> What I contest is that they make the original suggestion that "only weakened immune responses will receive the booster" with no implication the policy will ch

> What I contest is that they make the original suggestion that "only weakened immune responses will receive the booster" with no implication the policy will change with new data. Now it is a "major shift", and not an "predicted outcome acted upon with sufficient data". This is a consistent problem in public messaging throughout the pandemic; people feel uncertain and like the government is as clueless as them. I think it's really hard to give such a nuanced message. Here in the US, there was broad speculation about the requirements for boosters for all eventually-- including by policymakers -- but the boosters were initially only recommended for those with risk factors (either occupational or health). In a few years, there's going to be a recommended coronavirus vaccine dose schedule, and it's going to look nothing like what we do now. It's all going to evolve. The public messaging is going to be focused, though, on what we want people to do now.