4 ms·

They don't recommend because they don't see clear evidence in outcomes. See my EMA link below. This doesn't make the recommendation any closer than recommending

by namkt 4y ago

They don't recommend because they don't see clear evidence in outcomes. See my EMA link below. This doesn't make the recommendation any closer than recommending not to.

enkid 4y ago
No, "not having evidence" isn't the same as having evidence against. They clearly state in that website that it's ok for people outside of there recommendations to get the booster.
- dahfizz 4y ago
  > At the moment, there is no clear evidence to support giving a second booster dose to people below 60 years of age who are not at higher risk of severe disease.[1] The booster is an approved and safe procedure, but it confers no benefit unless you have risk factors. [1] https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/news/ecdc-ema-update-recommendations-additional-booster-doses-mrna-covid-19-vaccines https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/news/ecdc-ema-update-recommenda...
- namkt 4y ago
  No, "not having evidence" isn't the same as having evidence against. That is exactly the point that I made above. And where does it so clearly state in the website that second part? And of course it's ok, but that doesn't make it a recommendation.
  - KurvaKing 4y ago
    [dead]
- bradleyjg 4y ago
  I’m not antivax or anti-medicine in any way but shouldn’t the null position be don’t inject things into your body and then it takes at least some evidence to overcome that?
  - 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
    It is, hence tests and clinical trials.
    - dahfizz 4y ago
      Clinical trials gets a drug approved for use. It proves that the drug meets certain safety requirements. Just because a drug is approved doesn't mean you should take it indiscriminately. It is "safe" to drink NyQuil every night. Doesn't mean you should. If it confers no benefit to you in your unique circumstance, you shouldn't take it. Hence, the booster is not recommended for certain groups - because it is not needed and provides no benefit.
      - 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
        Safety is half of it. Clinical trials also gather evidence of beneficial effects. https://www.fda.gov/drugs/information-consumers-and-patients-drugs/inside-clinical-trials-testing-medical-products-people https://www.fda.gov/drugs/information-consumers-and-patients... > If the Phase 2 trials indicate that the drug may be effective--and the risks are considered acceptable, given the observed efficacy and the severity of the disease--the drug moves to Phase 3.
        rdtwo 4y ago
        Yeah but the FDA is famous for approving expensive drugs that have no/little effect. So at least in the USA if a drug is approved it doesn’t mean it does anything useful
        2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
        They're famous for it? How many total drugs have they approved and how many were later found to have issues? This year it appears they've approved 30 and last year they approved 50. That's quite a few.
        4y ago
- leereeves 4y ago
  Shouldn't "having evidence for" be a requirement before something is mandated?

by namkt 4y ago

They don't recommend because they don't see clear evidence in outcomes. See my EMA link below. This doesn't make the recommendation any closer than recommending not to.

enkid 4y ago

No, "not having evidence" isn't the same as having evidence against. They clearly state in that website that it's ok for people outside of there recommendations to get the booster.

dahfizz 4y ago
> At the moment, there is no clear evidence to support giving a second booster dose to people below 60 years of age who are not at higher risk of severe disease.[1] The booster is an approved and safe procedure, but it confers no benefit unless you have risk factors. [1] https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/news/ecdc-ema-update-recommendations-additional-booster-doses-mrna-covid-19-vaccines https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/news/ecdc-ema-update-recommenda...
namkt 4y ago
No, "not having evidence" isn't the same as having evidence against. That is exactly the point that I made above. And where does it so clearly state in the website that second part? And of course it's ok, but that doesn't make it a recommendation.
- KurvaKing 4y ago
  [dead]
bradleyjg 4y ago
I’m not antivax or anti-medicine in any way but shouldn’t the null position be don’t inject things into your body and then it takes at least some evidence to overcome that?
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
  It is, hence tests and clinical trials.
  - dahfizz 4y ago
    Clinical trials gets a drug approved for use. It proves that the drug meets certain safety requirements. Just because a drug is approved doesn't mean you should take it indiscriminately. It is "safe" to drink NyQuil every night. Doesn't mean you should. If it confers no benefit to you in your unique circumstance, you shouldn't take it. Hence, the booster is not recommended for certain groups - because it is not needed and provides no benefit.
    - 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
      Safety is half of it. Clinical trials also gather evidence of beneficial effects. https://www.fda.gov/drugs/information-consumers-and-patients-drugs/inside-clinical-trials-testing-medical-products-people https://www.fda.gov/drugs/information-consumers-and-patients... > If the Phase 2 trials indicate that the drug may be effective--and the risks are considered acceptable, given the observed efficacy and the severity of the disease--the drug moves to Phase 3.
      - rdtwo 4y ago
        Yeah but the FDA is famous for approving expensive drugs that have no/little effect. So at least in the USA if a drug is approved it doesn’t mean it does anything useful
        2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
        They're famous for it? How many total drugs have they approved and how many were later found to have issues? This year it appears they've approved 30 and last year they approved 50. That's quite a few.
        4y ago
leereeves 4y ago
Shouldn't "having evidence for" be a requirement before something is mandated?