> Regarding not infecting people, again, we know the vaccine is effective. There is simply no evidence of this. None. > It's effective in reducing hospitaliza

> Regarding not infecting people, again, we know the vaccine is effective. There is simply no evidence of this. None. > It's effective in reducing hospitalization, severe disease, The only evidence we have for this -- so far -- is for people over age 50. There's no evidence of reduction in mortality for younger, healthy people. > and against getting the disease in the first place. Our current evidence for this is limited to a few weeks after boosters, and again, it is expected that this will fade over time as antibody titers decline. > And, if you have a lower probability of getting the disease if exposed, if you get the shot, does it or does it not mean you will infect fewer people if you get the shot? Simple logic. Still waiting for you to answer the core questions: what is the risk? What is the benefit? Don't just wave your hands. Quantify the benefit. To make it as clear as I possibly can: if there is a .0000000001% improvement in mortality risk from illness, and a .00001% mortality risk from the vaccine itself, then the logic is obvious: one should not get a booster dose. The risks of the booster dose are (hypothetically; I am making up numbers here) 10,000x greater than the benefits, even though both are quite small.