-
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.
You are reading a single comment by @Greenbank and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
Greenbank
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.