Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
I've seen a lot of reports and data but don't have it to hand sorry. If I come across it again I'll share it here.
You asked for my data for the range of efficacy I quoted; I referenced specific studies. I'm asking you for supposedly voluminous evidence of >50% reduction in viral load and hospitalizations after 1 dose. It's kinda central to your argument.

Fine for a study, this isn't a study. This is real life.
I recognize that the UK's strategy does not lend itself to a random assignment, blinded, placebo controlled trial. That was what I was lamenting. You think that because it's an EUA it's somehow okay to go ahead with a huge dosing change without data. But those EUAs weren't granted in the first place without a large placebo controlled RCT precisely because you can't just make an educated guess about whether the vaccine will work in a given formulation/dose/etc.

I asked it earlier, but I'll pull it out here: In the absence of solid data, how do you know that this change to the dosing will result in a net improvement as opposed to some other change in dosing that is not being contemplated here? There are many ways to skin this cat: reduce the quantity dosed at each dosage but give the same number/timing of doses. Or you could just stick with 1 dose and skip the second entirely - certainly you can get even MORE people vaccinated quickly. Or you could mix and match vaccines to reduce the administrative burden. So how do you know this will work better than the method that is known to work... and that other changes aren't better? Which untested change do you embrace?


Well in this case the JCVI aren't treating a solitary patient, they're explicitly seeking the best protection for across the community. If millions more are protected via this regimen following the logic and numbers I posted before, and if tens of thousands of lives are potentially saved as a result (given we face losing over a thousand a day currently some days that's not an exaggeration), then that seems reasonable to me. Does it seem absolutely unreasonable to you?
I have no issue with this basic theory from a public health perspective. My issue is arguing that this falls under off-label use provisions, which are generally related to individual patients, not broader public health.