Said Wei Shen Lim, chair for COVID-19 immunisation of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation. Note their word Splatt, Immunisation so please quit nagging me about it.

Immunisation is the process of giving a vaccine. Its not providing "immunity" which you use interchangeably and incorrectly.

Pfizer said they arent expecting data on immunity or transmission until at least after Q1 2021.

None of this changes the basic fact that there isnt the slightest shred of data (literally none, not one sentence) that shows their new regime will work and worse, cant be shown it wont render the whole thing far less effective or maybe even completely ineffective.

So its a massive massive gamble based on nothing more than a coin toss that if it goes wrong will cost 1000s of lives and waste 3-4 months of vaccine time.

Rather than giving the most vulnerable 90% protection we could be giving the most vulnerable 0% protection.

I hear what you say, perhaps you do not have the data Splatt? You have to see the press conference.~ 22 minutes in.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pi6Pmx8Aiyw

The data shared with us, and I’m not sure is entirely in the public domain, calculated the vaccine efficacy between day 22 of dose one, to the time of dose two being given, and the figure is around 70%,”

Said Wei Shen Lim, chair for COVID-19 immunisation of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation. Note their word Splatt, Immunisation so please quit nagging me about it.

I expect they will be monitoring this over the next few weeks, if protection drops off. The questions you ask are mentioned at minute 26, for what it is worth.
Transmission question answered at minute 30. not enough data yet. so like I said before , don't bet the farm on it.

12 week interval questions answered at minute 32...

It is what it is. cheers, Splatt, I think they cover it all in the press conference.

Actually none of the questions were answered. Just vague generalities. In fact all the answers from the pharma guy were very much in the "everything I say may be taken down and used in evidence in a future product liability lawsuit" manner. In other words lawyer speak.

The rest of the presser reminded me very much of what I had read in the published papers about the development of the SARs CoV 1 and MERS vaccines. Early promising results with small very narrow cohort test groups, a big disappointment in the wider trials with much more representative test groups. What I was hearing sounded very much like what was going to turn out like a rerun of the SARs 1/MERS vaccine failures.

As for multi-shot vaccination etc. There is a very large literature on the subject. None of it terribly encouraging. And given the risk group demographics and epidemiology of SARs CoV 2 the probability that any of the current vaccines will have any measurable effect on the 360/720/1080 day mortality rates is zero. The best they could ever hope for is that the transmission rate to high risk people is reduced enough that the high risk people mostly die from their prior conditions and comorbidities before they get a SARs 2 infection. Which given the high risk groups seriously impaired life expectancy would be 3 to 5 years max. Around 90% of the people dying from SARs CoV 2 viral pneumonia did not have long to live anyway.

So the current vaccination policy could be summed up as the rest of us forced to take a high risk vaccine so that old sick people have a higher probably dying of something else in the next few years.

This is not like a novel pandemic flu vaccine for a disease the kills very large numbers of younger healthy people. A disease with a very very high YLL cost. I'd be the first in line to take a vaccination for such an disease. This is just a novel general circulation corona-virus that kills mostly old sick people with very short life expediencies. That's all.

We've had anti-science from the beginning

I hear you. I think it's even worse than that. Antiscience is a philosophy that rejects the scientific method.

I respect Antiscience; when science competes with antiscience, the science sometimes comes off worse, at least until science wises up. SAGE are not Antiscience, not consciously anyway.

The best known example where science got a kicking is the Franklin expedition. Two well equipped Royal Navy ships HMS Erebus and HMS Terror, were assigned to traverse the Northwest Passage in the Canadian Arctic. They got stuck and they all starved, no survivors. They made contact with primitive Inuit locals, who were unscientific (in the way we think) but knew how to survive using humility in the face of nature, had relevant knowledge and common sense and skill.

Hence I don't think SAGE are true Antiscience, they have no philosophy to reject the scientific method. They merely lack what the Inuit had at the time of the Franklin expedition- humility in the face of nature,relevant knowledge, common sense and skill.

In thisstory, I reckon it will be shown that SAGE are the Franklin expedition, in a novel territory, never seen before, and lacking humility in the face of nature, common sense and skill. Hence like Franklin, they are stuck fast, nothing works. Too bad they won't starve, but they have failed just as spectacularly as the Franklin expedition did. You cannot "defeat" nature with science. To handle nature you need humility, relevant knowledge, common sense and skill. Science might help but it is not enough, as SAGE are discovering. Hubris is their problem , not anti-science

OK. I used the wrong term. I think you are being too kind in that SAGE, Whitty and Vallance have chosen to ignore/deny a lot of science/evidence eg on how the immune system works. Of course this has been a problem in many other countries too. Unfortunately it's not just hubris but vested interests, the power of Big pharma, etc.