Challenge Trials for COVID-19 Trials Beginning

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@sfmatheson

At first glance, this is a somewhat standard example of the interplay between acceptable risk, reasonable benefit, and fully informed consent.

At first glance, perhaps, but the history of Challenge Trials should give everyone pause (The Hideous Truths Of Testing the Hepatitis Vaccine On Humans). This is a significant departure from standard scientific studies over the last 50 years.

@sfmatheson

So maybe the main difference here is the one raised by @RonSewell, which is that the likelihood of infection in this trial is 100%, so the “risk” is not that of getting infected but of getting very ill.

Technically, the risk of infection is not 100% if the vaccine is effective. Rather, the risk of exposure is 100%. They propose only including people in their twenties, who they claim have extremely low risk of having serious complications to infection.

@Ashwin_s

“If challenge trials can safely and effectively speed the vaccine development process

How big an “if” are they talking about here?

It is a an if, but the real point of the statement was that these scientists (15 Nobel Laureates) thought that predicated on this premise we should do challenge trials. For reference, here is their letter: 1DaySooner: Open Letter on Challenge Trials for COVID-19