We Protect You From COVID with 1 Jab Instead of 2 and Focusing on PR

Posted on by

Article: “Gap between jabs could be eight weeks under new plans”
Authors: Senan Molony and Eilish O’Regan
Source: Independent.ie
Date 17 April 2021

What is the real goal of those in charge of the citizens’ health protection? After reading the article “Gap between jabs could be eight weeks under new plans”, I decided I should clear my mind on what I could learn from it in relation to the Covid present state of affairs. My understanding is that the decision to extend the gap between jabs is based on a week argument and it appears also that the real focus of the politicians is on Public Relations.

This is how I reached the above conclusion.

1st Argument

The more people are vaccinated, the safer is the protection of the society.

The Government wants to speed up the roll-out of the vaccines.

To be fully administered the vaccines need two jabs.

At present the gap between two jabs is four weeks.

The Government is considering the increase of the gap between two jabs to a period of 6-8 weeks.

In this way, the number of people receiving the first jab will increase, therefore the roll-out of the vaccines will speed up.

2nd Argument

AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson vaccines caused concern about their side effects.

The EMA (European Medicines Agency) is deliberating on those vaccines, a decision is expected next Thursday.

A negative decision from the EMA in relation to the AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson vaccines will affect the Iris roll-out of vaccines (for example: how many of the other types of vaccines Ireland can be administered in Ireland? Also: as probably Ireland has invested too much on the AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson vaccines).

Offering first-step protection to as many people as possible is seen as preferable.

“Ministers believe extending the gap between doses and allowing more people to access their first dose would be a positive PR exercise after weeks of setbacks and controversies.”

Conclusion

The government is worried about Public Relations.

The article continues with the discussion of the validity of the premiss that increasing the numbers of people receiving a first jab would be beneficial. Does it really protected the society to have half vaccinated people? We could ask also: why they require two jabs when one would be protecting against the virus?

Our conclusion is that the 1st Argument is not sound as the premiss that extending the gap between jabs has several cons, not just pros.

Furthermore the 2nd Argument shows the real focus of the politicians: Public Relations.