>>>But this is irrelevant to my argument, as "large number" stabilizes estimates of gained protection ("immunity"), which when calculated from a 30-50K pool with low 3 figure total infection count cannot be depended on as much as figures gained after a few million doses.
>>>
>>>Yes, side effects like the blood clotting in vector vaccs and perhaps myocarditis with Pfizer/Biontech will also surface only with million doses - but my main angle to decide when and what to vacc is NOT the risk of side effects. I am quit aware on differences of 1 or 2 digit deaths per million on vaccines vs. 90000 on 3.7 million verified infections, so probably 15 million infections not tested or verified, resulting in >4500 deaths per estimated million infections or 0.45% case fatality est.by total infections or 2.47% case fatality of verified infections.
>>>
>>>My calculation is wait 2 or 3 months in summer (low risc time) to get twice the protection protection for 6- 9 months of colder weather, which is high risc time.
>
>Your assumption is that the vaccine will only protect you for 6-9 months. There's no reason to assume that. We know so far that these vaccines protect for that long because that's how long the tests have been going on. But each time there's been new reporting, they've extended that window. As far as I know, there is no evidence so far that immunity drops off.
>
>Beyond that, the other thing that helps us all stay healthy is having the people around us vaccinated, so the number of potential hosts is limited. The way we prevent a new surge next winter is by stamping the thing out to the extent possible now.
>
>This piece, by a researcher friend of one of my kids (not the intro by Zeynep Tufekci, but the contained piece by Dylan Morris), is really good on what to expect down the road: https://www.theinsight.org/p/novelty-means-severity-the-key-to
>
>Tamar

You're replying to the wrong person. All immunity fades over time, hence boosters.