Eh? I think you interpreted it differently the first time you read it. I’m pretty sure I read this study back when it was first published along with a couple of others in June or July. Which is why I wrote that some governments decided to decrease the time between shots, which would result in lower levels of antibodies after the 2nd shot, hoping that mass vaccinations would yield a better national outcome, i.e, their way out of this shit in the thread about vaccine side effects.
“In the case of single-dose recipients, our data show that NAbTs are significantly lower against B.1.617.2 and B.1.351 VOCs relative to B.1.1.7, implying that although a single dose might still afford considerably more protection than no vaccination, single-dose recipients are likely to be less protected against these SARS-CoV-2 variants. These data therefore suggest that the benefits of delaying the second dose, in terms of wider population coverage and increased individual NAbTs after the second dose, must now be weighed against decreased efficacy in the short-term, in the context of the spread of B.1.617.2. Worldwide, our data highlight the ongoing need to increase vaccine supply to allow all countries to extend second-dose protection as quickly as possible.”
In fact, I think even I brought up the part about potential government actions in @unreal24278 's “covid in Australia” thread a couple of months back when I promised that Australia would drop their “zero covid” policy and use mass vaccinations to declare covid to be endemic once a certain target was hit and then the “vaccine passports” will start or I’d send him my entire hypothetical unused stash of roids LMAO.
The point is I wouldn’t have written what I wrote previously if the study you posted claimed anything else while also observing the actions of governments in other countries at the same time,