Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris
The longer gap is as recommended by the JCVI. It believes there is a greater benefit in some protection for more people, than greater protection for fewer people. It is also weighing (as yet unpublished) evidence that the second dose may be more effective if the gap between doses is longer.
Given that our public vaccination programme is ahead of everywhere else in the world, it’s not necessarily surprising if we’re the ones innovating. Not everything has to be a short-cutting, complacent wheeze.  |
The proof will be in the pudding I guess when the results come in. Being ahead of the rest of the world can either be through being truly innovative, or taking short cuts. Our emergency authorisation of untested products isn't necessarily indicative that we are "ahead" - simply that he situation is so grave that we weigh up the risks and reach an earlier conclusion.
If, for example, they believe the Oxford vaccine and it's lower effectiveness is at greatest risk of failing as mutations emerge the risk based approach would be to get it out there as quickly as possible. I doubt such information would go into the public domain due to being alarming. There would always be positive spin.