On your second point there is evidence for the Oxford vaccine that its overall efficiency goes up with a longer time between shots and found this whole thread interestingA few points:
- Here in the UK the plan is not to stick with a two shot vaccination (spaced 3 weeks apart) for the very elderly (over 80s) and others medically vulnerable. If that were the case and other groups were vaccinated with one shot then I could (just) see the logic. So the very people at risk from hospitalisation and death are still very much open to infection.
- [following on from above] The likely vaccine our population will be given is the Oxford vaccine, so there'll be no 80% coverage in terms of immunisation from a first shot (as per what Keith Klugman envisages....who appears to be - unwillingly I'm sure - polishing a turd with his latest thoughts there).
- There can be no reliable roll out of the one shot programme given that the data simply isn't there to support any view that the first shot's efficacy will be long lasting enough to get each recipient beyond a couple of months worth of protection (or, of course, to make the eventual second shot a booster for that initial shot) and it will take months to get the data - pretty much by observing the population who comply with the new regime (they, effectively, take the place of volunteer groups as unwilling guinea pigs).
- Over and above all that, the only way of making this vaccine do what it was supposed to is by completely closing down our economies apart from essential services - as per last spring - in order to slow the spread of infection...and it may be too late for that. The politicians in the west have let us down, and now they have effectively neutralised our only way out.
Unlike a lot of issues over the past few months my coronavirus medical twitter feed seems sharply divided as to whether a one shot approach (at least for a few weeks as the virus is rampaging) has an acceptable risk/reward so I really don’t know where to land on this one.
Last edited: