5 ms·

Because there is no need for an updated vaccine. The original vaccine (especially with a booster 6 months after the second dose) is extremely effective at preve

Because there is no need for an updated vaccine. The original vaccine (especially with a booster 6 months after the second dose) is extremely effective at preventing severe disease, hospitalization, and death for all variants of SARS-CoV-2. (Alpha, Beta, Delta, Omicron, etc)

phantomathkg 5y ago
Nope. See https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2200797 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2200797 The conclusion said it is less effective. The messenger RNA (mRNA) boosters were highly effective against symptomatic delta infection, but they were less effective against symptomatic omicron infection. However, with both variants, mRNA boosters led to strong protection against Covid-19–related hospitalization and death. (Funded by Weill Cornell Medicine–Qatar and others.) Don't get me wrong, I believe in the vaccine, but I think we are still far away from one vaccine that kill all the the mutations.
- cko 5y ago
  There is no disagreement between your comments.
- DogOfTheGaps 5y ago
  From the link you posted: In this study, mRNA boosters were highly effective against infection with the delta variant but were less effective against infection with the omicron variant. However, these boosters led to strong protection against Covid-19–related hospitalization and death due to both variants. We vaccinate in order to prevent severe disease, hospitalization, and death. The original vaccines, per the link you shared, are extremely effective at this.
  - vanviegen 5y ago
    Originally, the plan was to vaccinate in order to obtain herd immunity and wipe out COVID.
    - kuhewa 5y ago
      Actually originally the plan was to hope for 50% efficacy, even knowing that coronavirus immunity may wane after several months as is the case with seasonal coronaviruses
    - noahtallen 5y ago
      Smart people adjust plans as they discover new information. Your original hopes for a solution at the start of a disaster will change drastically as you better understand the problem at hand. There seems to be a pervasive thought that our leaders ought to somehow become superhuman and obtain clairvoyance about how to solve any problem we have. They are no different from any of us, who think a bug has a simple solution before we spend a lot of time figuring out more complicated things were happening under the hood.
      - hutzlibu 5y ago
        "Smart people adjust plans as they discover new information." The new information, that the world is globalized, with many countries not being able to afford vaccines and also many militant anti vaxxers around? How was wiping out covid, a realistic goal in the first place?
        elliekelly 5y ago
        We managed to keep SARS and MERS fairly contained.
        hutzlibu 5y ago
        But I believe that was a very different situation at that time, with it not already spread globally and being less infectious.
        astrange 5y ago
        The problem isn't really affording vaccines so much as being able to administer them. Africa is a big place; it is literally hard to get very cold mRNA vaccines to people even if we donate them. Similarly, a lot of people have been claiming we're evilly withholding patents from the world, but that can't be a real issue or China and Russia would just have stolen the IP from us. They literally can't produce them any faster even with the rights.
- elliekelly 5y ago
  Less effective doesn’t mean it isn’t extremely effective. Lightbulbs are less effective at providing light than the sun but they’re still extremely effective providers of light.
  - chuckSu 5y ago
    This analogy made me smile :-)
- kuhewa 5y ago
  That's the wrong comparison though, you would need to compare a wild type booster vs an omicron specific booster.
qbasic_forever 5y ago
Unfortunately the public was told last year that the vaccines were near perfect and vaccinated people wouldn't get sick. Here's the head of the CDC at the time saying vaccinated people "do not carry the virus" and were 90% protected against infection: https://www.businessinsider.com/cdc-director-data-vaccinated-people-do-not-carry-covid-19-2021-3?r=US&IR=T https://www.businessinsider.com/cdc-director-data-vaccinated... The CDC needs to be explicit and clearly admit that it was wrong or the data changed, and that vaccinated/boosted people can and will get sick or even spread disease to others. The new 'deal' is that they will likely not be hospitalized or suffer severe disease if infected. Far too many people are still walking around thinking their shots and booster, now nearly 6 months old for some, are an impenetrable force field against any sickness.
- zwkrt 5y ago
  Well ok they'll get sick. People get sick. They'll get way less sick, so that's good!
- oblio 5y ago
  Have you read your own article?
  - qbasic_forever 5y ago
    Yes, it says "On Monday, the CDC released a study finding mRNA vaccines __90% effective at preventing infection__." I remember last year when this news hit, that bit about 90% effective *against infection* was amplified and played nonstop for the public. The message was clearly get vaccinated and you will not get sick. It was not until July and the CDC MMWR report on the Providence, Rhode Island, bear week festivities that lead to unexpected breakthrough infections that the CDC admitted the vaccines were not 90% effective against infection anymore. Unfortunately this updated message has never been clearly told to the public, at least not as clearly or loudly as the original 90% protection against infection message.
    - laichzeit0 5y ago

phantomathkg 5y ago

Nope. See https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2200797 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2200797 The conclusion said it is less effective. The messenger RNA (mRNA) boosters were highly effective against symptomatic delta infection, but they were less effective against symptomatic omicron infection. However, with both variants, mRNA boosters led to strong protection against Covid-19–related hospitalization and death. (Funded by Weill Cornell Medicine–Qatar and others.) Don't get me wrong, I believe in the vaccine, but I think we are still far away from one vaccine that kill all the the mutations.

cko 5y ago
There is no disagreement between your comments.
DogOfTheGaps 5y ago
From the link you posted: In this study, mRNA boosters were highly effective against infection with the delta variant but were less effective against infection with the omicron variant. However, these boosters led to strong protection against Covid-19–related hospitalization and death due to both variants. We vaccinate in order to prevent severe disease, hospitalization, and death. The original vaccines, per the link you shared, are extremely effective at this.
- vanviegen 5y ago
  Originally, the plan was to vaccinate in order to obtain herd immunity and wipe out COVID.
  - kuhewa 5y ago
    Actually originally the plan was to hope for 50% efficacy, even knowing that coronavirus immunity may wane after several months as is the case with seasonal coronaviruses
  - noahtallen 5y ago
    Smart people adjust plans as they discover new information. Your original hopes for a solution at the start of a disaster will change drastically as you better understand the problem at hand. There seems to be a pervasive thought that our leaders ought to somehow become superhuman and obtain clairvoyance about how to solve any problem we have. They are no different from any of us, who think a bug has a simple solution before we spend a lot of time figuring out more complicated things were happening under the hood.
    - hutzlibu 5y ago
      "Smart people adjust plans as they discover new information." The new information, that the world is globalized, with many countries not being able to afford vaccines and also many militant anti vaxxers around? How was wiping out covid, a realistic goal in the first place?
      - elliekelly 5y ago
        We managed to keep SARS and MERS fairly contained.
        hutzlibu 5y ago
        But I believe that was a very different situation at that time, with it not already spread globally and being less infectious.
      - astrange 5y ago
        The problem isn't really affording vaccines so much as being able to administer them. Africa is a big place; it is literally hard to get very cold mRNA vaccines to people even if we donate them. Similarly, a lot of people have been claiming we're evilly withholding patents from the world, but that can't be a real issue or China and Russia would just have stolen the IP from us. They literally can't produce them any faster even with the rights.
elliekelly 5y ago
Less effective doesn’t mean it isn’t extremely effective. Lightbulbs are less effective at providing light than the sun but they’re still extremely effective providers of light.
- chuckSu 5y ago
  This analogy made me smile :-)
kuhewa 5y ago
That's the wrong comparison though, you would need to compare a wild type booster vs an omicron specific booster.

qbasic_forever 5y ago

Unfortunately the public was told last year that the vaccines were near perfect and vaccinated people wouldn't get sick. Here's the head of the CDC at the time saying vaccinated people "do not carry the virus" and were 90% protected against infection: https://www.businessinsider.com/cdc-director-data-vaccinated-people-do-not-carry-covid-19-2021-3?r=US&IR=T https://www.businessinsider.com/cdc-director-data-vaccinated... The CDC needs to be explicit and clearly admit that it was wrong or the data changed, and that vaccinated/boosted people can and will get sick or even spread disease to others. The new 'deal' is that they will likely not be hospitalized or suffer severe disease if infected. Far too many people are still walking around thinking their shots and booster, now nearly 6 months old for some, are an impenetrable force field against any sickness.

zwkrt 5y ago
Well ok they'll get sick. People get sick. They'll get way less sick, so that's good!
oblio 5y ago
Have you read your own article?
- qbasic_forever 5y ago
  Yes, it says "On Monday, the CDC released a study finding mRNA vaccines __90% effective at preventing infection__." I remember last year when this news hit, that bit about 90% effective *against infection* was amplified and played nonstop for the public. The message was clearly get vaccinated and you will not get sick. It was not until July and the CDC MMWR report on the Providence, Rhode Island, bear week festivities that lead to unexpected breakthrough infections that the CDC admitted the vaccines were not 90% effective against infection anymore. Unfortunately this updated message has never been clearly told to the public, at least not as clearly or loudly as the original 90% protection against infection message.
  - laichzeit0 5y ago