Since, like yourself, I got COVID-19 after three doses of vaccine, I'm also encouraged to read about the synergistic immunity. (I just coined that phrase. I want credit!)
I do wonder if the study you cite said anything about duration of the immunity. For example, my current plan is to get a fourth shot (I'm over 50) before Worldcon in September. Will I need it by then?
Speaking of which, any chance you'll be in Chicago?
I don't think Chicago is in the cards for me this year. I have gained some added responsibilities at work, and one includes quite a lot of travel in the fall. I think I'm going to be too burned out to get on another plane, even for a short trip.
re:synergistic immunity, I think that's a good term--though I've seen it called "hybrid immunity" in the literature elsewhere.
I don't think at this point we'd have enough follow-up to be able to assess durability. Though if anyone has commented or studied on durability to project to September, it would be the immunologist Shane Crotty, so maybe look through whatever he has published lately.
Consider using the term "volunteers" instead of "subjects" for clinical trial participants. (from a retired nurse practitioner and science writer with clinical research experience and strong opinions about word choices).
Frankly I tend to prefer "patients" for clinical trial participants but sometimes I use "subjects" in the case of healthy volunteers. I agree that "subjects" has some uncomfortable connotations. I should probably be diligent in using the word "participants."
I don't prefer "volunteers" because it tends to elide the complicated consent dynamics of clinical trial participation. Many people are in dire situations when they sign up for clinical trials, and while I do consider their consent valid I don't think the word "volunteer" captures the experience that they are having. For a very rough analogy, even if a disaster evacuation is voluntary, I would still call the people who relocate "evacuees" rather than "volunteers." There is a clear and present danger in so many cases of clinical trial participation to where I don't think "volunteer" fully captures the participants' experience.
Of course, in the case of healthy volunteers that whole discussion is a little less applicable, but with a major pandemic going on I do think quite a few participants may feel pressured by circumstances to seek out clinical trial participation.
Anyway, you're right that subjects is a less than ideal word choice, and is one of the word choices I've been less thoughtful about--which is not my typical approach, given that I am also a science writer with extensive clinical trial experience. I'll favor "participants" in the future.
Since, like yourself, I got COVID-19 after three doses of vaccine, I'm also encouraged to read about the synergistic immunity. (I just coined that phrase. I want credit!)
I do wonder if the study you cite said anything about duration of the immunity. For example, my current plan is to get a fourth shot (I'm over 50) before Worldcon in September. Will I need it by then?
Speaking of which, any chance you'll be in Chicago?
I don't think Chicago is in the cards for me this year. I have gained some added responsibilities at work, and one includes quite a lot of travel in the fall. I think I'm going to be too burned out to get on another plane, even for a short trip.
re:synergistic immunity, I think that's a good term--though I've seen it called "hybrid immunity" in the literature elsewhere.
I don't think at this point we'd have enough follow-up to be able to assess durability. Though if anyone has commented or studied on durability to project to September, it would be the immunologist Shane Crotty, so maybe look through whatever he has published lately.
Dr. Skylar, I'm glad I found your substack!
I'm wondering if the results of the Omicron clinical trial are available online?
What were they looking for in the blood test?
Do you know if they were testing for troponin or d-dimer?
Consider using the term "volunteers" instead of "subjects" for clinical trial participants. (from a retired nurse practitioner and science writer with clinical research experience and strong opinions about word choices).
Frankly I tend to prefer "patients" for clinical trial participants but sometimes I use "subjects" in the case of healthy volunteers. I agree that "subjects" has some uncomfortable connotations. I should probably be diligent in using the word "participants."
I don't prefer "volunteers" because it tends to elide the complicated consent dynamics of clinical trial participation. Many people are in dire situations when they sign up for clinical trials, and while I do consider their consent valid I don't think the word "volunteer" captures the experience that they are having. For a very rough analogy, even if a disaster evacuation is voluntary, I would still call the people who relocate "evacuees" rather than "volunteers." There is a clear and present danger in so many cases of clinical trial participation to where I don't think "volunteer" fully captures the participants' experience.
Of course, in the case of healthy volunteers that whole discussion is a little less applicable, but with a major pandemic going on I do think quite a few participants may feel pressured by circumstances to seek out clinical trial participation.
Anyway, you're right that subjects is a less than ideal word choice, and is one of the word choices I've been less thoughtful about--which is not my typical approach, given that I am also a science writer with extensive clinical trial experience. I'll favor "participants" in the future.
I'm good with participants, and point taken about "volunteers." Thanks for your thoughtful response.
And likewise thank you for your comment!