4 ms·
We should note that the >14-day efficacy is presumed to decay fairly rapidly, thus the need for the 2nd dose to cement the response long-term, as well as eke ou
by jhayward 6y ago
We should note that the >14-day efficacy is presumed to decay fairly rapidly, thus the need for the 2nd dose to cement the response long-term, as well as eke out the last few percent of efficacy.
- selimthegrim 6y agoThen why is the delay in second doses being encouraged?
- xur17 6y agoI imagine "fairly rapidly" means a few months rather than a few weeks, in which case delaying the second dose from 4 weeks to 8 weeks won't cause any dramatic dips (this is all conjecture though).
- iso1631 6y agoThe idea behind the second dose being delayed in the UK was it was better to give 24 million and 80% coverage to the most vulnerable people with 1 dose over 12 weeks (assuming 2 million per week), then to give 2 doses to 9 million and 1 dose to 3 million over 12 weeks .8 * 24 = 19.2m covered in scenario 1 .959 + .83 = 10.95m covered in scenario 2 Even if it were 60% with 1 dose and 95% with 2 it would be .6 * 24 = 14.4m covered in scenario 1 .959 + .83 = 10.35m covered in scenario 2
- xur17 6y agoBut that does seem to imply that 2 weeks post the first shot (assuming the second shot will be given soon after), folks are pretty much at maximum immunity.
- garmaine 6y agoPresumed by whom? AFAICT there is no reason to presume the protection decays rapidly or even at all (on short timescales). There isn’t a biomechanism that would cause that. It’s a conservative operating assumption just in case, but actually not likely.