one shot helps now. two shots help you more later. one shot will be less effective later.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Booster_dose

fyi: many vaccines require booster shots. it depends on the biology, of which you are ignorant. so imo, you're better off doing what your doctors and the medical community recommend.

The math doesn't lie. What you say above is untrue for 40-59 years and only somewhat true for 20-39 year olds.

I agree the maths doesn't lie.

But it's still true even for 55 year olds, although rapidly coming to an end. It's simply a fact that when that data was collected an average 75 year old was much more likely to be double jabbed plus a few weeks than a 45 year old and still a fair bit more likely than a 55 year old.

Correct. And the UK scientists take that stance - they don't do second vaccination for 12 weeks even with their crappy vaccine because the first does a pretty great job of protection for the bad outcomes, which are what matter.

The policy around the immediate need for a rapid booster was based on comically faulty science where they didn't give the first shot enough time to work - so they were comparing two weeks old first shot with 4 weeks of first followed by second shot. But if you let the first shot run its course (no second shot) for long enough (4 weeks), the protection of the second shot only adds a few percent. There's no good case for it in the few months following the first shot.

As far as I'm concerned the second shot within weeks of the first is another example of comically shoddy science and/or fraud from the experts. In the UK for example, Birmingham University finds this:

So the vulnerable actually get far BETTER antibody response by waiting more than 3 months for the booster. Just totally incompetent waste of precious vaccine because the experts in this field are like Elrazor and can't add up or think.

No one is really studying this stuff properly (because they'd rather do gain of function research that causes millions dead and trillions lost and a global pandemic, then lie about it, and or go out finding bats to get golden showers from).

But in the absence of good data and with all the data pointing the same way, the money line for Pfizer is pretty strongly on waiting a good while for your second booster, both for the public good, giving others a chance for protection, and to get a better response yourself.

In the long term (many months away), the booster shot is likely to give you longer lasting immunity of a higher quality. So while it makes sense to get it eventually, I'd say it's >90% that waiting 3 months will give you a better immune response. In the short term (less than a few months), there's no good reason that I can see to get the second shot, and lots of reasons not to.

Interestingly, we see the same with prior immunity: Those who previously had covid months ago and have the first vaccine get antibody levels well the above the quality of naive (never infected) first + second vaccine recipients. My guess is this has something to do with the longer time interval, the same mechanism as the geriatric study above. But expert scientists being wagon circling morons with slow wits and slow to admit their mistakes and change policy, it will take them months more to figure this out.

I can't see any good reason to get the second shot at that age and healthy.

Vaccine bigotry is a real thing in the US, all driven by batshit crazy left wingers who demand compliance or else. Watching from other countries, it's a weird phenomenon. Hopefully the US left wing grows out of its idiot/loser phase.

Texas is a perfect example of how these left wing clowns and the best experts fail out and get it wrong on an epic level. You want to listen to them on immediate second booster as when ALL the data is against it as well? I don't.

Just to be clear. Be very wary of getting your medical advice on an internet forum full of non specialists.

A few weeks makes no sense to me but TS is misrepresenting the uk long delay approach a bit as that was down to supply issues not science. i.e. more 1st was decided to be better than less 1st and more 2nds. They may well have had a fair bit of luck in the outcome.

For Pfizer I'm seeing 12 weeks as a good figure but again this is not the place to take that sort of 'advice' too seriosuly.

Although I would say there's one very easy way to get it off your mind.

Your own government and universities think that waiting 12+ weeks for the second booster is better. But they're experts too aren't they? I mean, lol? What to do when the experts don't agree? Does chezlaw's brain explode?

Second booster or not isn't "medical advice". It's openly available data that requires no individual consultation or expertise. And the data is 100% against getting a booster shot of Pfizer in less than 12 weeks. Again, the experts ****ed this up in the most stupid way possible at both the public policy and individual protection level recommending the second dose (for Pfizer) in four weeks three weeks rather than 12+. This isn't even debatable bro.

Why do you always buttlick the experts after they get it wrong again and again and again and again? What's wrong with you that you do that?

Or he could be smart and wait and do both a public service and a service to himself?

C'mon dont be silly. To quote myself

He could. FYi I could almost certainly have jumped the queue a bit for my 2nd dose but saw no need. Then again I wasn't suffering anxiety over it.

Right. It makes no sense to you. It makes no sense to anyone who knows immune system response. It makes no sense according to every single piece of data we have. It's stupid advice based on a bunch moronic experts early on comparing:

1. First dose vaccination infection rates vs
2. Second dose vaccination infection rates

with the sophistication of a particularly dumb dog: the interval since first vaccination in group (1) was far shorter than the interval since first vaccination of group (2), yielding ~60% for first and ~90% for second. But when the times since first dose are equal, the difference in protection for the first three months is basically non-existent between those who only got the first dose and those who got the second.

This epic moron level expert analysis then became public policy in the US and elsewhere, and continued to this day, solely because experts are worthless morons who wagon circle, are slow to adapt to new data once a policy is adopted, and hate contradicting themselves even if it hurts the public. So they continued the policy.

It's that simple bro. You know this too because you're not stupid. But your religious-level buttlicking of experts as a core foundational chezlaw activity that gives you purpose doesn't allow you to fully appreciate these hard facts above, even though you know they're true. It's really weird.

You're losing the plot TS. Do I need to quote myself yet again

also a bit more fyi. I was nagged by family to try to get my 2nd dose earlier and argued it was unnecesary. Dare I say? - yes I do! - that was because I was listening to the experts.

You edited that after I replied it seems. It certainly makes you less like an idiot having edited it, so bravo for that.

The UK delay isn't being misrepresented. They looked at the science and came to better conclusions. The UK scientists did better than the US public policy response.

Thank you. 'Less like an idiot' is my aspiration in life.

Sorry I did edit it but that was before I saw your response. I tend to post then edit a lot - sorry bad habit. As long as you're happy with the less idiotic version then I'm ecstatic

It is being misrepresented because you're suggetsing the long delay was decided on because they thought that was as effective, or better, than a shorter delay. That isn't the case as the decision to delay 2nd doses was made under the constraint of the supply. A very good decision nonetheless imo.

Other countries have leftists. Moreso than in the US and yet most don't have the vaccine idiocy the US does. Funny that. Maybe your 'data' says that is just a coincidence.

What other countries do not heave is Trump and his Muh Freedums idiots derping up the vaccine situation.

Had Trump not been a complete failure on the vaccine roll out things would be far better in the US now. But Biden is definitely fixing all Trump's mistakes.

Hey nut jobs (or anyone else) can u actually address my specific questions?

Shouldn’t be too hard...

So to be clear, are you disputing what I’m saying? Please go on.......

I could give a F**** about your ego bs. I have 3 days and a decision to make. And getting the vaccine is the easy one to click call on.

You people should see what lolcanada is upto with these vaccines, mixing and matching pfizer with moderna, astra zeneca with either mrna. Basically mixing and matching with whatever is avail at the time. Zero studies I can find for astra and moderna, like 3 or 4 with astra and pfizer all under 1k people (that I've found) one study they're using as proof had 29 ppl.

Our cdc equivalent has changed their tune every few weeks and it is jet fuel to anti vaxxers. Don't mix any vaccines, mix astra with only pfizer, mix astra with anything, don't mix mrna, mix mrna...can only guess what next week will bring

QFT.

Which data for 0-16 year olds that you have used in this calculation, ToothSteiner?

Yeah, my Canadian friend was bragging to me how Canada is mixing vaccines and how they're so far ahead of the curve
I'm like wtf, the vaccines have barely been out for 6 months. How can they already have conclusive studies on this?

Hey shuffle: with over 2.6 billion doses administered and 36 million shots daily---posting horrible stories should be a full time job right. How long did you trawl the internet to find that poor child's story along with some heavy flow

Canadians are funny. I trust these vaccines jusssst barely enough to take them; I sure af ain't mixing them anytime soon

Why the **** is a 13 year old getting vaccinated?

The death rate for healthy 13 year olds with covid is statistically 0.

Yeah apart from the fact that healthy 13 year olds are basically immune from the bad effects of covid (apart from being far less likely to catch it in the first place), their R is very low. They're not the ones driving the disease. It's fairly probable that child R is less than 1, which makes vaccinating them even more insane.

It's all nutcase anti-science left wingers driving this nonsense of vaccinating children.

Also, see the quote above on 20s and 30s for the UK clowns linking the delta graph to age based vaccination rates. No, guys, it's exactly like I said: Non-vaccinated infection rates by age look just like this as well - spreading rapidly through the socially active/travel demographic (20-39) which get seeded first and spread internally first, and taking a lot longer in other demographics to get going. It's a consistent fact across regions (see the Florida outbreak heatmap as well, early Belgium age stats) Just poor data analysis and unwarranted assumptions on your parts.

huh!

You can see why the high infection rate is consistant with the high vaccination rate just as was being pointing out.

We got to quibbling about the 40+ year olds but I assume you agree that the 20-39 year olds were barely vaccinated dont you?

We weren't "quibbling", you were wrong and I was right on what the UK vacc/protection numbers look like.

The point sir is the spread rate by age graph is exactly what the graph looks like in early spread anyway (without vaccine). The graph itself doesn't show anything about vaccination providing protecting until you correct for the pre-vaccination age breakdown of new infection spread which looks very similar. Look at 0-19 (far less vaccinated that 20-39) for example to see how vaccs matter less than other things.

This is all really obvious stuff. You guys need a convict (Australian) education if you're not grasping this with your British one.

No I wsn't wrong

and given how obvious it is (which indeed it is). Why did you think the high vaccination rate was so relevent when it so obviously wasn't?