« Lab science and statistical science | Main | Know your data 28: Data breaches and tech contradictions »


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Michael Droy

Glad to say that the elderly UK patients I went in with are getting their 2nd dose (one 2 days ago, one later this week).
the hospital decided that patients had consented frmally to a 2-dose treatment and not to a 1-dose treatment so it would be unfair to stop half-way. But not all UK services have done the same.

Of course it is not patients that need to be immunised. Most have little to fear. It is governments and media that need immunisation from crazy policies and the closing down of the economy and health services. For them any placebo will do & the sooner the better

Dan Vargo

A couple of rebuttals:
"Partial protection provides a convenient excuse for vaccinated people to do away with inconvenient mitigation measures"

I live in Arizona, this is not a concern for me since we seem to be doing just fine ignoring mitigation measures. This is the case for a lot of other locations, as well. More people less well protected is very likely a net positive in areas like mine.

I am also of the belief that once vaccinated individuals are not rare you will see the general public VERY quickly dropping all inconvenient protection measures. If this is the case, first doses first will absolutely save more lives than the alternative.

"The first weeks of vaccination has shown that the problem is demand not catching up to supply"

A lot of this is because of a) the phased rollout -- 1B+ group members can't jump in to fill vacancies b) poor communication; state and local governments were not given adequate instruction or resources. This will likely be reduced as they gain experience and possibly resources via the next Presidential and Congressional administrations.

"Anyone who believes that the efficacy of the first dose is 90% lives in a fantasy world"

I think you're using a straw man, here -- I don't think many people believe 1 dose is AS effective, just somewhat effective. In terms of R0 reduction 2x50% (or even 40%) could be better than 1x95%.


DV: Point #1, if the subpopulation you're talking about is already "ignoring mitigation measures", then my argument cannot apply because the behavior is not changing regardless.

Point #2, the reporting has not caught up with what are the real bottlenecks.

Point #3, it's not a straw man because I lifted it from here or here. These are written by "experts" who call themselves "scientists".

Lastly, both of those groups explained what pieces of data they cherry-picked from the pile but those pieces do not say 2x40% ie better than 1x95% (plus 1x0%). They failed to tell us how they bridged the gap. For example, what's the model of transmission chains? It's not defensible as science; it can be justified for other reasons.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Get new posts by email:
Kaiser Fung. Business analytics and data visualization expert. Author and Speaker.
Visit my website. Follow my Twitter. See my articles at Daily Beast, 538, HBR, Wired.

See my Youtube and Flickr.


  • only in Big Data
Numbers Rule Your World:
Amazon - Barnes&Noble

Amazon - Barnes&Noble

Junk Charts Blog

Link to junkcharts

Graphics design by Amanda Lee

Next Events

Jan: 10 NYPL Data Science Careers Talk, New York, NY

Past Events

Aug: 15 NYPL Analytics Resume Review Workshop, New York, NY

Apr: 2 Data Visualization Seminar, Pasadena, CA

Mar: 30 ASA DataFest, New York, NY

See more here

Principal Analytics Prep

Link to Principal Analytics Prep