4 ms·

I mean, I can just dump a bunch of links to studies and details about how boosters are highly effective, even for young people. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/ac

I mean, I can just dump a bunch of links to studies and details about how boosters are highly effective, even for young people. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-2021-11-19/06-COVID-Oliver-508.pdf https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-... https://www.mdpi.com/2076-393X/10/1/23/pdf https://www.mdpi.com/2076-393X/10/1/23/pdf https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2022/01/no-omicron-immunity-without-booster-study-finds/ https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2022/01/no-omicron-im... https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01575-4 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01575-4 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.13.21267748v1 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.13.21267748v... https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/2022-01-07-global-technical-brief-and-priority-action-on-omicron---corr2.pdf?sfvrsn=918b09d_23 https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/2022-01... And I can find dozens more. Your comment is basically entirely an appeal to authority in what is linked - these are not studies, they are specific individuals saying things and you saying we should listen to them because of who they are in general, and not because they have actual data to back their specific point.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
timr 5y ago
> I mean, I can just dump a bunch of links to studies and details about how boosters are highly effective, even for young people. And I can find dozens more. This isn't baseball cards. The person with the most URLs doesn't win. You have to read the data and understand what it says. You clearly don't, because you're citing pop-science sources such as "The Harvard Gazette", and irrelevant papers about viral loads in breakthrough infections, as if these are meaningful to the debate. However, it is apropos that you cited the CDC ACIP deck from their November 19 meeting [1], since it quite clearly lays out the lack of data, and shows how reluctant ACIP was to recommend boosters for all. See slides 29 and 35 for a summary. See slide 37 for a (rather hilarious) graph showing "number needed to boost" to prevent one hospitalization in 18-29 year olds (8,000-12,000) vs 65 year olds (481-859), which goes right to the heart of the issue: boosters provide scant benefit against severe illness for younger people. See slide 61 for the CDC ACIP final recommendation, which clearly shows that healthy people under age 50 MAY receive a booster, but weren't recommended to get one. This is exactly what I said above, what is written in the articles I quoted, and what you dismiss as "appeals to authority". It's right there in the source you linked. It couldn't be clearer. Did you read it? [1] https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-2021-11-19/06-COVID-Oliver-508.pdf https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-...
- Daishiman 5y ago
  Given that a pediatric hospitalization is a hellish and expensive affair and early long COVID may have life-long effects, while a vaccine is cheap and trivially accessible, how is that still _not_ a winning strategy? _Just_ 8000 vaccinations to prevent a hospitalization? How could you even consider that to be bad? Are we in a surplus of hospital beds or guardians or am I the only person that lives in a metro area where routine hospital procedures have to be cancelled and there's a 15% rate of absenteeism due to Covid, which likely includes parents that have to take care of their sick children?
  - timr 5y ago
    The ACIP slide deck goes into this. The vaccines also have risks, which you are ignoring, in favor of fixating on "early long Covid", which is a documented risk of exceptionally low magnitude.
  - sshine 5y ago
    8000 vaccinations to prevent one hospitalization sounds like a really bad trade-off when you don’t specify the severity of the hospitalization and you don’t take into account the side-effects and efficacy of the vaccination (other than to prevent hospitalization). Also, did you just add ‘pediatric’ to this stream of words to make it about the kids?
  - GuB-42 5y ago
    From a pure money perspective, let's say a shot is worth about $25, which I think is a low estimate. 8000 shots is $200k. From what I've seen, a hospital stay for covid is about $50k on average. Of course, it is only when we consider trading between 1 hospital stay to 8000 shots. It assumes the numbers are right and doesn't consider anything else, like potential life-long sequelae, non-hospitalization risks and side effects of vaccination. Anyways, while my intuition is that vaccinating kids is worthwhile, it isn't as obvious as it is for adults.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

timr 5y ago

> I mean, I can just dump a bunch of links to studies and details about how boosters are highly effective, even for young people. And I can find dozens more. This isn't baseball cards. The person with the most URLs doesn't win. You have to read the data and understand what it says. You clearly don't, because you're citing pop-science sources such as "The Harvard Gazette", and irrelevant papers about viral loads in breakthrough infections, as if these are meaningful to the debate. However, it is apropos that you cited the CDC ACIP deck from their November 19 meeting [1], since it quite clearly lays out the lack of data, and shows how reluctant ACIP was to recommend boosters for all. See slides 29 and 35 for a summary. See slide 37 for a (rather hilarious) graph showing "number needed to boost" to prevent one hospitalization in 18-29 year olds (8,000-12,000) vs 65 year olds (481-859), which goes right to the heart of the issue: boosters provide scant benefit against severe illness for younger people. See slide 61 for the CDC ACIP final recommendation, which clearly shows that healthy people under age 50 MAY receive a booster, but weren't recommended to get one. This is exactly what I said above, what is written in the articles I quoted, and what you dismiss as "appeals to authority". It's right there in the source you linked. It couldn't be clearer. Did you read it? [1] https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-2021-11-19/06-COVID-Oliver-508.pdf https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-...

Daishiman 5y ago
Given that a pediatric hospitalization is a hellish and expensive affair and early long COVID may have life-long effects, while a vaccine is cheap and trivially accessible, how is that still _not_ a winning strategy? _Just_ 8000 vaccinations to prevent a hospitalization? How could you even consider that to be bad? Are we in a surplus of hospital beds or guardians or am I the only person that lives in a metro area where routine hospital procedures have to be cancelled and there's a 15% rate of absenteeism due to Covid, which likely includes parents that have to take care of their sick children?
- timr 5y ago
  The ACIP slide deck goes into this. The vaccines also have risks, which you are ignoring, in favor of fixating on "early long Covid", which is a documented risk of exceptionally low magnitude.
- sshine 5y ago
  8000 vaccinations to prevent one hospitalization sounds like a really bad trade-off when you don’t specify the severity of the hospitalization and you don’t take into account the side-effects and efficacy of the vaccination (other than to prevent hospitalization). Also, did you just add ‘pediatric’ to this stream of words to make it about the kids?
- GuB-42 5y ago
  From a pure money perspective, let's say a shot is worth about $25, which I think is a low estimate. 8000 shots is $200k. From what I've seen, a hospital stay for covid is about $50k on average. Of course, it is only when we consider trading between 1 hospital stay to 8000 shots. It assumes the numbers are right and doesn't consider anything else, like potential life-long sequelae, non-hospitalization risks and side effects of vaccination. Anyways, while my intuition is that vaccinating kids is worthwhile, it isn't as obvious as it is for adults.