Categories Government
Over past week, have become convinced that getting all doses out now is better
Its NOT a no-brainer
Reasonable people can (and do!!) disagree
So here's why my thinking evolved
Thread
In @washingtonpost, @ashishkjha & I argue for the 2nd-shot-deferred strategy, partly by invoking the Mike Tyson principle. https://t.co/ZxrgVj3TJe We both came to this view because of the slow rollout & the new variant. But it's a tough call and reasonable people will disagree.
— Bob Wachter (@Bob_Wachter) January 3, 2021
Obviously, if you want to stick to the trials (reasonable position), then stay with standard interval
But soon, we'll be confronted with question -- do we give 2nd shot to some people or 1st shot to more people
Is there clinical trial evidence that 1 dose is helpful?
Yes
2/n
Yes
There is compelling data from Pfizer and Moderna trials that after about 10 d after 1 dose, you get 80-90% efficacy
https://t.co/38qlTYP77u
https://t.co/4V8SxM3tU5
So the BIG question is -- is that going to be durable beyond 21 to 28 days?
We don't know for sure
3/n
But while we may not be sure, it doesn't mean we have no idea
Here's one of our nation's most expert immunologists, @VirusesImmunity laying out her assessment of delayed vs immediate 2nd
My first tweet of 2021 is going to be about 1 dose vs. 2 dose vaccine. I have tweeted in the past of the immunological advantages of a 2 dose vaccine. However, given the enhanced transmission variants on the rise, we need a modified strategy. (1/n) https://t.co/si1bxgKqbf
— Prof. Akiko Iwasaki (@VirusesImmunity) January 1, 2021
What I take away from Dr. Iwasaki's thread and broader experience with vaccines is that it its unlikely that a short delay will harm protection
But we can't be sure
So why take this risk at all?
Why not just stay with the clinical trial?
Reasonable question
Here's why
5/9
Here's the defamation lawsuit that Dominion Voting Systems filed this morning against Rudy Giuliani: https://t.co/Wx4UQbK4xf
— Zoe Tillman (@ZoeTillman) January 25, 2021
"...Giuliani launched a viral disinformation campaign about Dominion that reached millions of people and caused enormous harm to Dominion" pic.twitter.com/xRGbSjXhOu
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
Giuliani Enriches Himself by Falsely Claiming That Dominion Fixed the Election— A Claim He Was Not Willing to Make in Court Because He Knew It Was False
13. By at least Election Day 2020, Giuliani had decided to claim that Donald Trump had won
Sitting in the WH just after midnight on election night, Giuliani ranted to top campaign aides: “[t]here’s no way he lost; this thing must have been stolen. Just say we won Michigan! Just say we won Georgia! Just say we won the election! He needs to go out and claim victory!”
[11/4] Patrick Byrne got in touch with Giuliani & Powell..& told them..he had known months earlier.. “goons” were going to steal the election..he..started funding a plan in Aug..“had this plotted out what they were going to do,” &... “reverse engineered” how..election was stolen.
Polls have consistently shown that the UK public currently has a much higher level of trust in TV and radio media than they do in the UK newspaper industry, which has consistently been found to be the least trusted in Europe: https://t.co/EY7DnA8SvW /2
The UK public's low level of trust in our newspaper industry should perhaps come as no surprise. In 2016 the Daily Mail and Sun were both called out for "fuelling prejudice" in an international report on rising racist violence: https://t.co/mdwZoWPtgf /3
In 2015, the United Nations spoke out, condemning "decades of sustained and unrestrained anti-foreigner abuse, misinformation and distortion" in the UK press: https://t.co/maP2ZIElrL /4
By contrast, UK broadcast media are currently held to a much higher set of standards. Although not perfect, OFCOM has strong powers to tackle racist and hateful coverage within TV and radio, eg: https://t.co/hXjbtkgU2s /5
My latest for
"The BBC needs a chairman committed to demolishing its institutional groupthink. . . . . . .it isn't going to get one, thanks solely to the timidity & duplicity of Johnson and his flaccid government"
As pretty much confirmed by @Madz_Grant's perceptive sketch of the new BBC chairman's not so much grilling as gentle warming by an unthreatening DCMS Select
"He fluently deployed trendy corporate jargon and phrases like 'matrix of diversity'. The licence fee, he added, was the 'least-worst' model, although 'when we next get a chance to review ... it may be worth reassessing'."
Doesn't exactly suggest a radical reformer, does it?
Already clear from Maitlis' continued blatant editorialising, despite new #BBC CEO's instruction to curb it, that Davie's executive writ barely runs to his own office door.
Sadly, BBC's new chairman looks unlikely to change that.
#DefundTheBBC
ICYMI: \u201cThere are millions of Americans who are very worried one man can create a lie so huge that his supporters believe in him over the principle of democracy."@maitis pushes Tea Party Movement co-founder @michaeljohns over his belief the election was "stolen"#Newsnight pic.twitter.com/SENIYKdbsd
— BBC Newsnight (@BBCNewsnight) January 14, 2021
\u201cWhen a person tells you who they are - believe them the 1st time\u201d
— Nick\U0001f1ec\U0001f1e7\U0001f1ea\U0001f1fa (@nicktolhurst) January 26, 2021
Boris Johnson calling for \u201cthe elimination\u201d of all Scottish people when he was editor of the Spectator. pic.twitter.com/eeTdvzv8NE
His former employer.
His school report.
The lies.
What people think of him.
This is the seventh day in a row you have danced to their tune. Do you not have one of your own?
"I am proud of Canada as a welcoming, modern, and inclusive country.\u201d\u2014 My statement. pic.twitter.com/Uu54A34T08
— Erin O'Toole (@erinotoole) January 17, 2021
2. This doesn't really say anything, though. It's all boilerplate. It's defensive. Does it move a single vote? Why have you been silent on the key issues of our era -- censorship, lockdowns, cancel culture, carbon taxes, UN/WHO misconduct? Because the CBC disapproves?
3. You will always be in a controversy, because you are a politician in an adversarial system. You cannot wish that away. What you can do is choose better battles -- ones where you're on the offensive and the Liberals are on the defensive. Why not try that?
4. I don't even know what you mean! When you're against Trump -- who do you mean? He's not in Canada. When you're against the "right" -- who do you mean? Whoever the Liberals the CBC tell you are off limits? Aren't you a party of the right? You are in a fetal position, begging.
5. Why not take a stand against lockdowns? Surely that would appeal to more Canadians than you connect with now. Why not talk against tech censorshi, and show Trudeau's connections to Silicon Valley's bullies? Why not stand up against cancel culture for real, not just in memes?