> The second is a news article, referencing the Israeli study. It is not "a study". It is not new information. These second link references a few studies inclu

> The second is a news article, referencing the Israeli study. It is not "a study". It is not new information. These second link references a few studies including this one from the CDC: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7037e2.htm?s_cid=mm7037e2_w https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7037e2.htm?s_cid=mm... > Again, this claim is an outlier. When there are several independent studies showing the same thing, they are no longer outliers. > Also, the two studies that vex you so -- both the Israeli and the Mayo clinic study -- occurred within six months of their vaccination programs. Here is another study published in nejm about the affects of boosters in Israel in August: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2114255 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2114255 > Essentially, you're projecting doom Ok let me be clear here. I am not intending to project doom, what I am trying to project is that there is real data which shows boosters are beneficial. Of course the vaccines even without boosters are clearly extremely effective. Even as breakthrough cases increase because of waning immunity, the prognosis for someone fully vaccinated is very different compared to someone who is unvaccinated. The main thing I disagree with you with, and would use your argument against you, is that there clearly is real data showing waning effectiveness and the benefit of boosters. The main argument for not recommending them is that the vaccines would be better off for people that have not been vaccinated in the first place. Well no shit, but if that population is refusing to take them then the point is moot.