This is not how decision making under uncertainty works. When you don't have rigorous proof of whether something works or doesn't work you have to make educated guesses based on various priors and make the percentage play. You can't refuse to incorporate priors into your decision making just because you don't have a peer reviewed p<0.05 study validating it.
Uncertainty about the result cuts both ways. You can't claim that we can't do X over Y because we don't have rigorous proof that X is better than Y, when we don't have rigorous proof that Y is better than X either. Regardless of what you do you're taking a leap of faith.
> We just don't know and it would be way worse if it turns out we have to re-vaccinate everyone because we were impatient.
If there's probability p that it doesn't work and we have to spend X extra months re-vaccinating everyone that's an expected delay of p * X. But if it does work then not pursuing the single dose strategy will delay the vaccination schedule by X' months also.
If p * X < (1-p) * X' then the former is a perfectly acceptable risk.
Sure, there could be some odd unforeseen effect. If so we'd learn as we go.
> it would be way worse if it turns out we have to re-vaccinate everyone
Worse than 3000 people dying every day? Because of the extra expense of making more doses?
The cardiologist says, “Well, I’ve identified drugs that have saved the lives of millions of people.” Impressed, the kidnappers turn to the immunologist. “What have you done?” they ask.
The immunologist says, “The thing is, the immune system is very complicated …”
And the cardiologist says, “Just shoot me now.”
From https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2020/08/covid-19-... :)
As someone who is an active researcher in this field, I can tell you that this is just not true. The immune system is VERY complex and we know very little about it. We have only had the tools to begin to systematically probe it for a few years.
But I don't think they apply to these rather basic questions about how these mRNA vaccines work.
The theory for how they work is clear, and strongly confirmed by the studies showing 95% effectiveness.
Is there really any reason to think that a booster shot that provides 95% protection when given after 21 days will be damaging after 12 weeks?
Or that when two shots gives 95% immunity, 1 shot might give negative immunity?
This what's being implied by the "you never now, so let's do NOTHING" crowd here!