I fundamentally disagree with the delay between doses, I think or rather thought as the ship has sailed, that they should have done the first group with two doses exactly as specified even if that meant half the amount of people got them- precisely to see what the effect would be in the much older (and different than the clinical trial) population, and once that was established, after say three months, plus one month evaluation, roll it out.
It would be horrible waiting to find out if the first one million got great immunity, but then we would have a framework for quickly going forward with doing the same or adapting the regime at that time point in a less vulnerable population.
You don't deviate from the manufacturer's dosage schedule first time out, you just don't. I don't care if some committees said it might be ok, what they meant was we are so in the shit we might as well throw the dice, but now we don't really know what works and what doesn't and whether to keep going with the wider spacing. If I'd had one Pfizer vaccine I'd be pretty upset to be experimented on.
Even if it's a 'success', it's not a surprise to anyone who works in medicine that the pharma industries data is great but real-life population data turns out to be different, often worse, especially in a much sicker and non-screened population.