Originally Posted by
Skeptic Ginger
That's probably not true, but...
When you study a new vaccine, you only have the data from the regimen studied.
Not until people start getting a late 2nd dose will data trickle in about longer intervals between doses being effective or not.
Technically you cannot say something is OK when you have no data to back that up.
For other adult vaccines, they usually still work with longer intervals between doses.
But a mRNA vaccine is new on the scene so doses should be given on the recommended schedule until proven effective with other schedules.
Originally Posted by
The Atheist
Originally Posted by
Skeptic Ginger
From the article:
The question was what happens if the second dose is delayed.
The question was not how good is the first dose with no follow up dose.
There was no dispute that the vaccine needed 2 doses for maximum protection.
Interesting. That's what I wanted to know. 52% effective. In that case, probably best to just go based on who is most vulnerable, and those who care for the vulnerable, and front line health care workers, and then so forth and so on.
If it had been 60% or 70% effective with a single dose, then it might make sense at least mathematically to get everyone a first dose before the second one. Except also, even in that case, get the old and otherwise most vulnerable people protected first.
I suspect Japan is going to approve it later than Britain or the US, because they've always been rather slow to approve vaccines compared to other countries. Also, the infection rate and the death toll is lower. I've heard it might not be available here until next spring. There is one Japanese company developing a vaccine, but
they are so far behind (I think they are just starting phase 2 trials). By the time they are ready for phase 3, everyone's going already be getting the other vaccines. It's going to be hard to recruit volunteers for a trial when there's already a proven vaccine available and you know you won't be getting a placebo.