No, some vaccines wear off relatively quickly: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/04/how-long-do-vaccines...

So it's very important to follow the protocol here as much as possible until we know otherwise.

Immunity wearing off doesn't mean a booster won't work. The memory cells will still hang around at some level, so when you apply the booster, you'll get longer lasting immunity at that point. In fact if anything, providing the booster within 3-4 weeks is likely to hamper the durability of the booster-induced immunity.

The point is that the booster is moot if you're walking around unprotected until you get it because the first dose has worn off. No one here is arguing that a second shot wouldn't bring your immunity back up. The problem isn't the efficacy of the second shot. It's the delay during which you are much less.protected.

As for 3-4 weeks being too short, I'm not aware of any specific research there. But I'll assume you're right, and also tell you it's irrelevant: If a booster in 3-4 weeks improves efficacy, but doing it later would work even better, that does not mean we should wait longer: We still need the boost now. All your point means is that we should also do a second booster at some optimal time further down the road.

But it's not a choice between vaccinating one person with one dose and vaccinating one person with two doses. It's a choice between vaccinating one person with two doses and vaccinating two people with one dose apiece.

If you try to give the person a second dose, that means you're causing another person to be walking around completely unprotected.

I completely agree that, once we know if or when immunity starts to drop, we should absolutely maximize # of people getting shots instead of maximizing the immunity level of people getting the shots which is a relatively incremental increase anyway. I'm not sure we have that data though, and until we do have that data then we need to proceed with a known protocol that maximizes immunity.

Because if the vaccine wears off quickly. Then, the issue of the second person it moot. Vaccinating them becomes a net 0: Person A that got the first vaccine is losing their immunity while second person is gaining immunity.

However, assuming the pharmaceutical companies can & are massively ramping up production, and given that the logistics network for distributing & administering the shot is improving, We will hopefully get to the point when all of the above is completely irrelevant because there will be ample supply and ample bandwidth to administer the dosesto everyone.

I think in the short term we also get a little bit of a boost from the folks who have already been infected. AFAIK, their resistance may not last long-- as little as 6 months perhaps. But in terms of getting spread rates under control, and assuming twice as many people have been infected as the official record shows (which might be conservative, it's just educated guess) Then that means in addition to those getting vaccinated, We have about 55million formerly infected people that should have some level of resistance.

Anyway, thanks for an interesting conversation.

I’m confused by what you are trying to prove. The issue isn’t whether people believe what you are arguing. As far as I can tell, most experts seem to believe something along these lines is most likely.

The question is whether or not they have verified it in this context.