www.medpagetoday.com/special-reports/exclusives/94089
This citation addresses the possible need for a third booster shot. There are quotes from MD's that use the following phrases:
"For starters, a longer duration between the second and third dose may provide stronger and longer-lasting immunity, experts said.
Peter Hotez, MD, PhD, of Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, said on CNN Monday night that a 3-week interval between the first and second doses of Pfizer's mRNA vaccine, for instance, may not have been enough time to spur an extended immune response, with the initial shots acting only as a primary immunization.
An 8-month lag, on the other hand, could boost immunity significantly, Hotez said, with the potential to yield high levels of virus-neutralizing antibody and an immune response that is "really robust."
"That may be it for a while, we may not need annual boosters," Hotez said. "This could be the third and done."
Please note the use of may, may not, could. These are opinions and everyone is entitled to an opinion.
Should I infer from your post that these opinions are exactly yours? By the way the opinions address, in large measure, the booster or third shot, not the interval between the first and second shots as was the case in your post re: the Canadian and his daughter and the interval between 1st and 2nd shot, to which my comment referred.
