I believe they are identical too.
Which is why it was interesting that in the US we have generally prioritized the booster instead of covering more people.
Going from 90% efficacy to 95% efficacy (an approximation of the value of the second shot) strikes me as less important in most cases than giving another person 90% protection
But maybe it has to do with the kind of people who are supposed to be getting the shot in the first rounds.
I would guess that would depend on how you balance out the number of personnel involved in administering the shots. Essentially, you need twice as many people (and twice as much drug production rate) with the booster shot scheme than with the one-shot scheme.
I see it as probable, with the vast medical industry (personnel-wise) in the US, and the production capabiities, it was a good decision to go to the booster shot regime here in the U.S.
That's the way I see it, anyhow. Time will tell.
I'm a little concerned about that timing deal, which started out as two weeks, then went to three weeks between shots, and now noises are made about how it doesn't matter
that much.Well, since I got postponed to four weeks now, I'm wondering how they are quantifying "much" today, 14 March, as opposed to tomorrow, 15 March.
I'm still hunkering down, not going out but once a week or so for provender, and exercising max caution.
One-Shot Terry
