mike_field
Vital Football Legend
If I've understood Israel's initial numbers, it means the Pfizer vacc is between 60/70% on the one vaccine then as opposed to the 89% (I'd not heard that number myself) somebody predicted doing it this way.
Not a great drop when you consider the success of annual flu vacs and cumulatively that cover would rise with greater herd immunity - so given what Whitty said, fully admitting there was some risk, I think this is still educated risk acceptable .
It more goes tits up though if Covid isn't massively squashed here and we don't know how effective the delayed second dose is, that could still get people up to 90% ish if we are lucky.
The one bit I still can't get my head around is, I can see the sense of doing it this way with Pfizer.... but given we are more reliant on the Astrazenica one, for the space of saving a fortnight, was it worth any risk at all?
Not a great drop when you consider the success of annual flu vacs and cumulatively that cover would rise with greater herd immunity - so given what Whitty said, fully admitting there was some risk, I think this is still educated risk acceptable .
It more goes tits up though if Covid isn't massively squashed here and we don't know how effective the delayed second dose is, that could still get people up to 90% ish if we are lucky.
The one bit I still can't get my head around is, I can see the sense of doing it this way with Pfizer.... but given we are more reliant on the Astrazenica one, for the space of saving a fortnight, was it worth any risk at all?