-
They can only approve it for the way it's been trialed and tested, and they've trialed and tested this vaccine in a way that gets it to the public as quickly as possible whilst being safe, to do that they've not studied how effective it is to wait longer between doses because then they'd have to wait longer between doses to test it and it won't be given to people whilst that's happening. They can only approve what they have tested, using it differently may not be worse, may be better, but isn't trialed and tested so is outside of approval. Some people who are good at these things seem to think that based on previous experience using it in such a way may not be worse than the time restrained testing for each individual and may be better for everyone and therefore each individual, if longer gaps are used and more people get first doses sooner.
snottyotter-
At the moment I am trying to understand or have explained to me, how the time between the (rdna) vaccine doses was calculate/decided/come to. It is my understanding that this time lag, even before human trials, was calculated in some way not just pulled out of the air without firm logic. Especially with the super no win no fee culture there is.
In answer to your second answer, I get that something is better than nothing. But as this is discussion I'm wondering how much of a window does it give us, or are we back to the tory plan of herd immunity and that horrible line of loved ones will die. Don't trust this government not to fuck/mis inform/lie/steal from the population over this.
lynx
In what way?
EDIT: What does it mean when a medicine/vaccine is used outside of the approval. Have no idea, just wondering.