3 ms·
I assume this is snark, but misguided if so. I believe the parent comment was simply stating there are some vaccines generally with this trait, so perhaps the c
by MrOrelliOReilly 5y ago
I assume this is snark, but misguided if so. I believe the parent comment was simply stating there are some vaccines generally with this trait, so perhaps the covid vaccines would similarly improve from a 3rd dose
- endisneigh 5y agoit was an honest question. what about it came across as snarky?
- irishsultan 5y agoExpecting that we would be aware of vaccines that provide a decade long protection against a disease that has been around for less than 3 years. I mean we could have those vaccines already, but we couldn't possibly know that we have them until they've been around for a decade or more.
- endisneigh 5y agoPer the article we already know 3-dose of Pfizer does not offer a decade of prevention. What the article states is that it offers a level of protection similar to when one first completes the two-dose regimen, so we don't have to wait a decade to know. All we know is that an additional dose does increase your protection, but it doesn't necessarily give you a decade of protection since there were people who got the 3rd dose and still got COVID.
- bart_spoon 5y ago> All we know is that an additional dose does increase your protection, but it doesn't necessarily give you a decade of protection since there were people who got the 3rd dose and still got COVID. That doesn't mean anything regarding protection longevity. There will always be instances of individuals who fail to receive immune protection from a vaccine. The vast majority of people could potentially receive years of protection with a 3rd dose, while a small group doesn't get any protection at all. That isn't specific to covid.
- endisneigh 5y agoSure, but if you like at the data in the article it's virtually identical to the 2nd dose data.