What a ridiculously irresponsible article!
Yes, a single dose of vaccine undeniably provides *some* protection.
But there's no way that single dose represents "mission accomplished" when it comes to the vaccination programme - people *need* their second dose too.
Yes, a single dose of vaccine undeniably provides *some* protection.
But there's no way that single dose represents "mission accomplished" when it comes to the vaccination programme - people *need* their second dose too.
https://twitter.com/DailyMailUK/status/1357377697136148480
Problem is, the more that high-profile articles such as this one take the Government propaganda position that "one jab = vaccinated", the less pressure there will be to deliver the second dose on schedule.
To repeat: one dose IS better than nothing. Definitely. But not the end.
To repeat: one dose IS better than nothing. Definitely. But not the end.
And the snag is, a lot of the good work of the vaccine could be undone if people relax too far too fast - which is always the danger when they're faced with articles like this.
We need realism rather than optimism at this point. We've had far too many instances of the latter.
We need realism rather than optimism at this point. We've had far too many instances of the latter.
If we accept at face value the article's 7 April date for the first dose, then that means everyone who received it will have had their second dose (and it will have taken effect) by Sunday, 18 July 2021.
That's the "realistic" date in this scenario.
That's the "realistic" date in this scenario.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
