If we learn anything from going through Covid, it is about the world of science, where there is a collision of constantly updating data juxtaposed against the source of the data, how big the sample size was, what stage the trial was, the peer reviewing of the data, and the retesting of the results in bigger sample sizes. Ultimately, the real-world data brought back to the table is all from the biggest real-time global human guinea-pig experiment ever known to human-kind.
Make no mistake. The vaccines are brilliant and the science behind them equally so. But in the media frenzy to bring information forward, the rigor or stage of a given study, rarely gets air-time to the headline of the moment. While context is everything, context seems to be the the first victim of fear.
Take for example the recent headline that Pfizer may not be that good at protecting people after only one dose. Absolutely, the headline grabs attention. But lost somewhere in the headline is the fact that this was only a singular lab study testing a small sample of blood from healthcare workers, which may not be "real-world applicable". Furthermore, the study is not yet peer reviewed. This is not to discredit the study. All science "starts in the lab", but the reality is that this study is about preliminary as it gets and lacks the rigor of a much larger sampling. At this point, at best this study is all but a drop of science to digest in an ongoing tsunami of data.
So this is where you end up with competing, and confusing, science. One study says "maybe not so good". Another study says "up to 92% effective after 21 days". And even within this already confusing science, thre is the other component of the ability of the vaccine to keep you out of the hospital altogether, i.e., "if" you contract the virus, does it end up just being mild-medium symtoms at worst.
In all of the science relating to Covid, the timeline is far more compressed, and it matters to all of us so much more. But we really shouldn't be suprised at all this scientific confusion. Look no further than food science and what is considered either "good" or "bad for you. This has changed so many times, I honestly dont' know what to eat. We seem to take all of this science in stride and with a grain of salt (oh, wait, salt is bad for you). But with Covid, we are all so collectively hyped up , we grab the headline without appreciating the context, validity, source, or stage of the study. At the end of the day, it's all so confusing and we're all just so scared. Scientific rigor meeting very human fear is fertile ground for problems to arise, and the ultimate reality is that we won't know absolutely until some time after this crisis. Only then will hindsight provide the absolute truths of the situation.
So does the current data suggest that one shot gives good coverage? Collectively, the science seems to point strongly in that direction. And personally, I think it's great that other studies with differing opinions come forward. This ultimately spawns the rigor we truly do want, fears aside.
CBC published an article that I think is quite good, and quite balanced.
CLICK HERE to read.