IIRC it's the drop in immunity in the AstraZenica version that has them worried.
and I had the same reaction - but that was the first graphic that came up [it's from October].The term “survey suggests” made me a bit
Or E. MacronShould have named it Unicron. Missed opportunity
If only omicron had waited until after Christmas, then they might have actually done something about it. But 'cancelling Christmas' would actually cost the Tories more votes than 1000s extra deaths, because people are trash, and the Tories know that.
Third case of Omicron Covid variant detected in UK
Sajid Javid, the health secretary, says country ‘nowhere near’ imposing social distancing rules despite concernswww.theguardian.com
So they are going to ignore this almost totally, instead of being more careful now, such as having more distancing, until the scientists can work out Omicron's potency. Then if it is potent then we'll end up with another lockdown and being in a lot worse situation.
It's just depressing.
Obviously you have to balance the intra-dose interval timing with your own personal risk of infection and circumstances (medical history including previous exposure to antigen, factor in vaccine types, clinical vulnerability, scope/practicalities for enacting NPIs). You could perhaps shorten it to as little as four months but then you could be trading degrees of potency/avidity/durability/breadth, in particular to antigenically diverse VOCs as yet unseen, for shorter term 'immediate'* protection. Indeed, some studies (DOI: 10.1101/2021.11.19.21266555, DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(21)01699-8) have found a significantly better overall immune response with intervals of around 8, up to 12 months (though perhaps an even longer interval might eventually be found to be immunologically optimal) and doubtless a fair few instances of hybrid immunity have 'fortuitously' benefited from this effect to degrees too (original first wave convalescents not receiving an initial vaccine dose for up to a year or more).
www.bloomberg.com
Some important detail on that one. Stuff that sometimes surprised people during the early days of past variants but is to be expected and will probably surprise people less this time:
Quote is from:
Thaks very much for your thoughts on this. As with the initial roll-out, I will have quite a lot of wiggle room and personal decisions to make, because my circumstances mean that my risk of infection is almost zero, with leaving the house to get vaccinated being one of the exceptions to my near-zero risk.Obviously you have to balance the intra-dose interval timing with your own personal risk of infection and circumstances (medical history including previous exposure to antigen, factor in vaccine types, clinical vulnerability, scope/practicalities for enacting NPIs). You could perhaps shorten it to as little as four months but then you could be trading degrees of potency/avidity/durability/breadth, in particular to antigenically diverse VOCs as yet unseen, for shorter term 'immediate'* protection. Indeed, some studies (DOI: 10.1101/2021.11.19.21266555, DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(21)01699-8) have found a significantly better overall immune response with intervals of around 8, up to 12 months (though perhaps an even longer interval might eventually be found to be immunologically optimal) and doubtless a fair few instances of hybrid immunity have 'fortuitously' benefited from this effect to degrees too (original first wave convalescents not receiving an initial vaccine dose for up to a year or more).
When's the Best Time to Get a Booster Shot? Doctors Suggest a Six-Month Interval
Booster shots are rolling out across much of the world to spur protection against Covid-19, prompting questions about when exactly they should be given. While there aren’t clear-cut answers, doctors say there’s a downside to getting them too soon.
*e2a: 'immediate' here as in 'within a couple of weeks'.
I was somewhat impressed that they acknowledged this sort of thing in todays press conference, and justified bringing the gap down to a minimum of three months on the basis of balancing the benefits of a longer gap with trying to get the timing right in relation to a new wave arriving. They mentioned a study that used a three months gap to justify using that as the lower limit.Obviously you have to balance the intra-dose interval timing with your own personal risk of infection and circumstances (medical history including previous exposure to antigen, factor in vaccine types, clinical vulnerability, scope/practicalities for enacting NPIs). You could perhaps shorten it to as little as four months but then you could be trading degrees of potency/avidity/durability/breadth, in particular to antigenically diverse VOCs as yet unseen, for shorter term 'immediate'* protection. Indeed, some studies (DOI: 10.1101/2021.11.19.21266555, DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(21)01699-8) have found a significantly better overall immune response with intervals of around 8, up to 12 months (though perhaps an even longer interval might eventually be found to be immunologically optimal) and doubtless a fair few instances of hybrid immunity have 'fortuitously' benefited from this effect to degrees too (original first wave convalescents not receiving an initial vaccine dose for up to a year or more).
When's the Best Time to Get a Booster Shot? Doctors Suggest a Six-Month Interval
Booster shots are rolling out across much of the world to spur protection against Covid-19, prompting questions about when exactly they should be given. While there aren’t clear-cut answers, doctors say there’s a downside to getting them too soon.
*e2a: 'immediate' here as in 'within a couple of weeks'.
apnews.com
Its a cliche and tends to be a grotesque oversimplification.
Perhaps not ...
