My guess is the issue is compliance with the injection schedule. During my HEP A/B three part vaccine, the doctor fought me about starting the series from the first shot as "did not need it based on job and lifestyle", on the second shot my insurance declined paying for it because whatever reason they pulled out of their backside.
Compare to my aunt, she got the first shot but not the second and third because she does not see the point. No amount of urging by family has changed her mind.
If the 7 part shot was available now, I would get it and finish it. Not everybody would because humans be oddballs.
I think supply is not the only thing to consider. I suffered a SARS-CoV-2 infection around Easter, and received my first vaccine dose a week ago.
The days after that I felt much worse that when I had the actual infection, albeit for a shorter time, so I personally would appreciate an official recommendation to not have to take the second dose.
The first dose prevents hospitalization. Right now, for every second dose we give, that's a decision to deny someone a life-saving dose in favor of someone already protected. What a strange prioritization to make.
The bright side is that, if the rate of vaccination continues to increase, those denied the first dose now should still get the first dose soon after. Let's hope we don't hit some manufacturing bottleneck.
As someone who is still waiting on his second shot because I had no option to get it earlier, this _really_ worries me. It's especially hard to still be extremely careful when most people around are basically back to their normal life.
This particular points concerns me the most. All the numbers we have now should be considered "half vaccinations". Very soon (if this hasn't already happened), we'll be hitting the point where people start getting the second dose. Assuming the second dose takes as long to administer as the first dose, the rate of people getting the first dose will be cut in half.
I think the logistical challenges of administering the second dose will be even worse. You have to contact and schedule all of the first dose people, you need to have them actually show up when they are supposed to, and you need to have sufficient doses on hand.
I am expecting that a large number of people will, voluntarily or otherwise, either not receive the second dose or receive it later than they are supposed to.
Areas of the US that are looking "good" now in terms of the rate of vaccinations may look far worse very soon.
There are two challenges I haven't seen talked about a lot.
1. I expect that there will be a lot of people who think that once they get the shot, they can immediately stop wearing masks and practicing social distancing.
The rollout to the general public will need to be combined with extensive efforts to make sure people know that it takes time for a vaccine to actually provide protection.
In the case of this one, it is about a week after the second shot, which is three weeks after the first shot, so you should keep up all your pre-vaccination measures for a month after getting the first shot.
2. In a fair number of people, the first shot is accompanied by strong symptoms similar to a severe flu, which lasts for about a day. (I haven't read anything about whether or not this can also happen with the second shot).
The people who get that strong reaction might be reluctant to get their second shot.
The education efforts accompanying the rollout to the general public should make sure people know that there is a decent chance of such a reaction, but they will get over it in a day, and it will be worth it for the protection from COVID.
When I got the vaccine, I fully expected that at some point it was likely I’d be getting either a booster or a different vaccine or both. I don’t really see why I’m expected to object to this? Hep B can be up to _4_ jabs, and many people get a new flu vaccine every year.
Hopefully at some point there’ll be an easy to administer vaccine that gives near perfect sterilising immunity, and that will about wrap it up for covid. Until and unless that happens, we are where we are.
One thing to consider is that vaccine production is going to scale up in time; since the second dose is a month after the first, giving two doses instead of one will not mean that half the number of people will be vaccinated.
Assuming, for the sake of the argument, that vaccine production doubles every month, at any given point after the first month the amount of people that have received at least one does will be a bout 2/3rds of the single dose protocol.
I wanted to avoid the second dose but ended up getting it anyways... hope they don't rush vaccine approvals again... might be good in the short run, but if issues come up, it might be bad in the long run.
It's a bit more complicated. In France vaccination has only been open to everyone one month ago, (and those people - including me - only had one dose so far) and in the UK the waiting time between the first and second dose is roughly twice higher than in most countries, which means there's still a significant fraction of the population that just can't get fully vaccinated yet (my brother must wait another month before getting his second shot).
The issue is not who gets the vaccine, but whether to hold the second doses in reserve or distribute them as first doses and use later-arriving doses as second doses. The former has the obvious advantage of vaccinating more people quickly, but runs the risk that if the second doses don’t arrive on time the effects of the first dose will wear off.
Edit: I originally used the phrase “back to square one” but I agree with replies that it’s the wrong phrase.
They’re not using single-dose vaccines. But they are prioritizing (getting the first dose into as many people as possible) over (getting everybody who had the first dose their second dose the exact number of days later).
It is reasonable to think that the first vaccine will be approved next week and a few million people will have their first dose. The second dose (3 weeks latter) will be next year, and it is a week after that before full protection arrives.
This argues against only giving one dose instead of two. But no one is proposing that.
The argument is that while there is a vaccine shortage, it is better to give as many as possible one dose, instead of giving only half that many people two doses, leaving the rest unprotected.
When available, everyone gets the second shot, which should work just as well 6 months later.
The current version of hepatitis A grants immunity for life after the second dose. Those 2 doses are exactly the same and it was thought that they should be taken 6 months to 2 years after each other. A recent study says that the second dose could still grant immunity for life even if it is taken 5 years after the first dose. It is a super effective vaccine!
They also last for a very long time in a normal fridge.
Why isn't it included in normal vaccination plans?
It looks like there is something controlling the supply and we are paying with human lives all over the world.
We should have the data to study that since some countries decided to wait longer between doses. The UK and Canada focused on getting as many first-doses into arms as possible before folks were eligible for a second jab.
If there are 7 billion people and 1 billion doses in the next year, it's going to be awkward.
reply