Nope. I’ve tried to explain in it to you. Two shots is great for most for severe disease but booster is ideal. It’s a three shot vaccine. The three shots have been shown to have greater protection than NI. I started a thread on it on the political board. Again, it’s a three shot vaccine. Dr Peter Hotez said this by tweet in January. The two shots were too close together to not wane.
LOL!!! So, you said for many months that the new vaccines were absolute, unqualified
miracles and guaranteed us that they would provide
long lasting protection for years, (
based on the latest propaganda'ish tweet you'd copied). Despite being warned by me dozens of time to slow your roll, and wait for a reasonable sample size, and to wait for real scientific work to be done, and to watch out for baked "studies" and data, and to
EXPECT surprising twists and turns with this weird pathogen etc.. Now, you've changed and are in essence saying that the new vaccines weren't effective, so we need three shots. Two shots are sufficient and great, but they really aren't, so we need a third. We'll revisit this post if we do indeed end up in a cycle of perpetual boosting.
Now, you're jumping out on the thinnest of limbs saying that it's definitively proven that 3 shots is better than natural immunity, (
OMG, just SMH...), based on an in vitro pseudo virus "projection" of the protection that is conferred. Do you realize that we are just beginning to compile data on the boosting? Do you remember the thread where I'd pointed out late this spring that the spacing on the dosages may not be optimal, and might yield better results after we learned more and they were tweaked???
You're saying now that "the two shots were too close together not to wane", but back then you SWORE up and down that we were guaranteed to have lasting immunity, "with great B-cell and T-cell responses". You've been AWFUL and wrong too many times to count. At least be man enough to admit it when you're proven wrong.