2 ms·
I've just learned in my thread above with the article author that there is no concept of exposing people post vaccination Phase II or III to see if it was effec
by irjustin 7y ago
I've just learned in my thread above with the article author that there is no concept of exposing people post vaccination Phase II or III to see if it was effective. We normally wait a long time to see if people get sick. If it's effective them we go to mass rollout.
That's where the huge time savings is.
My previous statement of "it's a Phase trial with less restrictions" isn't true. It's making the feedback loop tighter.
With this new knowledge, I'm relatively convinced we should be doing a challenge trial to speed up the roll out.
- danieltillett 7y agoThere is a concept of using a challenge trial, only it can only be used when the risk to the volunteer is very low. Challenge trial are used in trials on things like the common cold. SARS-CoV-2 is considered too dangerous to use in a challenge trial.
- cameldrv 7y agoThis is a great point. In order to get statistical significance, you need to subject the same number of people to the virus. In a non-challenge trial, we feel better about ourselves because the challenge is "natural", the subjects would have been exposed to it anyhow. In a challenge trial, you deliberately expose them. Either way, roughly the same number of people will be exposed to the virus. Meanwhile, maybe 1,000,000 people a day are catching COVID. The bottleneck that stops that from continuing every single day involves some risk (if the vaccine doesn't work), of a few hundred people, who are in the most favorable position if they catch it, who volunteered. "Better 1,000,000 people die from COVID than one person die that tried to stop it."