Healthy adults don’t need annual COVID boosters, WHO advisers say

In Control wrote:

Harambe wrote:

Vaccination, if proven safe and effective by clinical trials is extremely a cheap and easy method to greatly mitigate the risk of a disease.

This whole argument reads like someone who’s decided to be “a little contrarian” about the vaccine but won’t cross the line of saying “the vaccine is harmful for some age groups.” Thus they’re forced to try and get people to admit that COVID risk is so low (for some groups) that vaccination doesn’t matter regardless of the risk:reward calculus.

This argument may work for some people, but a lots (most?) of rational people will always say the vaccine is needed if the risk reward recommends it.

To note, this position is the route we go with many childhood vaccines. Some childhood diseases like chickenpox killed very, very few people before vaccination. Yet we still mass vaccinate. I wonder if these guys would make the same argument about that.

The data is the data.

Are you saying that as long as the risk:reward is > 0, no matter how close to zero, action needs to be taken?

Getting back to the original premise of the thread. Do you agree with WHO or FDA on the need for continuing boosters for all groups?

Harambe wrote:

In Control wrote:

The data is the data.

Are you saying that as long as the risk:reward is > 0, no matter how close to zero, action needs to be taken?

Getting back to the original premise of the thread. Do you agree with WHO or FDA on the need for continuing boosters for all groups?

Action doesn't need to be taken but if you choose not to take action, you're doing so out of apathy, not out of any rational calculus.

Which is fine... humans can only care about so many things.

However, given the fact that 300k+ Americans are dead because they didn't get vaccinated against COVID... it seems like there are some prosocial effects caring about it enough to get vaccinated (plus it benefits you, as you admit!). Instead, you wade into a contrarian quagmire which boils down to "I don't have to care about things" but in reality just serves to support antivaxx viewpoints whether you intend to or not.

Sub-9 guy wrote:

That's entirely the point and what I think "In Control" is ultimately trying to say. This group of young people that has minimal risk from Covid 19, 20, 22, 23 looks different if we are separating out data on the obese w pre-metabolic syndrome, the severely asthmatic, the immunocompromised, and other anomalous conditions. They are at much higher risk from the virus than the vaccine, or, at least the risk is equivalent, but that's not true for the "general" population of kids. So, where is that data? I don't believe the CDC or any health organization has produced it as parsed out like that. Why not? How can you produce granular data when it doesn't exist?

It's kind of like Harambe's silly paper on how the unvaccinated are responsible for more "variants." Firstly, the methodology in that paper, if anyone cared to read it as I did, leaves the conclusion very much in doubt. But, more importantly, where is the research on sequence evolution in immunocompromised but vaccinated patients? Because, most of those cases produce non-sterilizing, weaker immunity. It stands to reason that they cultivate variants, but there's no such study. You can not find what you are not looking for.

And so it is with our medical authorities and "scientists." There's not nearly as much money in trying to prove natural immunity is just fine for the broader population. And there's a much smaller sample size anyway, only some 20% without any vaccination. I am one of them, but nobody's recruiting me for a study.

Harambe wrote:

Sub-9 guy wrote:

That's entirely the point and what I think "In Control" is ultimately trying to say. This group of young people that has minimal risk from Covid 19, 20, 22, 23 looks different if we are separating out data on the obese w pre-metabolic syndrome, the severely asthmatic, the immunocompromised, and other anomalous conditions. They are at much higher risk from the virus than the vaccine, or, at least the risk is equivalent, but that's not true for the "general" population of kids. So, where is that data? I don't believe the CDC or any health organization has produced it as parsed out like that. Why not? How can you produce granular data when it doesn't exist?

It's kind of like Harambe's silly paper on how the unvaccinated are responsible for more "variants." Firstly, the methodology in that paper, if anyone cared to read it as I did, leaves the conclusion very much in doubt. But, more importantly, where is the research on sequence evolution in immunocompromised but vaccinated patients? Because, most of those cases produce non-sterilizing, weaker immunity. It stands to reason that they cultivate variants, but there's no such study. You can not find what you are not looking for.

And so it is with our medical authorities and "scientists." There's not nearly as much money in trying to prove natural immunity is just fine for the broader population. And there's a much smaller sample size anyway, only some 20% without any vaccination. I am one of them, but nobody's recruiting me for a study.

See this is good evidence for why I keep posting the latest research.

You basically never post on the vaccine thread or anything threads about COVID. Yet you clearly read basically every post I make.

You are actively engaging with the literature and this almost certainly will have a positive outcome on your scientific intuition.

Yes, for now you are trying to dismiss quality research because it doesn't answer all the extra questions you just thought of (are you a reviewer for Nature in your free time? perhaps). But the results and conclusions are now in your brain. Unless you're terminally low IQ, it will have an effect. The data will win.

P.S. See Mark Davis' cool paper on T-cell activity after infection vs. vaccination? Score negative one for natural immunity?!

I thought nobody was studying that?!

Link:www.cell.com/immunity/fulltext/S1074-7...

Harambe wrote:

Sub-9 guy wrote:

That's entirely the point and what I think "In Control" is ultimately trying to say. This group of young people that has minimal risk from Covid 19, 20, 22, 23 looks different if we are separating out data on the obese w pre-metabolic syndrome, the severely asthmatic, the immunocompromised, and other anomalous conditions. They are at much higher risk from the virus than the vaccine, or, at least the risk is equivalent, but that's not true for the "general" population of kids. So, where is that data? I don't believe the CDC or any health organization has produced it as parsed out like that. Why not? How can you produce granular data when it doesn't exist?

It's kind of like Harambe's silly paper on how the unvaccinated are responsible for more "variants." Firstly, the methodology in that paper, if anyone cared to read it as I did, leaves the conclusion very much in doubt. But, more importantly, where is the research on sequence evolution in immunocompromised but vaccinated patients? Because, most of those cases produce non-sterilizing, weaker immunity. It stands to reason that they cultivate variants, but there's no such study. You can not find what you are not looking for.

And so it is with our medical authorities and "scientists." There's not nearly as much money in trying to prove natural immunity is just fine for the broader population. And there's a much smaller sample size anyway, only some 20% without any vaccination. I am one of them, but nobody's recruiting me for a study.

See this is good evidence for why I keep posting the latest research.

You basically never post on the vaccine thread or anything threads about COVID. Yet you clearly read basically every post I make.

You are actively engaging with the literature and this almost certainly will have a positive outcome on your scientific intuition.

Yes, for now you are trying to dismiss quality research because it doesn't answer all the extra questions you just thought of (are you a reviewer for Nature in your free time? perhaps). But the results and conclusions are now in your brain. Unless you're terminally low IQ, it will have an effect. The data will win.

P.S. See Mark Davis' cool paper on T-cell activity after infection vs. vaccination? Score negative one for natural immunity?!

I thought nobody was studying that?!

Link:www.cell.com/immunity/fulltext/S1074-7...

Sub-9 guy wrote:

Harambe wrote:

See this is good evidence for why I keep posting the latest research.

You basically never post on the vaccine thread or anything threads about COVID. Yet you clearly read basically every post I make.

You are actively engaging with the literature and this almost certainly will have a positive outcome on your scientific intuition.

Yes, for now you are trying to dismiss quality research because it doesn't answer all the extra questions you just thought of (are you a reviewer for Nature in your free time? perhaps). But the results and conclusions are now in your brain. Unless you're terminally low IQ, it will have an effect. The data will win.

P.S. See Mark Davis' cool paper on T-cell activity after infection vs. vaccination? Score negative one for natural immunity?!

I thought nobody was studying that?!

Link:www.cell.com/immunity/fulltext/S1074-7...

Covid is over so there’s no reason to keep engaged. We have both natural immunity and the vaccine to thank for it. As well as Omicron.

None of this has a positive outcome on my scientific intuition. It simply reinforces my jaded view of scientific motive, power, and money. Fauci was never going to steer funding toward projects that didn’t comport with his world view. As I said, where’s the research on immunocompromised, vaccinees, granularized? It doesn’t exist.

Sub-9 guy wrote:

Harambe wrote:

See this is good evidence for why I keep posting the latest research.

You basically never post on the vaccine thread or anything threads about COVID. Yet you clearly read basically every post I make.

You are actively engaging with the literature and this almost certainly will have a positive outcome on your scientific intuition.

Yes, for now you are trying to dismiss quality research because it doesn't answer all the extra questions you just thought of (are you a reviewer for Nature in your free time? perhaps). But the results and conclusions are now in your brain. Unless you're terminally low IQ, it will have an effect. The data will win.

P.S. See Mark Davis' cool paper on T-cell activity after infection vs. vaccination? Score negative one for natural immunity?!

I thought nobody was studying that?!

Link:www.cell.com/immunity/fulltext/S1074-7...

And so it is with our medical authorities and "scientists." There's not nearly as much money in trying to prove natural immunity is just fine for the broader population. And there's a much smaller sample size anyway, only some 20% without any vaccination. I am one of them, but nobody's recruiting me for a study.”

So, Monkeys Skyping, how can we evaluate data that hasn’t been produced? Should be there for the entire world to see, granularized, no?

In Control wrote:

Harambe wrote:

I answered the first one!

As for boosters, it's a case by case basis.

When I see good data that a booster is beneficial against disease outcomes, I go and get it.

I waited on the bivalent until we had decent population data.

Not sure why you’re dodging the question. Although, that’s pretty much what you’ve done throughout this thread. That, name-call and insult.

I’ll rephrase. According to the article the OP posted, a vaccine advisory group for the WHO said at this point it does not recommend additional, let alone annual, Covid-19 booster shots for people at low to medium risk of severe disease.

This advice contrasts with plans by the FDA, which suggested treating Covid-19 boosters like annual flu shots for the forseeable future. FDA officials have floated the idea of offering updated formulations each fall, possibly to everyone, including the young and healthy.

I understand that this does not impact you since you appear to be at the higher spectrum of Covid risk. However, do you agree with the WHO or FDA on continuing boosters for all groups at this time?

Harambe wrote:

Sub-9 guy wrote:

Covid is over so there’s no reason to keep engaged. We have both natural immunity and the vaccine to thank for it. As well as Omicron.

None of this has a positive outcome on my scientific intuition. It simply reinforces my jaded view of scientific motive, power, and money. Fauci was never going to steer funding toward projects that didn’t comport with his world view. As I said, where’s the research on immunocompromised, vaccinees, granularized? It doesn’t exist.

Meh, there's no way you actually believe Fauci was handing out 5 year R01s in 2018 to people he thought would publish 'correctly' in 2023 on a disease that didn't exist yet. (If Fauci even had that singular power at the NIH).

It's a convenient way to dismiss research that doesn't reinforce your priors, but you're clearly smart enough to know that line of thinking is totally unsubstantiated.

Again, research not answering your specific follow-on questions is not reason to reject the conclusions. It's very easy to propose $500k research projects from your desk chair.

In Control wrote:

Harambe wrote:

I answered the first one!

As for boosters, it's a case by case basis.

When I see good data that a booster is beneficial against disease outcomes, I go and get it.

I waited on the bivalent until we had decent population data.

Not sure why you’re dodging the question. Although, that’s pretty much what you’ve done throughout this thread. That, name-call and insult.

I’ll rephrase. According to the article the OP posted, a vaccine advisory group for the WHO said at this point it does not recommend additional, let alone annual, Covid-19 booster shots for people at low to medium risk of severe disease.

This advice contrasts with plans by the FDA, which suggested treating Covid-19 boosters like annual flu shots for the forseeable future. FDA officials have floated the idea of offering updated formulations each fall, possibly to everyone, including the young and healthy.

I understand that this does not impact you since you appear to be at the higher spectrum of Covid risk. However, do you agree with the WHO or FDA on continuing boosters for all groups at this time?