3 ms·

Yes they do a pretty good job here, at least in my limited experience. My wife and I are in the Pfizer study. We had a questionnaire, a swab, and blood draws f

Yes they do a pretty good job here, at least in my limited experience. My wife and I are in the Pfizer study. We had a questionnaire, a swab, and blood draws for antibody levels on enrolling, and have had multiple sets of bloodwork since then to watch our response. We have a weekly symptom check-in, and for any suspicious symptoms are directed to get a COVID test and notify them so they can follow up on results. In case we are unable to go get a test, we were all provided with a test kit for home use (which gets sent back to them).

loceng 5y ago
"... and for any suspicious symptoms are directed to get a COVID test and notify them so they can follow up on results" So the answer is no then, they're not testing 100% of people. I don't know why you'd equate this as "a pretty good job" - it's not scientifically rigorous at all; much like how myocarditis signal in young men/boys only showed up between 1:3000 and 1:5000 but the most recent studies of even younger children only included 2000 participants, only 1200 of which receive the vaccine - so nowhere near enough participants included to catch important signals; and that's just for the "adverse" event of myocarditis. And testing for antibodies produced by the vaccines and/or by natural COVID infection? I'd presume there's be a way antibody markers that can be checked for both - but something I'm also unsure of.
- n8henrie 5y ago
  > So the answer is no then, they're not testing 100% of people. The answer to what? Your question was: " Does anyone know if it's standard or best practice for them to know who involved in these studies if they also have had COVID in the past?". I think I answered this in the affirmative: "We had a questionnaire, a swab, and blood draws for antibody levels on enrolling." What else would you be looking for, to answer your own question in the affirmative? > So the answer is no then, they're not testing 100% of people. 100% of enrollees are getting tested at enrollment as described above, which makes it seem like they're doing a "pretty good job" of determining if they've had COVID in the past. Aside from questionnaires, a PCR swab, and antibody testing, what else would you ask for? > it's not scientifically rigorous at all What isn't? What part of the approach are you taking issue with, and what would be a better approach? > And testing for antibodies produced by the vaccines and/or by natural COVID infection? I'm also unsure, but I would think that clinically evident disease would seem like a more important primary outcome, and having a weekly check-in for any suspicious symptoms that week, equipping participants with the ability to get a test (and instructing them to do so) should they develop symptoms still seems like a "pretty good job" IMO.

loceng 5y ago

"... and for any suspicious symptoms are directed to get a COVID test and notify them so they can follow up on results" So the answer is no then, they're not testing 100% of people. I don't know why you'd equate this as "a pretty good job" - it's not scientifically rigorous at all; much like how myocarditis signal in young men/boys only showed up between 1:3000 and 1:5000 but the most recent studies of even younger children only included 2000 participants, only 1200 of which receive the vaccine - so nowhere near enough participants included to catch important signals; and that's just for the "adverse" event of myocarditis. And testing for antibodies produced by the vaccines and/or by natural COVID infection? I'd presume there's be a way antibody markers that can be checked for both - but something I'm also unsure of.

n8henrie 5y ago
> So the answer is no then, they're not testing 100% of people. The answer to what? Your question was: " Does anyone know if it's standard or best practice for them to know who involved in these studies if they also have had COVID in the past?". I think I answered this in the affirmative: "We had a questionnaire, a swab, and blood draws for antibody levels on enrolling." What else would you be looking for, to answer your own question in the affirmative? > So the answer is no then, they're not testing 100% of people. 100% of enrollees are getting tested at enrollment as described above, which makes it seem like they're doing a "pretty good job" of determining if they've had COVID in the past. Aside from questionnaires, a PCR swab, and antibody testing, what else would you ask for? > it's not scientifically rigorous at all What isn't? What part of the approach are you taking issue with, and what would be a better approach? > And testing for antibodies produced by the vaccines and/or by natural COVID infection? I'm also unsure, but I would think that clinically evident disease would seem like a more important primary outcome, and having a weekly check-in for any suspicious symptoms that week, equipping participants with the ability to get a test (and instructing them to do so) should they develop symptoms still seems like a "pretty good job" IMO.