3 ms·
It'd be a logistical nightmare to setup validated testing and so on for tens of thousands of participants. The studies coming out that did regular testing focu
by maxerickson 6y ago
It'd be a logistical nightmare to setup validated testing and so on for tens of thousands of participants.
The studies coming out that did regular testing focused on easily reached populations (medical workers) that may not have been representative of the wider population (so not suitable for the trials).
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2102153 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2102153
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2101927 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2101927
- fossuser 6y agoCouldn't they have at least done the rapid antigen test when they came in for their second dose? Maybe I'm underestimating complexity (typical for an outsider), but just seemed surprising to me when I heard that.
- sampo 6y agoAntigen test should show positive on vaccinated people.
- dcolkitt 6y agoJust collect data on the rate of infections of the members of the households of those in the study. Run an IV regression on the results. Since a significant fraction of transmission comes from those sharing a household, protection against asymptomatic transmission will show up in lower household infection rate among the vaccinated group.
- maxerickson 6y agoPreventing severe infection is a fine endpoint though. A vaccine or treatment that does that is a minimum viable tool for moving forward. Reduces deaths, reduces utilization of medical resources, etc, and then when it's a vaccine, it's pretty likely that it also reduces transmission. But it doesn't need to reduce transmission to be worth an awful lot.
- amluto 6y agoThis isn’t about whether to approve or use the vaccine. It’s about how to plan the public health response around the vaccine.