lol
some of the medical people were threatened that if they *followed* the guidance from Pfizer (and gave their patients the doses that had been arranged with them) that they’d get into trouble pete
So to correct your hypothetical scenario - you as a 66 year old are sat in hospital, waiting for the treatment that you and your doctor had agreed, you get given one half of it and then some wild-haired toff storms in and says “crikey chaps, there’s not enough to go around” and gives your second dose to a 65 year old.
He flounces off to spend more time with his dad (who did get two doses) and then two grim faced twiglet-men assure you that everything is going to be alright whilst putting duct tape around your doctors mouth, and mutter about tough choices.
No one is able to tell you, when you ask, whether or not you are actually protected, since they are too busy slapping themselves on the back and telling the local paper (whose proprietor had two doses) that the other treatment you could have had definitely works.
If, as appears, the data shows that there's no adverse impact from the delaying of the doses, will you be okay with it?
Gonna caveat this again with the comment that I agree on Pfizer that it should have been kept as is, especially for the people pre-booked in, or at the latest pushed back to six weeks to minimse risk. I can just see the logic in it, and I can also see the logic in the approach of keeping it to 3 weeks. There's risks with both methods. But there is no actual concrete evidence so far that people are getting ill because of the UK's vaccination approach.