Wasn't this known from day 1? COVID-19 vaccines were never going to give us sterilizing immunity. I still don't understand what's the long term plan in countries that are trying to reach 100% vaccination rate, but yeah, there's going to be boosters forever unless a new sterilizing vaccine is developed or countries decide to change their COVID policies at some point.
Until we can get sterilizing vaccines, I see no viable alternative to periodic non-sterilizing boosters.
I think this was pretty obvious when the first vaccines came out and they weren’t sterilizing.
Then we have to worry about all the mutations, and if we have to keep getting new vaccines for the new variants, in much the same way as we do flu shots.
Do those other required immunizations involve semi-annual boosters which have never gone through clinical trials to determine the safety of repeat dosing? Do they provide sterilizing immunity which durably and significantly reduces the odds that the recipient will be a carrier for the disease being inoculated against?
The vaccines are once or twice in a lifetime, but the allergens are not. The MMR vaccine is manufactured using neomycin. The CDC says [1] for the MMR vaccine:
Anyone who has ever had a life-threatening allergic
reaction to the antibiotic neomycin, or any other
component of MMR vaccine, should not get the vaccine.
Neomycin is used in many topical creams and ointments, so there are opportunities to find out that you have a problem with it other than through vaccination.
Also, as you noted, some vaccines are twice in a lifetime. MMR, for example, is given at ~1 year old, and at 4-6 years old. If someone has a life-threatening reaction the first time, the CDC says that they should not get the second dose.
Note that MMR vaccine allergies are very rare, so we aren't talking about a huge number of people who have to go around without MMR vaccination.
Vaccinating large numbers of people every 6-12 months with a non-sterilizing vaccine when the initial vaccination series is said to remain highly effective at preventing serious illness against all major variants that are currently in wide circulation is not at all routine or "widely accepted".
Again, the flu vaccine is different each year because the influenza viruses it aims to protect against are different. You are getting a different vaccine, not a "booster".
The flu vaccine is not a sterilizing vaccine and neither are any of the COVID vaccines. It is widely accepted that the flu vaccine is usually 40-60% effective at preventing illness in years where we target the right influenza viruses, and that many vaccinated individuals will get (mostly) mild infections.
From the CDC:
> A 2021 study showed that among adults, flu vaccination was associated with a 26% lower risk of ICU admission and a 31% lower risk of death from flu compared to those who were unvaccinated.
> A 2018 study showed that among adults hospitalized with flu, vaccinated patients were 59 percent less likely to be admitted to the ICU than those who had not been vaccinated. Among adults in the ICU with flu, vaccinated patients on average spent 4 fewer days in the hospital than those who were not vaccinated.
By these metrics, against the endpoints of severe outcomes, the COVID vaccines currently look much more efficacious than the flu vaccine after the initial series, even without boosting.
While "long COVID" is of concern, many of the post-infection sequelae of COVID appear similar to known post-viral sequelae. Furthermore, the initial data suggests that the initial series of vaccination reduces the risk of long COVID sequelae in breakthrough infections. To my knowledge, there is not yet any data on long COVID and boosters, so it is highly premature to hint that repeated boosters are required to maintain protection against "long COVID".
Shutting down the world indefinitely because of COVID "infections" when the vast majority of people will have mild courses of illness makes no sense. We don't do this for the flu even though in bad flu seasons, people lose work and school days and the ERs and ICUs fill up. Furthermore, as time goes on, fewer and fewer people will be SARS-CoV-2 naive. They will either have some level of protection from exposure to the initial vaccine series or prior infection. The immune system is miraculous and there is a reason it doesn't indefinitely keep high levels of neutralizing antibodies in circulation for every pathogen (or vaccine) you're exposed to.
Finally, you should consider including repeated frequent booster vaccination in your "long-term effects that we can't yet understand" thinking. While I am not suggesting that the mRNA are "unsafe" or responsible for die-offs of baby dolphins, the reality is that we have no long-term data around giving people these jabs on a regular basis. The issue with myocarditis in some populations, questions about whether the vaccines affect the menstrual cycle[1], etc. are a reminder that there is still a lot we don't know and it is contrary to the principle of "first, do no harm" to strongly recommend (or try to force) people to receive regular pre-exposure prophylaxis when there is strong evidence that they already have substantial protection against serious outcomes from an initial vaccination series.
No, the current boosters are the same vaccine as the original vaccinations. The booster shots are given as the antibody count in your blood drops over time and the booster shot keeps them at the maximum for another half year or so.
We don't have precise data about the required level of antibodies to stay healthy yet and in quite a few countries the infection rates are currently high enough to pose a real risk for vaccinated patients in the vulnerable group. The safe play is to give booster shots to keep the immune response at its best.
Your numbers are being used to lie: You only have to get the MMR vaccine once. But you'll have to get the covid vaccines over and over and over. Just four covid jabs would make these events equally likely. But it's most likely that more than four will be required.
Babies cannot be vaccinated for a while and therefore benefit from herd immunity. Furthermore, that herd immunity benefits you if your immunization wears off before your scheduled booster shots. And everyone remembers to get their mmr booster every seven years, right?
As I understand it, the boosters do a much better job "training" (for lack of a better term) B cells.
That being said, I'm going off the preliminary study that shows that vaccine >= infection for older variants whereas vaccine + infection >> vaccine for omicron.
As an aside, I've got three shots of Moderna in me and I caught omicron during the covidtastrophe a few weeks ago. It was extremely mild but I'm now resigned to the idea that vaccines are an assurance against getting actually sick more than a silver bullet.
It's interesting that you're concerned about the long term _effects_ of boosters, but COVID is nothing to worry about since you're only concerned with _deaths_. Seems disengenous.
The vaccines are remarkably effective against death and severe disease on all timescales measured. What appears to decline is sterilizing immunity, meaning after 6-8months you may show symptoms if infected. It is unlikely boosters will be mandated for all.
And to be clear, this vaccine denial is a uniquely American problem. In Denmark over 80% of the eligible population is voluntarily vaccinated. They are now able to do away with virtually all Covid restrictions.
The annual flu shot indicates there is presumably a "same vaccine, slightly different strain" streamlined procedure that can be used. I'd expect the same to occur with COVID boosters over time.
Current Covid vaccines are non-sterilizing. They do not provide immunity that is equivalent to the MMR vaccine.
A future (nasal) Covid vaccine may offer long-term mucosal and blood/serum immunity.
reply