Quote:
Originally Posted by russellw
I've been fairly supportive of the job that the Victorian Government has done throughout the pandemic as they have largely avoided playing too much of the political game in favour of putting health concerns first.
However, (as I predicted) they have now wheeled out some talking head in the Health Department to stand up and say that reducing the AstraZeneca 2nd dose time to 6 weeks (from 12) is a good thing to do so that it becomes 'health' advice rather than political the expediency that it really is.
I actually watched all of the 5 major media outlets last night as they all trotted out their own Professor of something vaguely related to make the comment that the associated reduction in efficacy: doesn't matter / doesn't exist / disappears over time / is a conspiracy theory / is less of a risk than leaving people without their 2nd dose (based entirely on the political leanings of the broadcaster).
I do understand the motivation. Obviously the decision is not based on the science or the recommendations from the manufacturer, WHO or even our own TGA but on the need for the Government to save themselves by getting people out of lockdown ASAP. As a reminder, at 6 weeks (the new recommended period) efficacy is only 60% compared to the 86% after 12 weeks (+2) and at the risk of repeating myself, I'm happy to do the extra 6 weeks of largely staying at home for the extra protection.
Here's another prediction and if it proves right then it really gets my goat:
.. those people who have their 2nd dose time shortened will end up with priority for the boosters whenever they start rolling out simply because of the reduced efficacy while the rest of us poor sods who've done the full 12 weeks will be at the back of the queue again.
|
I got the AZ and waited the 12 weeks (as I had to) and I am glad I did
Despite all the 'scare mongering' around AZ it looks like it has the best efficacy for the longest period of time of the 2 available at the moment