I'm not sure 'spray and pray' is a well-thought-out approach. Its perhaps another internet pundit who can take one number and divide by another number and become an instant expert.
I think we should all make efforts to tone down our rhetoric and not tilt at windmills.
Again, if there should be some issue with the supply chain, then the first dose could be 'wasted'. For hospital personnel etc that would be a bad scenario.
We're not talking millions/billions of doses. We're talking about what are really very small numbers. It may be worth taking some very small hit in herd immunity, for an assured continuity of care.
It's not "wasted". As noted in the article, the first dose alone is ~50% effective; the second dose is required to boost that to ~93%. So, it's a tradeoff between vaccinating n people at 93% effectiveness versus 2n people at 50% effectiveness.
This claim is being made despite CLEAR CDC guidance on how to handle delayed vaccination doses?
I'm serious - where is the citation for the claim you are making that the first dose is wasted if the second dose is not perfectly on schedule.
The reason this claim is likely a lie is that millions / billions of vaccines are given out. Every school child in America is getting vaccines. With very narrow exceptions, if you are off the exact timing (ie, you get a 12 month vaccine a bit later, you get the second shot 14 days later) which by the way happens ALL THE TIME because doctors and parents are busy etc - there is no evidence that the first shot is wasted or that you need to restart vaccination.
So please provide a citation for the "first shot wasted" claim.
Edit: I originally used the phrase “back to square one” but I agree with replies that it’s the wrong phrase.
It is to vaccinate twice as many high priority people.