3 ms·

I think the idea is to run multiple trials, each _still_ with 40,000 patients. That way we could have approved a 2-week dosing schedule and started giving out t

I think the idea is to run multiple trials, each _still_ with 40,000 patients. That way we could have approved a 2-week dosing schedule and started giving out the first doses, and by the time the first patients are ready for their 2-week dose, the results of the 4-week dosing schedule would be ready, etc, etc. So we could push back the 2nd dose "indefinitely", preventing this issue in the first place. (Assuming by the time the 2nd dose is really worth getting, we have already made enough vaccines that the scheduling details are less important)

clankyclanker 6y ago
You're neglecting the time it takes to recruit 40,000 patients. It's not fast or easy to identify those folks, as a significant number of people have disqualifiers (like comorbidities e.g., obesity). Once they're identified as candidates, you still need to go through the task of recruiting them, likely through their healthcare network. You can't just use automated calls for that because nobody's going to trust a recording that promises "Free Vaccine Fast, Act Now!" They likely ran the trial with 40,000 patients because that was all the qualified patients they were able to quickly contact reliably enough to include them in the study (otherwise you have study dropouts, as mentioned in other comments above).
refurb 6y ago
You can’t add more arms to a trial and keep the number tested the same without losing “statistical power”.