@moutet This is actually a distortion because it assigns far too great significance too having received two does vs one does. Actually, the head of FDA’s Vaccine Research Konstantin Chumakov in an interview was asked about the significance of getting two doses vs one and said, it was
@moutet much smaller than many people believe. This is what he said (I am now quoting from memory, the interview is on youtube in Russian). During the meeting at which emergency use of the Pfizer vaccine was approved, the question was asked: why do you have two doses rather than one if
@moutet your tests seem to show that one dose is already fully effective. And the answer was: this decision was made before we had the results on effectiveness of the vaccine. Because mRNA vaccines cannot be stored (unlike some other kinds of vaccines), if one dose proved ineffective it
@moutet would be necessary to spend more time in producing a booster, so it was decided to have two. Anyway, the effect of two doses should last longer than that of one, but one is already effective.
The J&J vaccine is only a single dose. It does not at all mean that this single dose is
The J&J vaccine is only a single dose. It does not at all mean that this single dose is
@moutet mote effective than a single dose of the Pfizer or Moderna or AstraZeneca or Sputnik V vaccine. These are matters of design - it’s too early to tell which vaccines will be effective for a longer time. All of them protect and right the most important thing is to give one dose to
@moutet as many persons as possible. It’s much more important than giving two doses, although of course two doses are better (but nobody really knows by his much) than one.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
