Yes, protection is important. But the argument for a delayed 2nd shot is that 50% protection for a few extra weeks in the beginning is good enough if it allows over 50% protection longer later, which the data shows it does. My graph shows that the colored area, regardless of the color, is greater with the delayed shot. Shorter lower protection = more colored area = more overall protection. Faster higher protection = less overall protection.
But isnt that what the third shot after 3 months is accomplishing anyways? As I noted earlier there is efficiency gained from only using 2 shots instead of 3, but this is about effectiveness not efficiency. 1+1 may be better than 2+0, but doesnt 2+1 remain the most effective option?
It’d be one thing during “normal” times, when the vaccination is purely preventative. But the whole vaccine push is due to the [supposed] acute threat that exists right now, making immediacy a far bigger priority than longevity. And with an immediate threat, no one (ok, few) will be satisfied with “good enough” knowing much better near-term results are easily attainable.
You’re assuming the 2+1 uptake would be as high as the 2+0/1+1 uptake. It isn’t. They sold this as a 2 stage vaccine in the beginning. They can try and resell it as a 3 stage vaccine, but that’s tough because of how bad the rollout has been. It’s a much easier sell to continue calling it a 2 stage vaccine, but with a longer time frame between stage 1 and stage 2, and separately try and get people to take boosters.
now in our older individuals 65 70 80 we probably would get a little better response if we delayed it… there is science and there’s experience to support lengthening that first to second dose. a lot of the logic, and i think you have to ask this question is what is the prevalence what is the risk, because as we see once we moved from the original variant to let’s say the delta variant that first shot just isn’t giving you that much. that second shot is really getting you up to that high level. and now that we’re doing a third shot you know six or so many months later i think you’re you’re getting some people might say that was the properly timed second dose.
So it’s easier to sell “Yeah, the 60% of you who are already vaccinated did it wrong and should’ve waited a couple months.”? For those holding out due to uncertainty, doesnt this only validate their uncertainty and justify them deciding to wait even longer to see if there are more protocol changes? I didnt realize we were talking in terms of selling it to people, but any sales pitch that includes an “oops” is only going to hurt credibility with those who are already skeptical of how credible the directions are.
You’re right, in the sense that it’s too late. What Fauci and the rest of the public health politbureau should have done from the beginning is announce when they had new data and they were adjusting their pronouncements based on that new information. The public is generally forgiving of officials forced to make decisions without full information. What they aren’t forgiving of is officials that don’t change their approach when the facts change. And that’s been the case with way too many things so far. So yeah, not adjusting the vaccine schedule is just another one of those examples.
All that said, that’s not that relevant to my original point. That’s because we’re not talking about the adults that haven’t taken the vaccine yet. Those folks stopped trusting public heath a long time ago and nothing will likely change that. I’m talking about kids (and I specifically said that above). Those folks aren’t vaccinating their kids. A large number of people vaccinating their kids right now, when Fauci says jump, say “How high.” They wouldnt have any issue changing the schedule for their kids. Then there’s the vaccinated adults that aren’t sure about giving it to their kids. Those people aren’t going to be that angry if the schedule changes. They took the vaccine before we knew how fast it wore off. They just want the truth. They are willing to trust the vaccine and people giving it to them - if they are honest, so they would understand a new schedule and probably agree to it with their kids.
That ship is sailing fast though. I was waiting to see what my intellectual betters here would say about vaccines for kids and I’ve been pretty disappointed. As it stands, the benefit is practically non existent. They didn’t even attempt to say kids could take their masks off at school if vaccinated. Big mistake. Now we’re getting a new republican governor that is going to roll back mask mandates on day 1 in January so there is no longer any chance for an incentive. It’s beautiful to see these people lose power.
“You said I wasnt vaccinated until I received my second shot. Why does my poor child need to risk their life for another 3 months before getting the second shot and also being vaccinated?”
I disagree. Those not vaccinating their kids dont care how long the delay is to become “fully vaccinated”, they dont feel their kid’s life is being put at risk regardless.
It’s those rushing to get their kids vaccined being told it’s going to take another 3 months to accomplish, when a few months ago it only took the parent 3 weeks, who are going to take note.
Of course they are going to take note. Who wouldn’t? The point is, if our Public Health Kommissars were doing this from the start honestly, those people would listen to the reasoning, understand it’s because of new data, analyze it themselves, agree with the conclusions, and happily follow it. If they didn’t, then they are just as “bad” as the people they claim are keeping us in a pandemic by not getting vaccinated.
More than 170 health workers from the Intensive Care Unit of the Regional University Hospital of Málaga—located in the south of the country—attended the meal, with at least 68 people later testing positive for COVID-19,
All of the professionals had been fully vaccinated—including with booster shots.
the health workers who attended the Christmas meal had all taken an antigen test before the meal.
Since this is in the first line, I suppose Newsweek deems it significant. I wonder how many of their stories, pre-perfectly safe and secure vaccine, noted how many “victims” had no symptoms in the first line?
As an aside, I’m back on Covid watch, having come into close contact with someone who tested positive. A couple of months ago, I tested negative, but was positive for antibodies. Sadly, the antibody test was pass/fail. I “guess” I might have had it last December, but that has less than coin flip odds.
I’m not a survivor, I’m a winner - advice from a former President.
Beating cancer, twice, was a LOT tougher than the Chinese flu. If that’s their attempt at a bioweapon, we’re safe for a couple of decades, unless Uncle Joe is in charge. OTOH, Hong Kong and Taiwan are a whole 'nother story.
Actually, your story probably would give Democrats nightmares. You were infected with and recovered from covid without getting to skip even a single day of work. The horror! Imagine the outrage that would be expressed on your behalf, from you being forced to keep working through such a deadly infection you never knew you had.
I might be getting a booster sooner than originally contemplated. About a week hence our state is sending their van/bus used to service the most rural regions. They claim to be offering all three boosters, no appointment needed.
I just might show up if it doesn’t snow, and if they really can provide me a J&J booster I will accept their offer. I don’t want any of that new fangled mRNA stuff, but J&J worked for me before and I can live with their vaccine for a second go-round.
Natch if I do get that booster it will be my second shot, contrary to the title of this thread not my third.
You know what they say about the pro-vax zealots and the anti-vax zealots? Neither will ever be fully vaccinated
Along the former lines, the Atlantic which used to be a good magazine…
The Atlantic was ribbed after it changed an article originally titled, “Is it Safe to Hang Out with the Unboosted”’ to “How to Socialize Safely in the Booster Era,” in a piece focused on how to deal with Americans who haven’t had their coronavirus booster shots.
“People who have only received two COVID vaccine shots are gross, and I’m grateful that the Atlantic stepped and bestowed them with a shameful new name, the Unboosted, while suggesting they perhaps must be shunned along with their even more filthy brethren: the Unvaccinated,” Greenwald said.
He continued by predicting the publication would release the following headline in April 2022: “Should the Three-Boosted Still Be Permitted to Work and Leave Their Homes?”
Several other social media users, including former CIA officer Bryan Dean Wright, mocked The Atlantic by coining the term, “Pandemic of the Unboosted.”
A couple of months ago, I tested negative, but was positive for antibodies. Sadly, the antibody test was pass/fail. I “guess” I might have had it last December, but that has less than coin flip odds.
