4 ms·

Generally curious and would love input from others, but from the research I've done, boosters are not recommended for all people and there was significant misgi

Generally curious and would love input from others, but from the research I've done, boosters are not recommended for all people and there was significant misgivings in the FDA officials who approved the booster: - https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/25/health/covid-boosters-cdc-fda.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/25/health/covid-boosters-cdc... As it's said a bit in that article, it's important to know that the response to anything should be based on a variety of factors and in this case including severity of getting the virus. From my research, Omicron _is_ similar to getting a common cold. We should be adjusting our response based not only on how transmissible it is but on the consequences of us getting it, but it seems there is a much more black & white approach. When the chance of death was significantly higher in other variants, holding off seeing ones kids made sense, when long-term covid meant going without taste or smell, that's a significant risk. I still see a lot of "do whatever is necessary to not get Covid" -- but that is now not including the severity of what you're getting. If we removed the name "Covid" and considered each to be a separate virus, would "Omicron" be something you freak out about? If I were to do a generalized formula it would be something like: [severity of illness] * [transmissibility] = [strength of response justified] -------- Would love additional data that changes this mindset. * I am vaccinated but not boosted. ------- EDIT: Getting downvoted without responses when I'm looking for genuine information to understand more thoroughly is a pretty poor approach to helping fight C19. It dichotomizes and turns people against each other rather than facilitate discussion or learning.

wussboy 5y ago
The answers you are looking for have been posted a million other times in response to a million other questions by millions of other people. To claim that silence on your particular question means there are no answers or that you are correct is disingenuous. We know this, so we downvote.
- marvin 5y ago
  This is a very uncharitable response. GP wants a legitimate discussion that doesn't have an obvious/well-known/established answer at this point.
  - wussboy 5y ago
    My objection is not to asking questions or wanting discussion. It's the implication that because people didn't respond to his specific set of questions (which weren't unique and were echoed/responded to many other places on the same page) means there weren't good answers and that his speculative position had merit.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
bakuninsbart 5y ago
It doesn't make sense to have a US centric approach to this topic, FDA recomendations are just some among many. All the independent comissions in Europe are coming to similar conclusions, too. > [severity of illness] * [transmissibility] = [strength of response justified] I think that's quite a fair metric, but slightly incomplete. The most important factor here is ICU capacity vs. ICU occupancy rate, because this also measures if you die from shit like appendicitis. Winter in general sees more ICU cases, so the strain the system can take is already lower. Switzerland for example is still doing quite well despite incidence rates of more than a thousand due to their extremely advanced healthcare sector. Death is actually secondary in this. If you live after having taken an ICU bed for 6 weeks, you might have killed 2 other people completely unrelated to your case due to your own negligence. The fact of the matter is that the healthcare sector is getting flooded again, and lots of countries have a serious risk of overstraining their healthcare sector to the point of triage. Booster shots substantially reduce the risk of serious illenss, at least that is what we are believing to see in our hospitals. Unvaccinated are close to 90% of ICU cases, while boostered people make up less than 1%, although it is important to note that doubly-vaccinated still make up more than half of the local population (and roughly 20% unvaccinated). Of course it takes time to do good studies on the actual impact of booster vaccinations, and I'm super annoyed by the lack of full transparency of research bodies tasked to make recommendations, but you can't just sit on your balls in times of crisis. The risk to ones own health due to boostering also seems to be negligible, it is just a minor annoyance.
- KerryJones 5y ago
  Thanks for this, I do consider severity to include hospitalization and death: https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/pfizerbiontech-covid-19-vaccine-effectiveness-drops-after-6-months-study-2021-10-04/ https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/... Note that it's now talking about effectiveness in transmissibility, rather than what defined effectiveness when they were being tested which was hospitalization and death -- which is still at 90% after 6 months, including against Delta. I do follow many nurse friends of mine who share daily counts of local ICU case increases, and very much agree that I consider ICU capacity (or hospital in general) to be something that must be monitored. That was a statistic I didn't have -- and thank you spurred some more study digging and I found this: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2115624 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2115624 This feels pretty relevant, 90% reduction in mortality between those who got a booster and those who did not (for ages 50+), though I'm still looking at people for my age. Anyway-- thanks, this is useful, going to dig more
fairity 5y ago
I think part of the problem is that Omicron is too new to really quantify risks for the vaccinated but unboosted population. That said, what we do know is that the side-effect risks associated with getting boosted are extremely low. So, I would pose the question: why not? The health risks associated with getting boosted is vanishingly small compared to other risks you take. For example, as an average 30-40 yo, the risk of death by simply getting out of bed and engaging in normal activities for one day is 1 in 200,000. That risk is far greater than the risk of getting boosted. My take is that people are making a big deal out of nothing. If there's a chance that getting boosted will help us put an end to this virus sooner, and I'm not taking on any meaningful risk by getting boosted, why not?
- KerryJones 5y ago
  I hear you, and you're not wrong, but the "why not" approach does feel like a slippery slope, which could be considered a logical fallacy except in that _it has already been slipping_. It is important for me for the numbers to justify the cause, and not just because "why not". If the disease appeared today with its current severity, would the world stop?

wussboy 5y ago

The answers you are looking for have been posted a million other times in response to a million other questions by millions of other people. To claim that silence on your particular question means there are no answers or that you are correct is disingenuous. We know this, so we downvote.

marvin 5y ago
This is a very uncharitable response. GP wants a legitimate discussion that doesn't have an obvious/well-known/established answer at this point.
- wussboy 5y ago
  My objection is not to asking questions or wanting discussion. It's the implication that because people didn't respond to his specific set of questions (which weren't unique and were echoed/responded to many other places on the same page) means there weren't good answers and that his speculative position had merit.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

bakuninsbart 5y ago

It doesn't make sense to have a US centric approach to this topic, FDA recomendations are just some among many. All the independent comissions in Europe are coming to similar conclusions, too. > [severity of illness] * [transmissibility] = [strength of response justified] I think that's quite a fair metric, but slightly incomplete. The most important factor here is ICU capacity vs. ICU occupancy rate, because this also measures if you die from shit like appendicitis. Winter in general sees more ICU cases, so the strain the system can take is already lower. Switzerland for example is still doing quite well despite incidence rates of more than a thousand due to their extremely advanced healthcare sector. Death is actually secondary in this. If you live after having taken an ICU bed for 6 weeks, you might have killed 2 other people completely unrelated to your case due to your own negligence. The fact of the matter is that the healthcare sector is getting flooded again, and lots of countries have a serious risk of overstraining their healthcare sector to the point of triage. Booster shots substantially reduce the risk of serious illenss, at least that is what we are believing to see in our hospitals. Unvaccinated are close to 90% of ICU cases, while boostered people make up less than 1%, although it is important to note that doubly-vaccinated still make up more than half of the local population (and roughly 20% unvaccinated). Of course it takes time to do good studies on the actual impact of booster vaccinations, and I'm super annoyed by the lack of full transparency of research bodies tasked to make recommendations, but you can't just sit on your balls in times of crisis. The risk to ones own health due to boostering also seems to be negligible, it is just a minor annoyance.

KerryJones 5y ago
Thanks for this, I do consider severity to include hospitalization and death: https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/pfizerbiontech-covid-19-vaccine-effectiveness-drops-after-6-months-study-2021-10-04/ https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/... Note that it's now talking about effectiveness in transmissibility, rather than what defined effectiveness when they were being tested which was hospitalization and death -- which is still at 90% after 6 months, including against Delta. I do follow many nurse friends of mine who share daily counts of local ICU case increases, and very much agree that I consider ICU capacity (or hospital in general) to be something that must be monitored. That was a statistic I didn't have -- and thank you spurred some more study digging and I found this: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2115624 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2115624 This feels pretty relevant, 90% reduction in mortality between those who got a booster and those who did not (for ages 50+), though I'm still looking at people for my age. Anyway-- thanks, this is useful, going to dig more

fairity 5y ago

I think part of the problem is that Omicron is too new to really quantify risks for the vaccinated but unboosted population. That said, what we do know is that the side-effect risks associated with getting boosted are extremely low. So, I would pose the question: why not? The health risks associated with getting boosted is vanishingly small compared to other risks you take. For example, as an average 30-40 yo, the risk of death by simply getting out of bed and engaging in normal activities for one day is 1 in 200,000. That risk is far greater than the risk of getting boosted. My take is that people are making a big deal out of nothing. If there's a chance that getting boosted will help us put an end to this virus sooner, and I'm not taking on any meaningful risk by getting boosted, why not?

KerryJones 5y ago
I hear you, and you're not wrong, but the "why not" approach does feel like a slippery slope, which could be considered a logical fallacy except in that _it has already been slipping_. It is important for me for the numbers to justify the cause, and not just because "why not". If the disease appeared today with its current severity, would the world stop?