-
Doesn't that contradict the earlier gov explanation of spacing to 12 weeks to get more bag per buck. As well as the greater/stronger response.
lynx-
Like most things, it probably depends on the situation.
-
No, it doesn't contradict anything. It's not an exact science, and it's not as simplistic as you describe.
As you say, the longer you leave it between doses the greater/stronger the eventual response will be (up until a point), but it leaves more people with a lesser/lower response for longer (prior to the second dose). Having more people with a lesser/lower response for longer could lead to more deaths overall especially in the presence of a more dangerous variant.
Without a more dangerous variant they'd probably be looking to get more 1st doses in rather than getting the 2nd doses in to the more vulnerable earlier.
Also, ending up with a slightly lower response is going to be offset by the likelihood of 3rd (and subsequent) boosters that might be tweaked for any future variants/mutations.
snottyotter
Greenbank
Our NHS Trust moved from 12 weeks to 9 for second jab a while ago to get best bang per buck.... Hope the NHS stats bods know their job!