4 ms·

> Get a booster when you can, it is worth it. If you are under 65 and not immune compromised, there's essentially no evidence for this claim. If you are eithe

by timr 5y ago

> Get a booster when you can, it is worth it. If you are under 65 and not immune compromised, there's essentially no evidence for this claim. If you are either of those things, there's some evidence that it takes your risk of severe illness (already low after vaccination), and divides it by another factor of ~20 [0]. That's great, but it's a tiny absolute effect, and we shouldn't over-sell it. If you're under 65, there's essentially no evidence supporting widespread use of boosters, and the CDC ACIP was against recommending it for all people [1] (but was ignored by politicians). The WHO continues to ask rich countries not to give boosters to healthy young people, given lack of evidence and supply constraints. [2] Not incidentally: your two tweets discuss infection, not severe illness. All current evidence is that you're well-protected against severe disease after two shots. Paper in the lancet as of last week found that boosters had a marginal impact on cellular immunity, with the primary benefit being antibody response. [3] Again, fine, but we know that antibody response wanes over time. It's completely unsurprising that you'd have more antibodies two weeks after vaccination. You'll have far lower antibodies 9 months from your third dose, too. [0] https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2114255 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2114255 [1] https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7044e2.htm https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7044e2.htm [2] https://www.who.int/news/item/04-10-2021-interim-statement-on-booster-doses-for-covid-19-vaccination https://www.who.int/news/item/04-10-2021-interim-statement-o... [3]https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)02717-3/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6... > a mRNA 3rd dose cuts your chances of bad outcome (severe illness, hospitalisation) from omicron or previous variants to a lot lower than 2 doses ever did. Literally no evidence for this statement. We simply don't know anything about Omicron and boosters. This is why this press release from Pfizer is on the front page of HN right now.

swader999 5y ago
If you are in that group (under 65 and no co-morbids) two shots should be fine. Getting infected, using early treatments (even controversial ones) and recovering with a dose of natural immunity is probably better as the SA study from yesterday showed.
- SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
  > Getting infected, using early treatments (even controversial ones) and recovering with a dose of natural immunity is probably better Citation needed, as you appear to be saying that a COVID infection is preferable to a vaccination, and that is an extraordinary claim. Bonus points for using " natural immunity", a loaded term.
  - timr 5y ago
    There's good evidence that natural infection is more robust than vaccination alone, and that a combination of infection + a booster is best overall: https://www.science.org/content/article/having-sars-cov-2-once-confers-much-greater-immunity-vaccine-vaccination-remains-vital https://www.science.org/content/article/having-sars-cov-2-on...
    - SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
      That may be a silver lining, but the statement was "is COVID infection preferable to a vaccination". COVID infection, if you're not aware, also can have downsides. This evidence does not make "lets get COVID" a good idea on balance.
      - swader999 5y ago
        For low risk groups I think it's preferable to let your immune system have a go at it. Training it on only a portion of the spike with an alpha based vax will get you into the endless booster game. Especially if you have things like ivermectin and vitamins at your disposal.
        SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
        > I think it's preferable to let your immune system have a go at it. Again, citation needed, as you appear to be saying that a COVID infection is preferable to a vaccination. > Especially if you have things like ivermectin and vitamins at your disposal. Are you joking? I can't tell if this is supposed to a serious suggestion for discredited quack remedies, or sarcasm.
Taywee 5y ago
That still doesn't sound like a strong argument against it to me. Getting the booster might help or might not help as much as was said. Not getting it does nothing for or against you. It sounds to me like getting a booster is a safe, reasoned choice that has a good chance at offering additional protection, zero financial cost for almost everybody, and typically very mild side effects. "Don't get it because there's a chance that it might not help and almost no risk of harm" doesn't sound compelling.
- timr 5y ago
  > It sounds to me like getting a booster is a safe...and typically very mild side effects. Based on what, exactly? Also, you can drive a truck through the gap left by "typically", here. People with two doses of the vaccines will "typically" never become seriously ill. We don't prescribe (let alone, mandate) medications because "it might help and people are scared". You have to show the benefits exceed the costs for everyone for whom you are making the recommendation. And the "costs" here don't just include things like heart inflammation (which is a real risk amongst young boys, in particular), but also the societal cost of otherwise healthy people being vaccine-sick for 1-3 days post-booster. Why do that, if it isn't going to provide a real benefit? Also, I don't know if you noticed this in what I wrote, but the WHO is practically begging rich western nations to stop hoarding vaccines for healthy people, so that poor nations can get first doses. Meanwhile, we have a new variant...plausibly out of a poor, under-vaccinated nation. Just a coincidence, though!

by timr 5y ago

swader999 5y ago

If you are in that group (under 65 and no co-morbids) two shots should be fine. Getting infected, using early treatments (even controversial ones) and recovering with a dose of natural immunity is probably better as the SA study from yesterday showed.

SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
> Getting infected, using early treatments (even controversial ones) and recovering with a dose of natural immunity is probably better Citation needed, as you appear to be saying that a COVID infection is preferable to a vaccination, and that is an extraordinary claim. Bonus points for using " natural immunity", a loaded term.
- timr 5y ago
  There's good evidence that natural infection is more robust than vaccination alone, and that a combination of infection + a booster is best overall: https://www.science.org/content/article/having-sars-cov-2-once-confers-much-greater-immunity-vaccine-vaccination-remains-vital https://www.science.org/content/article/having-sars-cov-2-on...
  - SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
    That may be a silver lining, but the statement was "is COVID infection preferable to a vaccination". COVID infection, if you're not aware, also can have downsides. This evidence does not make "lets get COVID" a good idea on balance.
    - swader999 5y ago
      For low risk groups I think it's preferable to let your immune system have a go at it. Training it on only a portion of the spike with an alpha based vax will get you into the endless booster game. Especially if you have things like ivermectin and vitamins at your disposal.
      - SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
        > I think it's preferable to let your immune system have a go at it. Again, citation needed, as you appear to be saying that a COVID infection is preferable to a vaccination. > Especially if you have things like ivermectin and vitamins at your disposal. Are you joking? I can't tell if this is supposed to a serious suggestion for discredited quack remedies, or sarcasm.

Taywee 5y ago

That still doesn't sound like a strong argument against it to me. Getting the booster might help or might not help as much as was said. Not getting it does nothing for or against you. It sounds to me like getting a booster is a safe, reasoned choice that has a good chance at offering additional protection, zero financial cost for almost everybody, and typically very mild side effects. "Don't get it because there's a chance that it might not help and almost no risk of harm" doesn't sound compelling.

timr 5y ago
> It sounds to me like getting a booster is a safe...and typically very mild side effects. Based on what, exactly? Also, you can drive a truck through the gap left by "typically", here. People with two doses of the vaccines will "typically" never become seriously ill. We don't prescribe (let alone, mandate) medications because "it might help and people are scared". You have to show the benefits exceed the costs for everyone for whom you are making the recommendation. And the "costs" here don't just include things like heart inflammation (which is a real risk amongst young boys, in particular), but also the societal cost of otherwise healthy people being vaccine-sick for 1-3 days post-booster. Why do that, if it isn't going to provide a real benefit? Also, I don't know if you noticed this in what I wrote, but the WHO is practically begging rich western nations to stop hoarding vaccines for healthy people, so that poor nations can get first doses. Meanwhile, we have a new variant...plausibly out of a poor, under-vaccinated nation. Just a coincidence, though!