But A-Z will minimize your risk of severe illness still, same with Pfizer as I understand it.
"Eligible population" is a synonym for "Morrison's whim".
Everyone knows what the problem is. We ordered the wrong vaccine.
Don't get me wrong, AZ might save your life, but it's not (or shouldn't be) a passport to a cheap holiday in Bali.
But a marketer's solution to this problem is not to fix supply and actually make a material difference, it's a marketing campaign to explain New Coke is just as good as Old Coke.
At the risk of sounding like @don
: Show me the data!
Seriously, I've been trying to find concrete data to answer this question one way or another for months now. UK_Public Health have this data, but they don't publish it. The UK has a substantial and rising hospitalisation rate, a population vaccinated with mix of vaccines, and a wildly unconstrained delta epidemic. The majority of their patients *are* vaccinated (many with only 1 dose), unlike the US, Israel and France which use either exclusively Pfizer or an AZ-PF combo.
Don't get me wrong, AZ is way better than nothing. I just think the balance of evidence states (actually I'll rephrase, *all* the evidence) is Pf is 2-4x better than AZ, and we need everyone vacced with Pf - including boosting those who've had AZ with 1 dose of Pf.
I stand to be corrected on this, because the UK have this raw data which would quantify the differences in efficacy, they just don't publish it.