No worries, the reporting, guidance, and process area all still very unclear for this.
From the article:
So, we don't know anything but 2 sounds better than 1, let's imply that's the case.
They're reporting anecdote as if it's some fact. With the same lumping together of "single-dose vaccines", but it's seems clear that's a misrepresentation too. Sure, we're seeing lots of delta issues when compared to a "single-dose of a two dose vaccine" but that's not the same as issues with a "single-dose of a single dose vaccine". The entire point of the differences was that the single dose of the "single dose vaccine" was already effective enough and more equivalent to "two doses of a two dose vaccine". That's the comparison we need to see. It would be like saying delta is a problem for those that only got half a dose of J&J. No duh, they only got half a dose it's not going to work like a full dose would.
We don't need a full on trial of getting a second after J&J. What we need is some real analysis from an area that gave out J&J. If in the breakthrough cases they're seeing, is there a difference in what they're breaking through. Combined with some smaller safety trial on the cross impacts (which seems fine), and the response it seems to generate. Tens or hundreds, not thousands and months. It's an incremental question not starting from scratch.
All those people in the article that got a second shot now fall into one of three categories:
- The lied and abused the vaccine distribution system that checks if you've previously gotten a vaccine. Then compounded the abuse by getting one dose and showing up as incomplete by not getting the second. Not to mention counting twice as vaccinated but only once for population breaking that metric.
- They abused their position in vaccine distribution to get a shot on the sly.
- They're part of some trial on the worth, but hiding that they're part of the trial.
None of those is a great message to be sending for someone who wants to be respected in the community.