This means they should have been dosed 50% more than they were. That's not insignificant.
I don't think any of the testing parameters used that low a dose, so the resulting protection can only be guessed at without objectively measuring antibody response.
Among layers of buried ledes: the underdosing was the result of pre-loaded syringes from a "national stockpile", so presumably the Oakland incident would not be the only case of such under-dosing occurring.
The reporting on this is exceedingly negligent. Far too many words for far too few facts.
Thousands of british AstraSeneca/Oxford trials received half the dosis, and what happened? 99% effectiveness. Much better than with the full dosis. But in the sample was noone over 65.
That was the whole problem with the late AstraSeneca approval process. Some Italian manufacturer used a different diluter which lead to the famous mistake.
5 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 18.9 ms ] threadEven the headline took 11 words to fail to provide that information.
Thank you, kind soul.
I don't think any of the testing parameters used that low a dose, so the resulting protection can only be guessed at without objectively measuring antibody response.
The reporting on this is exceedingly negligent. Far too many words for far too few facts.
Apparently this news producer never heard of it. Apparently they don't do their own research. Eg https://www.bbc.com/news/health-55086927