First Doses First strategy
-
wrote on 11 Jan 2021, 13:01 last edited by
The UK is already doing this. Seems almost certain to save lives on net.
-
wrote on 11 Jan 2021, 13:10 last edited by
If the plan has Mr. Biden's name on it, it is pure genius, the greatest plan ever.
-
wrote on 11 Jan 2021, 13:20 last edited by
@copper said in First Doses First strategy:
If the plan has Mr. Biden's name on it, it is pure genius, the greatest plan ever.
Is it as good as President Harris' plan?
-
wrote on 11 Jan 2021, 13:21 last edited by Loki 1 Nov 2021, 13:25
Fauci is really really against it but suddenly that doesn’t matter anymore. LOL
-
@copper said in First Doses First strategy:
If the plan has Mr. Biden's name on it, it is pure genius, the greatest plan ever.
Is it as good as President Harris' plan?
wrote on 11 Jan 2021, 13:28 last edited by@jolly said in First Doses First strategy:
@copper said in First Doses First strategy:
If the plan has Mr. Biden's name on it, it is pure genius, the greatest plan ever.
Is it as good as President Harris' plan?
Isn't she wonderful?
-
wrote on 11 Jan 2021, 13:45 last edited by
@loki said in First Doses First strategy:
Fauci is really really against it but suddenly that doesn’t matter anymore. LOL
What do you think about it?
-
@loki said in First Doses First strategy:
Fauci is really really against it but suddenly that doesn’t matter anymore. LOL
What do you think about it?
wrote on 11 Jan 2021, 14:28 last edited by@jon-nyc said in First Doses First strategy:
@loki said in First Doses First strategy:
Fauci is really really against it but suddenly that doesn’t matter anymore. LOL
What do you think about it?
I think it’s a great plan. I totally support it. I also support release of the astra Zeneca vaccine now.
-
wrote on 11 Jan 2021, 15:03 last edited by
What is the value of more single doses applied if you cannot assure the second in a timely fashion? I think it is unwise until we know production can meet the need.
-
What is the value of more single doses applied if you cannot assure the second in a timely fashion? I think it is unwise until we know production can meet the need.
wrote on 11 Jan 2021, 15:13 last edited by@mik said in First Doses First strategy:
What is the value of more single doses applied if you cannot assure the second in a timely fashion? I think it is unwise until we know production can meet the need.
It’s a good question and I suspect the UK has thought through this and balanced against predicted deaths. We just need to see it in writing. I think they believe timeliness of second dose isn’t key and that second dose could be another vaccine. They will know in about a month if they are right.
-
What is the value of more single doses applied if you cannot assure the second in a timely fashion? I think it is unwise until we know production can meet the need.
wrote on 11 Jan 2021, 15:18 last edited by@mik said in First Doses First strategy:
What is the value of more single doses applied if you cannot assure the second in a timely fashion?
Quite high, apparently. We had a thread about it. Moderna showed 80-90% efficacy after the first dose.
So this decision represents the following tradeoff: Double the number of people being vaccinated now, accept the risk that some people will get their second shot late.
With 3-4k deaths per day, it seems obvious that it will save lives.
-
wrote on 11 Jan 2021, 15:23 last edited by bachophile 1 Nov 2021, 19:33
I think the question of one dose is not so much the efficacy but rather how long does it sustain immunity without the booster.
If it’s a question of say 80% efficacy but it lasts, then fine. But if one shot is not enough for at least half a year immunity then maybe not.
No data on it and no question that Pfizer or moderna can’t sign off on something without the data.
Fixed the typos. Sorry
-
wrote on 11 Jan 2021, 15:24 last edited by
We've given our 8MM shots I think, holding another 8MM in reserve.
16MM shots would have covered everyone in the US 75 and over. THat's most of the deaths.
-
I think the question of one dose is not so much the efficacy but rather how long does it sustain immunity without the booster.
If it’s a question of say 80% efficacy but it lasts, then fine. But if one shot is not enough for at least half a year immunity then maybe not.
No data on it and no question that Pfizer or moderna can’t sign off on something without the data.
Fixed the typos. Sorry
wrote on 11 Jan 2021, 15:29 last edited by@bachophile said in First Doses First strategy:
I think the question of one dose is not so much the efficacy but rather how long does it sustain immunity without the booster.
Right, but the FDF strategy isn't 'fuck the second dose', it's just relying on future deliveries to provide it. In practice there'd be a mix of when people got the second shot.
Of course Moderna and BioNtech can't sign off because the question they'd be asked to consider: "is it ok to add uncertainty as to when the second dose will come" can only be answered in the negative. But the question to society as a whole is to weigh that risk against the benefit of vaccinating twice as fast in the initial months.
-
wrote on 11 Jan 2021, 15:34 last edited by
FWIW the UK implementation is allowing up to 12 weeks to get the second dose.
It would be interesting to see the modeling behind their decision.
-
wrote on 11 Jan 2021, 15:36 last edited by
On the other hand, if we really wanted to maximize lives saved, we could greatly improve our strategy without resorting to FDF, simply by prioritizing based on who would benefit the most from early vaccines rather than who 'deserves' an early vaccine.
-
On the other hand, if we really wanted to maximize lives saved, we could greatly improve our strategy without resorting to FDF, simply by prioritizing based on who would benefit the most from early vaccines rather than who 'deserves' an early vaccine.
wrote on 11 Jan 2021, 15:42 last edited by@jon-nyc Do you have numbers on roughly how many are getting it based on the "deserves" it designation? I'm not questioning your basic point, just genuinely interested in the numbers.
My 18 year old son who works at McDonalds, (on the grill, with approximately 1 other masked person within 6' of him) has been informed he'll be in group 1c for Connecticut. It was initially going to be 1b, but then they got pushed back.
-
wrote on 11 Jan 2021, 15:45 last edited by
As a first approximation take 90% of the essential workers being prioritized above senior citizens. We're talking 10s of millions nationwide.
-
wrote on 11 Jan 2021, 15:49 last edited by
Here is NY announcement the other day:
Starting on Monday, New York State will begin scheduling vaccinations for "Phase 1b" groups—the next category of people eligible for the vaccine. This group includes: People aged 75 and up; education workers (pre-K through 12 teachers and education workers, licensed and registered child care providers, and school-bus drivers); first responders (local police, State Police, Sheriff's Office employees, professional and volunteer firefighters); EMS workers (including professional and volunteer paramedics and EMTs); public transit workers (airline and airport employees, passenger railroad employees, subway and mass transit employees, ferry employees, Port Authority employees, and public bus drivers); and public safety workers. About 3.2 million additional New Yorkers will now be eligible.
Note that last sentence. Give me 3.2MM vaccines and I could vaccinate everyone in the state over 62. (figuratively). Deaths would all but cease in Feb.
THat's without even doubling using a FDF strategy.
-
wrote on 11 Jan 2021, 15:54 last edited by
Median age in ICU for covid is ~65, median age in hospital is ~62.
So vaccinating 62+ cuts hospital utilization in half.
-
wrote on 11 Jan 2021, 16:00 last edited by
Still, you are changing strategy based on hope, not data. Bad idea.