Jump to content

Vaccinations


Bulletguy

Recommended Posts

Guest pelmetman

I get the feeling that once the Pandemic is over some folk on here will have egg all over their face >:-) .........

 

Especially when Boris's decision to spread the time between jabs is proved to be a wise move B-) ............

 

Plus we're are going to get a 2nd Jab......unlike some of those in Froggy Land 8-) ........

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

pelmetman - 2021-02-12 7:04 PM

 

I get the feeling that once the Pandemic is over some folk on here will have egg all over their face >:-) .........

 

Especially when Boris's decision to spread the time between jabs is proved to be a wise move B-) ............

 

Plus we're are going to get a 2nd Jab......unlike some of those in Froggy Land 8-) ........

 

 

The manufacturers of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccine are now stating categorically that the efficacy of their products is reduced to 50% with just one injection. This has now been demonstrated in the Israeli rollout. The UK's stance is based on modelling not trials.

 

So make sure that you get the AstraZeneca one!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest pelmetman
CurtainRaiser - 2021-02-12 7:16 PM

 

pelmetman - 2021-02-12 7:04 PM

 

I get the feeling that once the Pandemic is over some folk on here will have egg all over their face >:-) .........

 

Especially when Boris's decision to spread the time between jabs is proved to be a wise move B-) ............

 

Plus we're are going to get a 2nd Jab......unlike some of those in Froggy Land 8-) ........

 

 

The manufacturers of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccine are now stating categorically that the efficacy of their products is reduced to 50% with just one injection. This has now been demonstrated in the Israeli rollout. The UK's stance is based on modelling not trials.

 

So make sure that you get the AstraZeneca one!

 

Best tell your EU Froggy mates ;-) .........

 

As THEY are the ones planning on only giving 1 Pfizer jab to folk >:-) ..........

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

pelmetman - 2021-02-12 7:20 PM

 

CurtainRaiser - 2021-02-12 7:16 PM

 

pelmetman - 2021-02-12 7:04 PM

 

I get the feeling that once the Pandemic is over some folk on here will have egg all over their face >:-) .........

 

Especially when Boris's decision to spread the time between jabs is proved to be a wise move B-) ............

 

Plus we're are going to get a 2nd Jab......unlike some of those in Froggy Land 8-) ........

 

 

The manufacturers of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccine are now stating categorically that the efficacy of their products is reduced to 50% with just one injection. This has now been demonstrated in the Israeli rollout. The UK's stance is based on modelling not trials.

 

So make sure that you get the AstraZeneca one!

 

Best tell your EU Froggy mates ;-) .........

 

As THEY are the ones planning on only giving 1 Pfizer jab to folk >:-) ..........

Only for people who have already had Covid, everyone else will receive the standard two dose.

 

https://www.france24.com/en/france/20210212-france-recommends-single-vaccine-shot-for-people-who-have-had-covid-19

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bulletguy - 2021-02-12 7:33 PM

 

pelmetman - 2021-02-12 7:20 PM

 

CurtainRaiser - 2021-02-12 7:16 PM

 

pelmetman - 2021-02-12 7:04 PM

 

I get the feeling that once the Pandemic is over some folk on here will have egg all over their face >:-) .........

 

Especially when Boris's decision to spread the time between jabs is proved to be a wise move B-) ............

 

Plus we're are going to get a 2nd Jab......unlike some of those in Froggy Land 8-) ........

 

 

The manufacturers of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccine are now stating categorically that the efficacy of their products is reduced to 50% with just one injection. This has now been demonstrated in the Israeli rollout. The UK's stance is based on modelling not trials.

 

So make sure that you get the AstraZeneca one!

 

Best tell your EU Froggy mates ;-) .........

 

As THEY are the ones planning on only giving 1 Pfizer jab to folk >:-) ..........

Only for people who have already had Covid, everyone else will receive the standard two dose.

 

https://www.france24.com/en/france/20210212-france-recommends-single-vaccine-shot-for-people-who-have-had-covid-19

 

As a lot of people are asymptomatic and have not had a test they won’t know they have had it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest pelmetman
Bulletguy - 2021-02-12 7:33 PM

 

pelmetman - 2021-02-12 7:20 PM

 

CurtainRaiser - 2021-02-12 7:16 PM

 

pelmetman - 2021-02-12 7:04 PM

 

I get the feeling that once the Pandemic is over some folk on here will have egg all over their face >:-) .........

 

Especially when Boris's decision to spread the time between jabs is proved to be a wise move B-) ............

 

Plus we're are going to get a 2nd Jab......unlike some of those in Froggy Land 8-) ........

 

 

The manufacturers of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccine are now stating categorically that the efficacy of their products is reduced to 50% with just one injection. This has now been demonstrated in the Israeli rollout. The UK's stance is based on modelling not trials.

 

So make sure that you get the AstraZeneca one!

 

Best tell your EU Froggy mates ;-) .........

 

As THEY are the ones planning on only giving 1 Pfizer jab to folk >:-) ..........

Only for people who have already had Covid, everyone else will receive the standard two dose.

 

https://www.france24.com/en/france/20210212-france-recommends-single-vaccine-shot-for-people-who-have-had-covid-19

 

I can imagine the screaming temper tantrums you LOSERS would be having if it was Boris who had suggested it *-) ........

 

EU LOSERS really are massive two faced HYPOCRITES >:-) ..........

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CurtainRaiser - 2021-02-12 7:16 PM

pelmetman - 2021-02-12 7:04 PM

I get the feeling that once the Pandemic is over some folk on here will have egg all over their face >:-) .........

Especially when Boris's decision to spread the time between jabs is proved to be a wise move B-) ............

Plus we're are going to get a 2nd Jab......unlike some of those in Froggy Land 8-) ........

The manufacturers of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccine are now stating categorically that the efficacy of their products is reduced to 50% with just one injection. This has now been demonstrated in the Israeli rollout. The UK's stance is based on modelling not trials.

So make sure that you get the AstraZeneca one!

Yes, but! :-) It is not intended to leave the vaccination process at one dose. That confers some, albeit less than opyimal, protection, until the second dose is administered. This is true for any lag between doses, be it 3 weeks, or 12 weeks. If fact, there is some indication that the protection given by the first dose continues to increase beyond 3 weeks.

 

The argument is that it is better to have the greatest number given one dose (accepting the reduced protection conferred), than to give the full dose to half that number. Part of this calculation is that even after two doses none of the vaccines give 100% protection, and that the protection given by the single dose does not fade (appearing to continue increasing), before the second is given, even over the extended time lag between doses. The only risk to the individual is then that until the second dose is administered and has been metabolised (about 3 weeks), they remain somewhat more vulnerable to infection than would be the case had they had the second dose at 3 weeks.

 

The risk to the population has been prioritised over the risk to the individual. Twice the number of people given one dose reduces the number of potentially infected people wandering around to infect others more quickly than having half that number fully protected but double the number of potentially infected people in circulation. On the assumption that the hand washing, face coverings, and social distancing precautions all remain in place (which I understand to be the case) I see clear advantage to the extended lag between doses.

 

It also has to be borne in mind that both the supply of vaccine, and jabbers, is limited, so it is a case of gaining greatest advantage from what is available. In an ideal world, the supply of both would be infinite, but..................................ideal worlds? :-D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brian Kirby - 2021-02-13 1:09 PM

 

CurtainRaiser - 2021-02-12 7:16 PM

pelmetman - 2021-02-12 7:04 PM

I get the feeling that once the Pandemic is over some folk on here will have egg all over their face >:-) .........

Especially when Boris's decision to spread the time between jabs is proved to be a wise move B-) ............

Plus we're are going to get a 2nd Jab......unlike some of those in Froggy Land 8-) ........

The manufacturers of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccine are now stating categorically that the efficacy of their products is reduced to 50% with just one injection. This has now been demonstrated in the Israeli rollout. The UK's stance is based on modelling not trials.

So make sure that you get the AstraZeneca one!

Yes, but! :-) It is not intended to leave the vaccination process at one dose. That confers some, albeit less than opyimal, protection, until the second dose is administered. This is true for any lag between doses, be it 3 weeks, or 12 weeks. If fact, there is some indication that the protection given by the first dose continues to increase beyond 3 weeks.

 

The argument is that it is better to have the greatest number given one dose (accepting the reduced protection conferred), than to give the full dose to half that number. Part of this calculation is that even after two doses none of the vaccines give 100% protection, and that the protection given by the single dose does not fade (appearing to continue increasing), before the second is given, even over the extended time lag between doses. The only risk to the individual is then that until the second dose is administered and has been metabolised (about 3 weeks), they remain somewhat more vulnerable to infection than would be the case had they had the second dose at 3 weeks.

 

The risk to the population has been prioritised over the risk to the individual. Twice the number of people given one dose reduces the number of potentially infected people wandering around to infect others more quickly than having half that number fully protected but double the number of potentially infected people in circulation. On the assumption that the hand washing, face coverings, and social distancing precautions all remain in place (which I understand to be the case) I see clear advantage to the extended lag between doses.

 

It also has to be borne in mind that both the supply of vaccine, and jabbers, is limited, so it is a case of gaining greatest advantage from what is available. In an ideal world, the supply of both would be infinite, but..................................ideal worlds? :-D

 

There was a interesting discussion on Newsnight the other night, two scientists in a heated discussion. One point was that the governments position had been on the basis of modelling, the other view shared by Pfizer and other epidemiologists is that in the extended period between jabs a new variant could emerge which the vaccine is ineffective against.

 

The scientists argument is that the precautionary principle should apply.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest pelmetman
CurtainRaiser - 2021-02-13 1:32 PM

 

Brian Kirby - 2021-02-13 1:09 PM

 

CurtainRaiser - 2021-02-12 7:16 PM

pelmetman - 2021-02-12 7:04 PM

I get the feeling that once the Pandemic is over some folk on here will have egg all over their face >:-) .........

Especially when Boris's decision to spread the time between jabs is proved to be a wise move B-) ............

Plus we're are going to get a 2nd Jab......unlike some of those in Froggy Land 8-) ........

The manufacturers of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccine are now stating categorically that the efficacy of their products is reduced to 50% with just one injection. This has now been demonstrated in the Israeli rollout. The UK's stance is based on modelling not trials.

So make sure that you get the AstraZeneca one!

Yes, but! :-) It is not intended to leave the vaccination process at one dose. That confers some, albeit less than opyimal, protection, until the second dose is administered. This is true for any lag between doses, be it 3 weeks, or 12 weeks. If fact, there is some indication that the protection given by the first dose continues to increase beyond 3 weeks.

 

The argument is that it is better to have the greatest number given one dose (accepting the reduced protection conferred), than to give the full dose to half that number. Part of this calculation is that even after two doses none of the vaccines give 100% protection, and that the protection given by the single dose does not fade (appearing to continue increasing), before the second is given, even over the extended time lag between doses. The only risk to the individual is then that until the second dose is administered and has been metabolised (about 3 weeks), they remain somewhat more vulnerable to infection than would be the case had they had the second dose at 3 weeks.

 

The risk to the population has been prioritised over the risk to the individual. Twice the number of people given one dose reduces the number of potentially infected people wandering around to infect others more quickly than having half that number fully protected but double the number of potentially infected people in circulation. On the assumption that the hand washing, face coverings, and social distancing precautions all remain in place (which I understand to be the case) I see clear advantage to the extended lag between doses.

 

It also has to be borne in mind that both the supply of vaccine, and jabbers, is limited, so it is a case of gaining greatest advantage from what is available. In an ideal world, the supply of both would be infinite, but..................................ideal worlds? :-D

 

There was a interesting discussion on Newsnight the other night, two scientists in a heated discussion. One point was that the governments position had been on the basis of modelling, the other view shared by Pfizer and other epidemiologists is that in the extended period between jabs a new variant could emerge which the vaccine is ineffective against.

 

The scientists argument is that the precautionary principle should apply.

 

So if the vaccine is ineffective against a new varient......then whats the point of having 2 ineffective jabs? *-) ...........

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

pelmetman - 2021-02-13 2:47 PM

 

CurtainRaiser - 2021-02-13 1:32 PM

 

Brian Kirby - 2021-02-13 1:09 PM

 

CurtainRaiser - 2021-02-12 7:16 PM

pelmetman - 2021-02-12 7:04 PM

I get the feeling that once the Pandemic is over some folk on here will have egg all over their face >:-) .........

Especially when Boris's decision to spread the time between jabs is proved to be a wise move B-) ............

Plus we're are going to get a 2nd Jab......unlike some of those in Froggy Land 8-) ........

The manufacturers of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccine are now stating categorically that the efficacy of their products is reduced to 50% with just one injection. This has now been demonstrated in the Israeli rollout. The UK's stance is based on modelling not trials.

So make sure that you get the AstraZeneca one!

Yes, but! :-) It is not intended to leave the vaccination process at one dose. That confers some, albeit less than opyimal, protection, until the second dose is administered. This is true for any lag between doses, be it 3 weeks, or 12 weeks. If fact, there is some indication that the protection given by the first dose continues to increase beyond 3 weeks.

 

The argument is that it is better to have the greatest number given one dose (accepting the reduced protection conferred), than to give the full dose to half that number. Part of this calculation is that even after two doses none of the vaccines give 100% protection, and that the protection given by the single dose does not fade (appearing to continue increasing), before the second is given, even over the extended time lag between doses. The only risk to the individual is then that until the second dose is administered and has been metabolised (about 3 weeks), they remain somewhat more vulnerable to infection than would be the case had they had the second dose at 3 weeks.

 

The risk to the population has been prioritised over the risk to the individual. Twice the number of people given one dose reduces the number of potentially infected people wandering around to infect others more quickly than having half that number fully protected but double the number of potentially infected people in circulation. On the assumption that the hand washing, face coverings, and social distancing precautions all remain in place (which I understand to be the case) I see clear advantage to the extended lag between doses.

 

It also has to be borne in mind that both the supply of vaccine, and jabbers, is limited, so it is a case of gaining greatest advantage from what is available. In an ideal world, the supply of both would be infinite, but..................................ideal worlds? :-D

 

There was a interesting discussion on Newsnight the other night, two scientists in a heated discussion. One point was that the governments position had been on the basis of modelling, the other view shared by Pfizer and other epidemiologists is that in the extended period between jabs a new variant could emerge which the vaccine is ineffective against.

 

The scientists argument is that the precautionary principle should apply.

 

So if the vaccine is ineffective against a new varient......then whats the point of having 2 ineffective jabs? *-) ...........

 

 

Are you really that stupid? Okay in plain English I'll spell out the bleeding obvious.

 

The scientists and more importantly the manufacturer is worried that while somebody has limited/reduced immunity after just one jab, they might catch a mild dose that gives the virus the opportunity to mutate into a vaccine resistant strain.

 

This applies to the Pfizer vaccine, Doris and co are perhaps being more reckless than the Chinese were and potentially allowing a super virus to emerge that will set the whole world back another 18 months.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CurtainRaiser - 2021-02-13 3:12 PM

 

pelmetman - 2021-02-13 2:47 PM

 

CurtainRaiser - 2021-02-13 1:32 PM

 

Brian Kirby - 2021-02-13 1:09 PM

 

CurtainRaiser - 2021-02-12 7:16 PM

pelmetman - 2021-02-12 7:04 PM

I get the feeling that once the Pandemic is over some folk on here will have egg all over their face >:-) .........

Especially when Boris's decision to spread the time between jabs is proved to be a wise move B-) ............

Plus we're are going to get a 2nd Jab......unlike some of those in Froggy Land 8-) ........

The manufacturers of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccine are now stating categorically that the efficacy of their products is reduced to 50% with just one injection. This has now been demonstrated in the Israeli rollout. The UK's stance is based on modelling not trials.

So make sure that you get the AstraZeneca one!

Yes, but! :-) It is not intended to leave the vaccination process at one dose. That confers some, albeit less than opyimal, protection, until the second dose is administered. This is true for any lag between doses, be it 3 weeks, or 12 weeks. If fact, there is some indication that the protection given by the first dose continues to increase beyond 3 weeks.

 

The argument is that it is better to have the greatest number given one dose (accepting the reduced protection conferred), than to give the full dose to half that number. Part of this calculation is that even after two doses none of the vaccines give 100% protection, and that the protection given by the single dose does not fade (appearing to continue increasing), before the second is given, even over the extended time lag between doses. The only risk to the individual is then that until the second dose is administered and has been metabolised (about 3 weeks), they remain somewhat more vulnerable to infection than would be the case had they had the second dose at 3 weeks.

 

The risk to the population has been prioritised over the risk to the individual. Twice the number of people given one dose reduces the number of potentially infected people wandering around to infect others more quickly than having half that number fully protected but double the number of potentially infected people in circulation. On the assumption that the hand washing, face coverings, and social distancing precautions all remain in place (which I understand to be the case) I see clear advantage to the extended lag between doses.

 

It also has to be borne in mind that both the supply of vaccine, and jabbers, is limited, so it is a case of gaining greatest advantage from what is available. In an ideal world, the supply of both would be infinite, but..................................ideal worlds? :-D

 

There was a interesting discussion on Newsnight the other night, two scientists in a heated discussion. One point was that the governments position had been on the basis of modelling, the other view shared by Pfizer and other epidemiologists is that in the extended period between jabs a new variant could emerge which the vaccine is ineffective against.

 

The scientists argument is that the precautionary principle should apply.

 

So if the vaccine is ineffective against a new varient......then whats the point of having 2 ineffective jabs? *-) ...........

 

 

Are you really that stupid? Okay in plain English I'll spell out the bleeding obvious.

 

The scientists and more importantly the manufacturer is worried that while somebody has limited/reduced immunity after just one jab, they might catch a mild dose that gives the virus the opportunity to mutate into a vaccine resistant strain.

 

This applies to the Pfizer vaccine, Doris and co are perhaps being more reckless than the Chinese were and potentially allowing a super virus to emerge that will set the whole world back another 18 months.

 

 

It can still happen after both jabs.

Of course those who have had Coronavirus and were not affected had a better immune system.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest pelmetman
CurtainRaiser - 2021-02-13 3:12 PM

 

pelmetman - 2021-02-13 2:47 PM

 

CurtainRaiser - 2021-02-13 1:32 PM

 

Brian Kirby - 2021-02-13 1:09 PM

 

CurtainRaiser - 2021-02-12 7:16 PM

pelmetman - 2021-02-12 7:04 PM

I get the feeling that once the Pandemic is over some folk on here will have egg all over their face >:-) .........

Especially when Boris's decision to spread the time between jabs is proved to be a wise move B-) ............

Plus we're are going to get a 2nd Jab......unlike some of those in Froggy Land 8-) ........

The manufacturers of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccine are now stating categorically that the efficacy of their products is reduced to 50% with just one injection. This has now been demonstrated in the Israeli rollout. The UK's stance is based on modelling not trials.

So make sure that you get the AstraZeneca one!

Yes, but! :-) It is not intended to leave the vaccination process at one dose. That confers some, albeit less than opyimal, protection, until the second dose is administered. This is true for any lag between doses, be it 3 weeks, or 12 weeks. If fact, there is some indication that the protection given by the first dose continues to increase beyond 3 weeks.

 

The argument is that it is better to have the greatest number given one dose (accepting the reduced protection conferred), than to give the full dose to half that number. Part of this calculation is that even after two doses none of the vaccines give 100% protection, and that the protection given by the single dose does not fade (appearing to continue increasing), before the second is given, even over the extended time lag between doses. The only risk to the individual is then that until the second dose is administered and has been metabolised (about 3 weeks), they remain somewhat more vulnerable to infection than would be the case had they had the second dose at 3 weeks.

 

The risk to the population has been prioritised over the risk to the individual. Twice the number of people given one dose reduces the number of potentially infected people wandering around to infect others more quickly than having half that number fully protected but double the number of potentially infected people in circulation. On the assumption that the hand washing, face coverings, and social distancing precautions all remain in place (which I understand to be the case) I see clear advantage to the extended lag between doses.

 

It also has to be borne in mind that both the supply of vaccine, and jabbers, is limited, so it is a case of gaining greatest advantage from what is available. In an ideal world, the supply of both would be infinite, but..................................ideal worlds? :-D

 

There was a interesting discussion on Newsnight the other night, two scientists in a heated discussion. One point was that the governments position had been on the basis of modelling, the other view shared by Pfizer and other epidemiologists is that in the extended period between jabs a new variant could emerge which the vaccine is ineffective against.

 

The scientists argument is that the precautionary principle should apply.

 

So if the vaccine is ineffective against a new varient......then whats the point of having 2 ineffective jabs? *-) ...........

 

 

Are you really that stupid? Okay in plain English I'll spell out the bleeding obvious.

 

The scientists and more importantly the manufacturer is worried that while somebody has limited/reduced immunity after just one jab, they might catch a mild dose that gives the virus the opportunity to mutate into a vaccine resistant strain.

 

This applies to the Pfizer vaccine, Doris and co are perhaps being more reckless than the Chinese were and potentially allowing a super virus to emerge that will set the whole world back another 18 months.

 

 

So that hyperthetical risk doesn't exist with all the vaccines that require 2 jabs? *-) .........

 

Fortunately most of us Brits will get our Blighty made vaccine which has shown that the longer delay between jabs actually improves its efficacy B-) .........

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/03/delaying-second-astrazeneca-vaccine-dose-does-work-study-shows.html

 

No doubt that'll annoy you too :D ..........

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

jumpstart - 2021-02-13 7:56 AM

 

Bulletguy - 2021-02-12 7:33 PM

 

pelmetman - 2021-02-12 7:20 PM

 

CurtainRaiser - 2021-02-12 7:16 PM

 

pelmetman - 2021-02-12 7:04 PM

 

I get the feeling that once the Pandemic is over some folk on here will have egg all over their face >:-) .........

 

Especially when Boris's decision to spread the time between jabs is proved to be a wise move B-) ............

 

Plus we're are going to get a 2nd Jab......unlike some of those in Froggy Land 8-) ........

 

 

The manufacturers of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccine are now stating categorically that the efficacy of their products is reduced to 50% with just one injection. This has now been demonstrated in the Israeli rollout. The UK's stance is based on modelling not trials.

 

So make sure that you get the AstraZeneca one!

 

Best tell your EU Froggy mates ;-) .........

 

As THEY are the ones planning on only giving 1 Pfizer jab to folk >:-) ..........

Only for people who have already had Covid, everyone else will receive the standard two dose.

 

https://www.france24.com/en/france/20210212-france-recommends-single-vaccine-shot-for-people-who-have-had-covid-19

 

As a lot of people are asymptomatic and have not had a test they won’t know they have had it.

Those people will still be given the two dose vaccine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest pelmetman
CurtainRaiser - 2021-02-13 4:21 PM

 

For those that to learn a little more rather than engage in nationalism about a vaccine developed by a multi national team by a Swedish British company that manufacture throughout Europe here's some more information on jabbing strategies

 

https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n86

 

Best send it to your NASTY mates in the EU then >:-) .........

 

(lol) (lol) (lol) ...........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bulletguy - 2021-02-13 3:43 PM

 

jumpstart - 2021-02-13 7:56 AM

 

Bulletguy - 2021-02-12 7:33 PM

 

pelmetman - 2021-02-12 7:20 PM

 

CurtainRaiser - 2021-02-12 7:16 PM

 

pelmetman - 2021-02-12 7:04 PM

 

I get the feeling that once the Pandemic is over some folk on here will have egg all over their face >:-) .........

 

Especially when Boris's decision to spread the time between jabs is proved to be a wise move B-) ............

 

Plus we're are going to get a 2nd Jab......unlike some of those in Froggy Land 8-) ........

 

 

The manufacturers of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccine are now stating categorically that the efficacy of their products is reduced to 50% with just one injection. This has now been demonstrated in the Israeli rollout. The UK's stance is based on modelling not trials.

 

So make sure that you get the AstraZeneca one!

 

Best tell your EU Froggy mates ;-) .........

 

As THEY are the ones planning on only giving 1 Pfizer jab to folk >:-) ..........

Only for people who have already had Covid, everyone else will receive the standard two dose.

 

https://www.france24.com/en/france/20210212-france-recommends-single-vaccine-shot-for-people-who-have-had-covid-19

 

As a lot of people are asymptomatic and have not had a test they won’t know they have had it.

Those people will still be given the two dose vaccine.

 

Not if they don't know eho has had it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...