Burkey
Well-Known Member
- Thread starter
- #6,976
Ok, this is a conversation worth having, but, it needs some clarity.Hello; I will try again. Some around me have had a third shot. Some in other places who want one cannot get the first shot. A first shot was reported to give some immune protection. Fewer people with three or more shots seems a less practical use of a limited resource than many more with one shot. I saw a news story of a man in my country who had tried to get multiple shots from each vaccine type. Forget how many he managed to get before he was found out.
I do not dispute the cost benefit between shots and hospital beds. More the mandates that have forced shots into the naturally immune and a third shot.
When you say âsome around meâ I presume youâre referring to older people or those who meet certain criteria in terms of risk? Or not?
Without the benefit of any training in the relevant fields, it would âseemâ that the primary objective would be to gain adequate protection for those who need it the most, first.
Whether that is entirely accurate I canât say.
In that line of thinking youâd be double dosing the elderly and other high-risk groups first. Agreed?
Then thereâs the inevitable delay time while the rest of the nation catches up, at which point, the earliest receivers âmightâ be due for a booster (Depending on the speed of the rollout and the uptake rate by the citizens etc etc).
I donât really see any issue with giving third doses to high risk groups.
You yourself have constantly told us that the elderly and those with certain conditions are amongst those most likely to succumb to the virus.
I guess it all comes down to probability at some point.
My personal preference would be that you vac the higher risk groups first, followed by those that havenât had the virus and finally those who have had the virus. However, in an imperfect world, I guess that thereâs some other things that come into play, like vaccine hesitancy, lag between doses, availability etc etc.
Sponsored