I'm going to do this as a top-level comment because I think it's important. Throughout this thread, a number of people seem to be misreading the numbers and ar

I'm going to do this as a top-level comment because I think it's important. Throughout this thread, a number of people seem to be misreading the numbers and arguing that the results are unimportant because they show that the booster reduces a tiny risk (0.00298%) to an even tinier one (0.00016%). In general, this is a fine argument to make, but I don't think it's well supported by this paper. Here is the Results section from the paper: A total of 843,208 participants met the eligibility criteria, of whom 758,118 (90%) received the booster during the 54-day study period. Death due to Covid-19 occurred in 65 participants in the booster group (0.16 per 100,000 persons per day) and in 137 participants in the nonbooster group (2.98 per 100,000 persons per day). The risk of death is being reported per day, and not per year as many people seem to be assuming. They had 85,000 people in the control arm, and 137 of them died in the less than 2 month timeframe of the study. If you multiply the daily risk by 365 to make it an annual risk, you find the non-boosted (but already doubly vaccinated) group had a slightly greater than 1% chance of dying within a year. By most standards, and compared to most other situations, this is a considerable risk of death. By contrast, the boosted group had a less than .1% chance of dying per year, so it's not just that an elderly study population was already on the verge of death. So unless you think 1 person out of 100 dying within a year is insignificant, it would be more helpful to point out the potential flaws in the study than to say the results don't matter. Should the data be trusted at all? Is the boosted group really comparable to the unboosted? Did they mishandle/miscount the way people were switched from one group to the other throughout the course of the study? Should those less than 30 years old even care? These are potentially good questions, but it's not reasonable to suggest that the study as printed shows that there is no real benefit to the booster. (Obviously, if my math is wrong or if I'm misinterpreting the results, please correct me!)