3 ms·
Only adjacent to this: am i wrong to think that in many places this lack of available vaccines in a predictable manner is leading to a staggered immunization an
by 627467 6y ago
Only adjacent to this: am i wrong to think that in many places this lack of available vaccines in a predictable manner is leading to a staggered immunization and (unneeded?) delay of effective mass immunization?
I mean: if you waited to stockpile large enough quantities first, you'd then be able to apply the vaccines quicker (given right logistics and man power) speeding up heard imunity. Am I wrong?
Wouldn't this accumulation strategy make more sense even if it's harder to apply?
I ask because it's clear that vaccination has become so political everywhere that govs are rushing to "start immunization" while not being able to garantee a sustainable rate of vaccinations.
- lovemenot 6y agoafaik these vaccines, once administered, have a long-lasting effect. It shouldn't matter then whether the same amount is applied all at once or little by little. But the latter approach has the benefit of some protection earlier. Perhaps I've misunderstood your point, but in conclusion, there should be no social health benefit in deliberately delaying vaccination.