Soul-
Edited for clarity:
Essentially "[no data to support delayed second dose efficacy]"
Which is understandable, because they have no data.
It is important to understand this does not equal a statement that the delayed regime will not be effective- it is a statement of fact- there is no data.Theoretically- a second dose should still confer immune benefits, regardless of delay:
I am over simplifying immunology to a preposterous level. It is however- my best guess as to why they are accepting the delay as an inevitability in the roll out of the program, and the hope is that the response fits the curve.
Cf my post of this paper in the vaccines thread: [This is the MODERNA VACCINE]
The point to be noted- as a side note from the paper's main objective- is that there is benefit 14 days post the first dose of vaccine. Paper released on the 30th December- and I would hazard a guess the scientific advisors would have seen prior to publication
You are reading a single comment by @Soul and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
deleted
BioNTech and Pfizer Statement is a bit of a concern. The one thing we have been doing well and we are about to take a gamble on it!
I guess that might show just how far up the creek we are...?