.... he intentionally avoided registering with the Dept. of Justice as the Foreign Agents Registration Act required."

“Mr. Afrasiabi never disclosed to a congressman, journalists or others who hold roles of influence in our country that he was being paid by #Iran's gov to paint an untruthfully positive picture of the nation."

Afrasiab on CNN with Amanpour & Reza Aslan, all Iran apologists.

"For more than a decade, Mr. Afrasiabi was allegedly paid, directed & controlled by #Iran's gov to lobby U.S. gov officials, including a congressman; and to create & disseminate information favorable to the Iranian gov."

Seen here with former regime president Mohammad Khatami.

"Afrasiabi has also been secretly employed by the Iranian government and paid by Iranian diplomats assigned to the Permanent Mission of the IMUN. Afrasiabi has been paid approximately $265,000 in checks drawn on the IMUN’s official bank accounts since 2007..."

1 of 52

As our national civics lesson continues to unfold on its march toward our 59th Presidential Inauguration on January 20, 2021 and Donald Trump’s second term, 45’s unmasking exercise (that’s a large part of what his first term had to be) continues toward its big climax.

2 of 52

In his 2017 Inaugural Address, President Trump proclaimed on behalf of his administration, “we are transferring power from Washington, D.C., and giving it back to you, the people.”

3 of 52

From my very biased vantage point, here’s how I like to think of that sentence.

It likely was the announcement of his two-pronged military campaign.

The first prong is obvious; it’s against foreign interference.

4 of 52

As we now clearly see, nothing short of a military campaign would suffice when global influencers have totally co-opted elements of our two major political parties.

5 of 52

The other prong has an internal focus: Washington, D.C.

X : Thoughts on private companies being on the boards of ICS (integrated care systems).
Me : Conflict of interest question? Supplier determining needs?
X : Yes
Me : It's ok, as long as
a) you have effective spend control
b) those private companies are JVs which Gov owns 51% of.

X : What if they are not 51% owned JVs?
Me : Ah, that's a bad idea. You really want your boards to have your interests at heart.
X : What about experience, partnership?
Me : Those are advisors and you take it with a pinch of salt and as much as possible use critical friends.

Suppliers will always tell you that they want to be your partners, to build a relationship, to be your friends, to find the win/win in much the same way a second hand car salesperson wants to be your buddy ... but their interests are not yours and never can be.

X : Critical friends?
Me : Occassionaly you can find critical friends. People that we willing to tell you the truth as they see it regardless of the consequences. They are not very common and it normally requires a deep sense of duty that exceeds any loyalty to others.

X : Can the relationship be symbiotic?
Me : Rarely but that depends. If the organisation has a core overiding principle of focusing on the customer need and I don't mean lip service to this but absolutely embedded into its very core then yes i.e. places like Amazon, Alibaba etc.