Truly excellent article making the case for booster shots

The author is a serious scientist with strong credentials. His take is very enlightening. I strongly recommend that people read this short-ish article to better understand the various issues related to booster vaccine shots.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/second-opinion-refusing-covid-booster-100018664.html

Summary of what is being said: the 3-week or 4-week interval for the first two doses of the mRNA vaccines are not optimal; like for many other vaccines, a booster several months later is of great help to the immune system.

Risks of this approach do exist; answers are not entirely in, in this evolving situation.

Ethics of giving Americans a booster while the Third World has billions of people who haven't had even a first shot are examined by the article, which concludes that the mRNA technology is complex enough that it is still not feasible to vaccinate 5 billion people in the third world; so other platforms (meaning, vaccines made in different ways) are needed and are in development (and I should add, some are ready and in use, already); meanwhile it doesn't hurt to give a 3rd dose to populations in countries that do have the technology to produce and maintain these complex and fragile vaccines.

The bottom line, the boosters appear to be desirable from the Immunology standpoint (although questions remain), and they are not incompatible with helping the Third World.

I tend to agree with the author's argumentation.

I should add, as of August 3rd we have donated 105 million doses to the Third World and we will probably donate more, so we shouldn't feel too guilty about taking a booster.

Also, vaccines have validity dates. They also have spoilage limits once a batch is thawed. A lot of vaccine is going to waste (for example, Tennessee has thrown away 80,000 doses, recently). So these doses finding their way into the arms of Americans who want a booster before they spoil or expire, is not hurting Third World countries given that there wouldn't be a way to still send and use these expiring doses to remote countries that have poor ability to maintain the cold chain.

I'm for helping the Third World for two reasons: humanitarian reason, and to curb the issue of these countries becoming the birth place of new variants. But I think helping them can be done simultaneously with providing boosters to Americans.

 

I take it the "fragility" of the mRNA vaccines relates to the dry ice-like temperatures needed for long-term storage?

 

Yes. They are not very friendly to Third World countries, logistically speaking, due to the cold chain and rapid spoilage once a batch is thawed. Virus-vector vaccines like the J&J, AstraZeneca, and Sputnik V are more resilient, and also inactivated virus vaccines like the Chinese CoronaVac, and protein subunit vaccines like the Novavax.

 

Great, get a booster shot if you want. I just hope this isn't going to be forced on anyone.
It's bad enough people are being coerced into getting the shot. Can you imagine them being forced to get repeatedly injected every 6 months?

 

Just to be a little critical - I don't think you have to do much talking to the vaccinated to get booster shots and if you are anti-vaccine an article about booster shots isn't going to convince anyone.

 

Except that most people aren't being coerced into getting the shot. First, the "mandates" are only employment-related. People not employed or self-employed are not part of this. Also, people who work for businesses with less than 100 employees are not part of this. And then, for the overwhelming majority of employees in the United States who are subject to these "mandates," there is an opt-out clause that allows people to opt for a weekly test instead, and there are medical and religious exemptions in place. The "mandates" are not real mandates; they are phrased as conditions for employment, so ultimately if not even the opt-out or the exemption appeal to someone, anybody has the right to quit over this policy and go work for another business (e.g., one with less than 100 employees).

Still, even thought these are not real and full mandates, I prefer gentle education and persuasion than mandates, like I said several times, but it's not like these mandates are resulting in people being pinned down to stick a needle in them against their will. That's just a misleading narrative that you anti-vaxxers like to spout, which is part of your usual lies and obfuscation. I haven't seen any anti-vaxxer ever saying "but people who don't want the vaccine can opt out of it by simply getting a weekly test so the vaccines are not really being forced on people" - because that would be inconvenient for the narrative, so you all prefer to lie and call it forced vaccination. There's nothing forced about something that has a clear opt-out clause.

Now, if we need a booster every 6 months, so be it.

I fail to see how a little trip to the pharmacy or the doctor's office or the employee health clinic to get a little jab every six months is not MUCH better than contracting this nasty and dangerous virus.

 

Quite a number of words in an attempt to maintain a meaningful distinction between "Mandate" and "Condition of Employment". It is a basic human right to be able to exchange labor for pay or to refuse to do so. The Federal government, with listed powers, does not appear to have the legitimate authority to impose this burden on employment. The argument is comparatively stronger for the States with their broader powers, but not significantly so. You and I can safely leave this difference of views to the Courts, they'll render a carefully researched and understandably described decisions on this.

We aren't the folks claiming a meaningful distinction between burdening our basic human right to exchange labor for pay and a "mandate". It's always important to note that when you are pointing a finger at others, there are three pointing back at you.

​

This is what I wanted to ask you about. I've always been puzzled by the strong immune response with the second shot and while I understand the explanation, my concern is does this response build with each subsequent exposure? A question for the boosters or if COVID was encountered. If each subsequent exposure to vaccine or virus results in a more pronounced response, this strikes me as something that could get out of hand.

I've also noticed that two highly placed CDC doctors have resigned recently, which is rumored to be over the potential harm of boosters. In trying to reason through this, I think the following are considerations:

i) Post vaccine immunity can be insufficient.
ii) When the vaccine produces a sufficient immune response, it's very effective.
iii) When post vaccine response is insufficient, there is very good evidence that a booster can correct this.
iv) If you currently have a sufficient immune response, whether due to natural immunity or vaccine immunity, there is no medical necessity for a booster shot.
v) Concurrent vaccination of a COVID infected person or a recently recovered person is potentially harmful.
vi) Vaccinating (or contracting COVID) can trigger a dangerous inflammatory response that can range from dangerous to deadly.
vii) It is dangerous and unethical for Biden's CDC and FDA to implement a vaccine booster policy that is unnecessary or even harmful to some Americans because the majority of Americans stand to benefit.

The fully vaccinated are the most likely to observe a booster shot recommendation and they may be the segment of the population that needs it the least.

viii) CDC/FDA efforts should focus non-immune whereas a blanket booster policy will be observed by the fully vaccinated, which is also the group that this would needlessly subject to potential harm.
ix) blanket vaccinating without assessment of their immunity, assumes that they are sub-optimally immunized which is certainly untrue of likely the great majority of them.

A sensible policy to me would be:

x) If you currently have high COVID antibodies, be satisfied and stop here.
xi) If your antibody levels are low or absent, and you are not currently SARS-CoV-2 infected, get boosted or vaccinated.

Your thoughts?

 

About mandate versus conditions for employment, although I do not support mandates, I also do think that they will withstand a court review. There's been already court rulings in favor of hospitals that mandated the shot to their employees even before Pfizer became a fully approved vaccine. There's been several constitutional scholars saying that the government does have the right to impose these mandates through OSHA (while others don't think so). So we'll see.

But while I think they are likely to be legal (especially like I said because it is not a true mandate given the opt-out clause and exemptions) I'm afraid that this move was just stupid and will backfire and make people dig their heels even more.

So I hope you're understanding my position. Not for mandates, but guessing that they are legal. Even though I can argue in favor of their legality it doesn't mean I approve of them, and I'm afraid they will backfire.

And then, I've explained before: while I'm not for mandates, I'm even less for half-baked measures. I think, if some authority wants to implement a mandate (ordered by someone else, not by me; I wouldn't order it if I were in a position to do so), then do it right, dammit! If a mandate is issued then I think there shouldn't be an opt-out clause and exemptions should be granted only if the applicant can substantially provide proof that the medical condition claimed does exist and does contra-indicate the vaccine, or the religious belief claimed is a life-long consistent belief and not just opportunism to evade the mandate.

Like I said, I can perfectly be against the war on Iraq... and still feel that if one is ordered against my best judgment, then at least it needs to be a full-blown campaign, not on-the-cheap, to actually get something accomplished rapidly, instead of a quagmire.

So I'm not for mandates... but I believe that if one is issued then it needs to be a real one. Or else you just anger people for little gain.

Enough on this. Like you said, there will be further court reviews so we'll see what will happen.

---------

About immunity: you make excellent points.

From the standpoint of immunology/virology I see a small likelihood that we'll see stronger and stronger immune responses to this virus and/or to the vaccines against this virus to the point of toxicity, because what we've been seeing is the opposite: fading antibodies. It's a coronavirus. They are tricky. We would never be able to come up with a vaccine against common cold coronaviruses. They are too variable. We are relatively lucky that the rate of mutation of this one is still somewhat slower than that of the influenza virus, and the biodiversity of this one is still lower than that of other common cold coronaviruses. So the vaccines got possible. Thank God. They have prevented lots of deaths, already. But for how long will they last? Unknown. We'll find out, but we aren't there yet because this disease is new, and mass vaccinations are only 9 months old, by now (and most countries started with the oldest demographics that are least likely to acquire good immunity so we may just be seeing this now, with these breakthrough infections, and other demographics vaccinated later, may have more lasting immunity - and also, people keep forgetting cellular immunity. Nobody from these vaccine companies ever talk about that... it's just serology and antibodies... Because it is obvious that they have a vested commercial interest in proving the case for boosters.

I don't think the two FDA officials quit due to "dangerous" booster shots. I think they were unhappy with political interference, that the White House mentioned a plan of offering boosters to everybody after 8 months of the second shot, without waiting for the FDA committee that meets tomorrow, and without waiting for the subsequent CDC meeting. I think FDA career scientists are sick and tired of political interference. This is a new phenomenon. In the past the career scientists seemed to call the shots (pun intended). However both the Trump and the Biden administrations started interfering with the FDA and I find it disgraceful. So I empathize with the officials who quit. Unless there is more news that I didn't follow, you mentioned CDC resignations; I think they were rather FDA resignations. Dr. Marion Gruber and Dr. Philip Krause are the ones; it's not a real resignation but they are stepping down and taking an earlier retirement than they had initially planned. But yes, it's because they are upset at the Biden administration. Regrettable. They believe that there isn't sufficient evidence for the need for boosters yet and Biden tried to bypass them. They have a point.

"Vaccinating can trigger a dangerous inflammatory response" - I mean, there are cases of myocarditis in younger people, usually mild and transient, from the vaccines; this was happening before boosters, too - I like to remind people that the SARS-CoV-2 is MUCH more likely to cause myocarditis than the vaccines; and then, many of those are NOT mild and transient. I remain convinced that the vaccines, including the boosters, have benefits that outweigh the risks. I'm not aware of a "dangerous" inflammatory response. Studies by Pfizer, Moderna, and Israel have shown the opposite, that the boosters are safe and have not had significantly worse adverse reactions than the first two shots.

Are you under the impression that vaccination can cause deadly cytokine storms? We haven't seen it.

Can these vaccines kill? Yeah, absolutely, we've had cases. They are much less frequent, though, than the deaths from the virus. A lot less. Thousands of times less.

Also, remember, cases of thrombocytopenic thrombosis (which are the bulk of the fatal cases - but not all) were seen almost exclusively with the adenovirus-vector vaccines (these are for example the J&J, the AstraZeneca, and the Sputnik V). The mRNA vaccines (Pfizer and Moderna) do appear to be safer.

"It is dangerous and unethical for Biden's CDC and FDA to implement a vaccine booster policy that is unnecessary or even harmful to some Americans because the majority of Americans stand to benefit."

Aren't you jumping the gun a bit? I saw no indication that boosters will be mandatory. Actually the goal is to look at medical indications. For example, the already approved boosters are supposed to be given when a doctor believes that his/her patient meets the immunocompromised definition.

So in what way is simply saying that you CAN get a booster if you and your doctor believe it's needed and beneficial, unethical and dangerous? I guess, people who want boosters and their doctors agree, then will get boosters. Those who don't want them, won't. I fail to see this POSSIBILITY of getting a booster, something unethical or dangerous.

You know, I do criticize the Biden administration... but I prefer to criticize them when they do screw up, not based on hypothetical slippery slopes.

Assessment of people's immunity: unfortunately this is less clear cut than you seem to believe. What titers of neutralizing antibodies are needed for significant protection is not known and varies according to the individual and to the variant. There isn't a magic test that you can go to the lab to get, and the next day they call you and say "yep, you need a booster" or "nope, you don't need a booster." I wish. We're not there yet. There are a number of different antibody serology tests to spot IgG, IgM, against different viral protein domains, and more or less neutralizing. One would need a battery of tests and some pretty involved analysis trying to figure out the patient's level of protection. I don't see this is as a logistically feasible assessment for hundreds of millions of Americans. These are more meaningful for now as a research tool than as a mass clinical tool.

So we've been looking at cohort observations; it's interesting that the Israeli study looked at 1.1 million people. That's rather strong evidence that the boosters have been helpful and safe.

However, even that has flaws. It's an observational study, not a randomized, placebo-controlled trial. There are many intervening factors, the most obvious of them being, first, people who are eager for a booster are likely to be the ones most afraid of the virus, therefore the ones most inclined to uphold other precautions such as advanced masks and careful social distancing, with avoidance of indoor crowds, etc. So the result of fewer infections in this group can't be entirely taken at face value. Second, their assessment was done over a very short period of time. There is no evidence that even with the boosters, immunity will last. Maybe the booster boosts up the neutralizing antibodies' titer for a few weeks then they fade again? We don't know because the Israelis didn't continue the assessment for too long. Third, Israelis are for the most part a very different ethnic group as compared to the bulk of the American population, genetically speaking. We shouldn't assume that we can automatically transfer to our population, results seen for their population.

-------

My friend, things are very uncertain at this time. I find the Israeli study encouraging despite its flaws. The bottom line is that when I'm offered a booster, I've decided to accept it; so will my wife, and we'll recommend it to our two children and their spouses. That's the best endorsement I can offer, right? But can I say with 100% certainty that this is a great idea and it is 100% efficacious and 100% safe? Of course not. It's too early to know. It's a novel disease, being prevented with novel vaccines.

But at this time I want as much protection as I can get (including because I'm constantly exposed, at work) so yes, I'll want the booster. I'll take my chances with the booster. I think the virus is far more dangerous than any rare danger from the vaccines. That's the bottom line, and that's what I believe must guide the decision-making.

-------

PS - My irritated tone has to do with the fact that the response you quoted was a response to poster Kazenatsu, a notorious anti-vaxxer who has posted numerous lies here on PF. I have little patience left for that poster. I probably wouldn't have reacted so strongly to a post of yours.

 

@Center Field.

Got mine today.

Pieieiecks.

Now that USB growing out of me ars is 5 G.

 

If the vaccine is this week then it is only a prophylactic treetment.

 

Mostly it is a bioweapon, killing tens of thousands and maiming many more.

 

Quote Center Field :
My friend, things are very uncertain at this time. I find the Israeli study encouraging despite its flaws. The bottom line is that when I'm offered a booster, I've decided to accept it; so will my wife, and we'll recommend it to our two children and their spouses. That's the best endorsement I can offer, right? But can I say with 100% certainty that this is a great idea and it is 100% efficacious and 100% safe? Of course not. It's too early to know. It's a novel disease, being prevented with novel vaccines.

But at this time I want as much protection as I can get (including because I'm constantly exposed, at work) so yes, I'll want the booster. I'll take my chances with the booster. I think the virus is far more dangerous than any rare danger from the vaccines. That's the bottom line, and that's what I believe must guide the decision-making.
End Quote.

That is exactly my reasoning, I work with the public, my county has a incidence of 200-300/100k/week.
I know that I am daily exposed to the Delta, it is now 100% of all cases.
I wont as much protection as I can get. Studies in Israel and the UK have shown that the antibodies increase by 5 to 11 times, after the Booster.
Its a no brainer, its for free.
I have had no negative reaction at all from all 3 shots, no sore arm, I just had for 1 hour while I was working physical abnormal sweating, yesterday, 5 hours after the shot. I sat down for a short while and when I quit sweating, continued.

The most important thing, the Bier still tastes good.

Bayern vs Bielefeld 7:0

 

The Court is monkey-hammering it for the exact reasons I outlined to you.

The 5th Circuit's brilliant opinion staying OSHA's vaccine mandate

"In a decision written with clarity; an exceptional grasp of facts; and the cool, rational application of law, the 5th Circuit completely destroys the mandate."

"BST Holdings, L.L.C. et al. v. OSHA, reaffirming the initial stay it granted when multiple entities and individuals challenged OSHA's recently issued vaccine mandate. In one brutal paragraph after another, the Court rips apart the mandate, citing law, facts, OSHA precedent, and even a Ron Klain tweet. It's a tour de force that makes it unlikely that any halfway honest court can or would resuscitate the mandate or that either OSHA or even Congress could try again."

• "June 2020, when fear about COVID was at a peak, OSHA "reasonably determined" that an emergency temporary standard (ETS) was unnecessary.
• "Over a year later, on September 9, 2021, Biden announced that he was going to impose a national vaccine mandate. That same day, Ron Klain retweeted a Stephanie Ruhle tweet stating that an OSHA vaccine mandate "is the ultimate work-around for the Federal govt to require vaccinations."
• Finally, almost two months later, on November 5, OSHA finally got around to promulgating the ETS.

Congress created OSHA

"The Court even cited chief of staff Klain's retweet, an admission that using OSHA was a deliberate attempt to circumvent the president's constitutional inability to issue such a mandate."

"The Court touches on the fact that COVID's risks are very uneven, depending on a person's age, general health, and immunity, and OSHA's past statements about its lack of power to make mandates for infectious diseases."

"The Court notes serious constitutional problems. While states have vast powers over public health, the Commerce Clause means that the federal government does not: "A person's choice to remain unvaccinated and forgo regular testing is noneconomic inactivity," and therefore within the states', not the federal government's, purview. Likewise, Separation of Powers principles mean that an agency operating under the Executive cannot exceed the narrow mandate Congress gave it."

"The Court gave a nod to the Supreme Court's decision earlier this year holding that the CDC may not make housing policy by issuing eviction moratoriums. It noted that Congress can only give away so much of its authority, for "health agencies do not make housing policy, and occupational safety administrations do not make health policy" (p. 20)."

A WH full of Nimrods.