Pleased Not To Be Pontificating From Planet Zog

Unlike some people, I have never knowingly, tried to mislead people on social media (with the possible exception of an April Fool prank, I helped play decades ago on BBC radio). I do get concerned, however, at the number of times I apparently find things to worry about, in the statements concerning 'science' made by law-makers. I know from experience that a scientifically knowledgable politician is a very rare beast. What they do know, can generally be written on the back of a small postage stamp. But, surely, they get the best scientific advice? So why does a retired Psychobiologist, who also dabbled in environmental issues, get concerned about some of the things that they postulate. You may have seen, in earlier posts, that I have worried about the sudden decision, in the UK, to extend the period between the first and second doses of Covid-19 vaccine, for up to 12 weeks. I have, perhaps unkindly, speculated that the politicians might be more interested in increasing the numbers of people vaccinated, than they are about producing effective protection. But, surely their advisors would not allow them to do things, if they were bad ideas? I am torn 2 ways. I want effective protection from Covid-19. I am also keen to get as many people protected (to cut down on viral mutations, for starters). So, I wondered if I was missing something. My basic understanding was, that vaccines were approved on the basis of the protections they had been shown to offer, to different groups of subjects, when given in particular combinations of doses and timings. Vaccines were only approved for general use, when delivered following the schedule, producing their data. Modifying doses and timings was something for future research. I am, consequently, somewhat relieved to note that some vaccine specialists share my concerns (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jan/06/mrna-vaccines-schedule-covid-19). In an opinion piece, Angela Rasmussen and Ilan Schwartz are firmly of the opinion that people should firmly stick to the schedule, at least when administering mRNA vaccines (currently Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna). They also do not appear enthusiastic about a variety of suggestions, to maximise the number of people vaccinated, made by academics and law-makers in Canada, the UK and the US . In addition to delaying the 2nd dose of vaccine, until more people have received their first, various authorities have suggested a) halving the dose; b) giving the vaccine as a single injection. Rasmussen and Schwartz clearly believe, like me, that we do not have the data to make such changes in an informed manner. The advocated changes are essentially guesswork. There is a danger that the quality of the immune protections will be compromised. That might lead to people's confidence in the vaccination process (clearly something to worry about, given antivaxx activities) being undermined. These are essentially the issues that initially worried me (so, I am sane and not just a 'worry-guts'). I am not certain, however, what to say, when I go for my first jab.