Most people do not need vaccine boosters

Windy City Ag

Joined: Jun 20, 2001

Posts: 11,215

User Profile

Private Message

Ignore User Stop Ignoring

How long do you want to ignore this user?

24 hours One week Permanently Cancel

9:23a, 9/13/21

AG

Per a rather broad-based opinion piece in the Lancet from an FDA vaccine official and a bunch of other pretty high level researchers, docs, and government officials from around the world.

https://www.thelancet.com/pb-assets/Lancet/pdfs/S0140673621020468.pdf

Quote:
Although the idea of further reducing the number of COVID-19 cases by enhancing immunity in vaccinated people is appealing, any decision to do so should be evidence-based and consider the benefits and risks for individuals and society. COVID-19 vaccines continue to be effective against severe disease, including that caused by the delta variant. Most of the observational studies on which this conclusion is based are, however, preliminary and difficult to interpret precisely due to potential confounding and selective reporting. Careful and public scrutiny of the evolving data will be needed to assure that decisions about boosting are informed by reliable science more than by politics. Even if boosting were eventually shown to decrease the medium-term risk of serious disease, current vaccine supplies could save more lives if used in previously unvaccinated populations than if used as boosters in vaccinated populations.

A consistent finding is that vaccine efficacy is substantially greater against severe disease than against any infection; in addition, vaccination appears to be substantially protective against severe disease from all the main viral variants. Although the efficacy of most vaccines against symptomatic disease is somewhat less for the delta variant than for the alpha variant, there is still high vaccine efficacy against both symptomatic and severe disease due to the delta variant. Current evidence does not, therefore, appear to show a need for boosting in the general population, in which efficacy against severe disease remains high.

They of course place all sorts of conditions on this conclusion, but they do take a pretty strong stance, concluding:

Quote:
careful observational studies that examine efficacy against severe disease remain useful and are less likely to be affected by diagnosis-dependent biases over time than are observational studies of milder disease, and could therefore provide useful indicators of any changes in vaccine-induced protection. To date, none of these studies has provided credible evidence of substantially declining protection against severe disease, even when there appear to be declines over time in vaccine efficacy against symptomatic disease

2

billydean05

Joined: Oct 21, 2004

Posts: 2,104

User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring

How long do you want to ignore this user?

24 hours One week Permanently Cancel

1:52p, 9/13/21

It depends on what the goal is. If the goal is to eradicate COVID, then booster is needed. If the goal is merely to protect oneself and avoid hospitalization and death then no booster is needed.

1

planoaggie123

Joined: Sep 20, 2012

Posts: 6,432

User Profile

Private Message

Ignore User Stop Ignoring

How long do you want to ignore this user?

24 hours One week Permanently Cancel

In reply to billydean05 • 1:57p, 9/13/21

AG

billydean05 said:
It depends on what the goal is. If the goal is to eradicate COVID, then booster is needed. If the goal is merely to protect oneself and avoid hospitalization and death then no booster is needed.

Is this scientific? How many boosters will it require? Israel is on 3 and talking about having enough for 4....is it 5 or 10? or somewhere in between?

5

1 edit

NASAg03

Joined: Aug 29, 2004

Posts: 4,720

User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring

How long do you want to ignore this user?

24 hours One week Permanently Cancel

In reply to planoaggie123 • 2:05p, 9/13/21

planoaggie123 said:
billydean05 said:
It depends on what the goal is. If the goal is to eradicate COVID, then booster is needed. If the goal is merely to protect oneself and avoid hospitalization and death then no booster is needed.

Is this scientific? How many boosters will it require? Israel is on 3 and talking about having enough for 4....is it 5 or 10? or somewhere in between?

Covid vaccine booster time-release patches, duh!

And next we'll eliminate the flu and the common cold.

After that we can focus on eliminating all other forms of death and live for eternity in a utopia serving our government masters.

5

Ranger222

Joined: Oct 20, 2007

Posts: 25,216

User Profile

Private Message

Ignore User Stop Ignoring

How long do you want to ignore this user?

24 hours One week Permanently Cancel

2:08p, 9/13/21

AG

In general population does not need another booster to the current vaccine. The elderly and immunocompromised? Not a bad idea to get a booster to increase antibody titers for the next few weeks during a major wave and at worst not going to hurt for this particular group.

Now, if they were to come out and give an mRNA booster that specifically encoded for delta variant spike? That would be a different conversation. All new variants that will be in circulation in the near future will be mutants of delta. Delta is already leading to decreased vaccine efficacy -- it makes sense the next delta-based variant will even further decrease efficacy. Maybe the benefits all still null - or could provide new epitopes for antibodies that will get efficacy back up the original 95% mark.

But a third dose of the same vaccine for the general population is pretty much pointless.

4

billydean05

Joined: Oct 21, 2004

Posts: 2,104

User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring

How long do you want to ignore this user?

24 hours One week Permanently Cancel

2:12p, 9/13/21

I clearly am not for any lame attempt at eradication however this is the only explanation a goal of zero cases.

Also nothing has been based on true scientific data throughout COVID.

1 edit

ramblin_ag02

Joined: May 19, 2004

Posts: 8,694

User Profile

Private Message

Ignore User Stop Ignoring

How long do you want to ignore this user?

24 hours One week Permanently Cancel

2:26p, 9/13/21

AG

The rush to boosters had a lot of us scratching our heads. The Pfizer info was based on antibody titers dropping, but they are supposed to drop over time. From what I've seen, there is very limited data that the boosters improve outcomes. I'm all for it if necessary, but it's really premature to come out full force for boosters even just for Pfizer. There is no data for a moderna booster in immunocompetent people

No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.

2

plain_o_llama

Joined: Sep 10, 2010

Posts: 553

User Profile

Private Message

Ignore User Stop Ignoring

How long do you want to ignore this user?

24 hours One week Permanently Cancel

In reply to Windy City Ag • 9:19p, 9/13/21

Windy City Ag said:
Per a rather broad-based opinion piece in the Lancet from an FDA vaccine official and a bunch of other pretty high level researchers, docs, and government officials from around the world.

https://www.thelancet.com/pb-assets/Lancet/pdfs/S0140673621020468.pdf

Quote:
Although the idea of further reducing the number of COVID-19 cases by enhancing immunity in vaccinated people is appealing, any decision to do so should be evidence-based and consider the benefits and risks for individuals and society. COVID-19 vaccines continue to be effective against severe disease, including that caused by the delta variant. Most of the observational studies on which this conclusion is based are, however, preliminary and difficult to interpret precisely due to potential confounding and selective reporting. Careful and public scrutiny of the evolving data will be needed to assure that decisions about boosting are informed by reliable science more than by politics. Even if boosting were eventually shown to decrease the medium-term risk of serious disease, current vaccine supplies could save more lives if used in previously unvaccinated populations than if used as boosters in vaccinated populations.

A consistent finding is that vaccine efficacy is substantially greater against severe disease than against any infection; in addition, vaccination appears to be substantially protective against severe disease from all the main viral variants. Although the efficacy of most vaccines against symptomatic disease is somewhat less for the delta variant than for the alpha variant, there is still high vaccine efficacy against both symptomatic and severe disease due to the delta variant. Current evidence does not, therefore, appear to show a need for boosting in the general population, in which efficacy against severe disease remains high.

They of course place all sorts of conditions on this conclusion, but they do take a pretty strong stance, concluding:

Quote:
careful observational studies that examine efficacy against severe disease remain useful and are less likely to be affected by diagnosis-dependent biases over time than are observational studies of milder disease, and could therefore provide useful indicators of any changes in vaccine-induced protection. To date, none of these studies has provided credible evidence of substantially declining protection against severe disease, even when there appear to be declines over time in vaccine efficacy against symptomatic disease

The subtext appears to be political infighting between the White House, the CDC, the FDA, and possibly others in the background.

Opposition to the White House booster plan has sparked enough pushback that two prominent FDA Vaccine regulators resigned:

https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/09/top-fda-regulators-blast-us-booster-plan-after-announcing-resignations/

Two leading vaccine regulators who had previously announced their resignations from the Food and Drug Administration have now come out against the Biden administration's plan to offer COVID-19 booster shots.

In a viewpoint article published in The Lancet on Monday, Marion Gruber, the outgoing director of the FDA's Office of Vaccines Research and Review (OVRR), and Phil Krause, the outgoing deputy director of the OVRR, argue against the current booster plans.

and

Their resignations at the end of August were reportedly sparked by frustration and anger over the Biden administration's decision in mid-August to begin offering booster doses as soon as the week of September 20. According to FDA sources, Gruber, Krause and others at the agency felt the decision was premature and overstepped the FDA's role in greenlighting the use of boosters. At the time, Politico described the situation at the FDA as a "potential mutiny."

The Lancet article seems to confirm that internal strife at the agency. Rather than backing the Biden administration's booster plan, Gruber and Krause aligned with the WHO, which has also denounced booster shots and called for a moratorium on their use until at least the end of the year.

Clearly the Biden Booster Plan came from or through the White House. What hasn't been clear is who originated it and why the urgency.

Perhaps Politico offers a clue.....

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/09/13/cdc-biden-health-team-vaccine-boosters-511529

But it is the nascent booster plan that has generated the most friction of late. Three senior officials said they were surprised by the White House's September deadline, arguing that it set the CDC and FDA on a tight timeline to crunch data, publish vaccine efficacy studies and approve or authorize the shots.

White House officials and Anthony Fauci, the president's chief medical adviser, were eager to begin doling out boosters later this month, citing data from Israel and other countries that suggested vaccines' efficacy was waning and that breakthrough infections were on the rise. These officials pushed the CDC to share publicly the data from its ongoing studies of vaccine performance and breakthrough cases.

YMMV