I’m not so much talking about the benefits, more talking about potential adverse events.Perhaps for some people it would, but just speaking for myself the information would only be marginally better. 14 days after the second dose is where studies determined the vast majority of people get full benefit.
***Disclaimer Alert: I am about to enter into the hypothetical realm to prove a point. I am not making any claims about the reality or frequency of what I’m about to describe.***
Hypothetically, let’s say there is a healthy 18 year old who gets the first dose of a vaccine. Then, let’s say that they have an adverse reaction to the vaccine which somehow weakens their immune system. Then, let’s say as a direct result of that, they contract covid 3 days later and die of covid 10 days after that. (Side note: I’m aware that direct cause & effect is hard to prove in real life because there are always multiple factors going on. But let’s say we have a God’s-eye view of the situation and what I described above is really what happened.)
So in that scenario, we have a healthy 18 year old who is at a statistically minimal risk of dying of covid even if they’re unvaccinated. They decide to get the vaccine, the vaccine directly leads to their death within a matter of days, and then their death is classified as an “unvaccinated covid death” in all of our stats, even though if they had not gotten the vaccine they would still be alive.
Do you see how that reveals a flaw in the methodology of the way these statistics are being collected and presented?
***Disclaimer reiteration: I’m not saying the above does or doesn’t happen or with what frequency. I don’t know. It’s a hypothetical to prove a point about the way we’re doing the stats.***