Expected dosage: 0.3mL. What people likely received: 0.2mL.

This means they should have been dosed 50% more than they were. That's not insignificant.

I don't think any of the testing parameters used that low a dose, so the resulting protection can only be guessed at without objectively measuring antibody response.

Among layers of buried ledes: the underdosing was the result of pre-loaded syringes from a "national stockpile", so presumably the Oakland incident would not be the only case of such under-dosing occurring.

The reporting on this is exceedingly negligent. Far too many words for far too few facts.

The article took 1491 words to say what you conveyed in 8. A 99.5% verbosity excess in the original.

Even the headline took 11 words to fail to provide that information.

Thank you, kind soul.

Thousands of british AstraSeneca/Oxford trials received half the dosis, and what happened? 99% effectiveness. Much better than with the full dosis. But in the sample was noone over 65. That was the whole problem with the late AstraSeneca approval process. Some Italian manufacturer used a different diluter which lead to the famous mistake.

Apparently this news producer never heard of it. Apparently they don't do their own research. Eg https://www.bbc.com/news/health-55086927