dogplasma said:
Wayland said:
dogplasma said:
But you're saying there's no proof that vaccine boosters are effective or worthwhile.
No.
I am saying there is limited data and the policy has basically already been decided regardless of ACIP's recommendations (even if they in fact align with those recommendations this time .... unlike last time).
I certainly think it is reasonable that based on specific risk profiles due to age or being immunocompromised that a booster may be reasonable. That is independent of the fact there exists lack of data. We just need to be honest and public with the fact that there are gaps.
I also think, right about now (assuming a winter wave) would be about the perfect time for those individuals to boost.
Based on the initial series, I would also expect protection against infection to wane within a few months. The initial series already protects against severe infection.
Actually, it would be an interesting exercise to boost the 'at risk' population and purposely NOT boost the vaccinated 'healthy' population, and allow the inevitable infections to move through the population so that hybrid protection of the greater population could then protect the at risk.
But again, that is a grand experiment and separate from the overarching advisory meetings or policy decisions AND we would need to do greater research into the possible costs and trade-offs (something that has been severely lacking across all policy decisions, not just vaccine).
I listen to the FDA advisory and CDC ACIP meetings, and, in general feel like we have the cart leading the horse as far as vaccine policy. I actually find the meetings have some great discussions and debate, but remain fascinated at how all that gets translated by leaders and media.
There just seems to be a bizarre disconnect, but maybe it is just me.
Okay, thanks. My questions were not challenges so much as looking for clarifications. When you said "or lack thereof" when referring to booster efficacy i was thinking about recent reports of studies showing positive responses for Pfizer and J&J boosters. But I don't think these are fully reviewed results. And I do agree that the promise of boosters was way ahead of the actual results. But then I can forgive that given that booster shots are generally a pretty common and expected requirement with other vaccines. I don't personally believe the FDA or CDC would authorize boosters without proof, but I also don't listen to the discussion or follow nearly as closely as you and others.
There is a heavy does of extrapolation because we just haven't had enough time.
It is also fascinating again to hear Walensky talk today without nuance to boosters and how that specifically deviates from the ACIP recommendations to include clinical considerations and be specific to separate recommendations with language such as 'may get booster' and 'should get booster'.
It is irresponsible for her to say "if you are eligible for a booster.. get a booster" when ACIP has included clinical considerations and the specific language of 'MAY' in its recommendations. I am not saying to NOT take a booster, it certainly makes sense for some of those eligible, but if someone is eligible for a booster they should review those clinical considerations or talk with their PCP, not take the blanket advice of a political muppet.
This goes to what I was talking about yesterday. There is a disconnect between the intent of the recommendations from advisory/ACIP and what Walensky (as a proxy for the WH) is saying. It is a fascinating manipulation to remove all nuance from the recommendations.
It was ACIPs contention yesterday that completion of the primary series was 'fully vaccinated' and had nothing to do with boosters not being available to all. The lack of nuance is just dirty.
At the same time Scandinavian countries are extending the moratorium on Moderna for those under 30.
