> So you want them decrease their risk from 0.2% to 0.1%
The linked study said those that had gotten a booster had 10% of the risk of those that didn't, so using your first number it would be like 0.2% to 0.02%.
> Expires in a few months
It's unknown how long the booster would last, or if after the booster the recommendation would be to move to something annual like flu shots.
> They've already had a history of reacting to (further shots always worse)
The person I responded to didn't say what their reaction was, or if it was time limited. Also, "further shots always worse" is demonstrably false, I know a couple people who had bad (yet, again very short term) side effects with the second dose and barely anything for the booster.
> Relatively has higher risk of side effects among their profile
The person I responded to didn't mention this
> Unknown long term risk
Vs. the now well-known long-term risks of contracting Covid, which given its prevalence seems highly likely that your long term choices are (a) never leave your house, (b) reduce likelihood and severity of infection with a vaccine, or (c) get Covid.
It's well within reason to expect that it won't be longer than the 2nd dose.
> The person I responded to didn't say what their reaction was
I kind of extrapolated based on the parent's parent. I had a personal example in mind. Chest pains after first shot, heart palpitations after 2nd, checked at ER. These are myocarditis signs and a booster makes me very uneasy. This I would guess is the most commonly brought up examples of potentially serious side effects.
> Relatively has higher risk of side effects among their profile
Just generalising, assuming young healthy male with no underlying health conditions.
> Vs. the now well-known long-term risks of contracting Covid, which given its prevalence seems highly likely that your long term choices are (a) never leave your house, (b) reduce likelihood and severity of infection with a vaccine, or (c) get Covid.
It's inaccurate to have "Never leave your house" as an option, situations are different. Different case numbers based on location, different personal lifestyles. On the other hand, the vaccine risk is fixed, you either take it or don't.
I'm personally happy doing continuous risk assessment and acting accordingly and if I did catch Covid then so be it, risks are extremely low already.
You compound risk with repeated exposures. In this case through boosters because the vaccines don't work well enough. It's one thing to get a one time shot that lasts for life than getting 6 shots over 3 years.
Right, so that potentially 4x increase from skipping the booster takes it to 0.08% total mortality risk, which is 20% of my total overall risk.
You're saying you don't think trading vaccine side effects for a 20% lower risk of death is a good trade? I mean, this seems like a no brainer to me. Are you really saying this is a bad choice?
The question is whether a booster today will prevent more damage than it causes. In 2023, when everyone has some form of immunity already and therefore very low chance of complications, the rate of adverse events doesn't have to be very high to make it so you are probably worse off by getting the booster than not. And on top of that, there are claims that adverse events are now known to be higher than previously thought.
Unfortunately it isn't as simple as more vaccine = more healthy.
There is a more recent U.S. study [1], which comes to a different conclusion, and neither of these studies take into account boosters (or a longer delay between shots), which by all accounts improves vaccine effectiveness by ~10x.
Being vaccinated and then boosted offers as worst equal protection, probably better, against infection and disease, with much much lower risk of side effects, serious disease, long covid or death.
It's .02% -> .005%, not .08 -> .02. In other words, a few days of life expectancy. I certainly understand your decision, and I made the same decision, but I can also understand reaching an alternative decision about a booster (especially for those younger than you, or those who had worse reactions to the initial vaccine), where the discomfort and hassle might not be worth the small increase in life expectancy.
Although the 3 per 100,000 death rate after 2 vaccinations is already very low. It's great that an additional vaccination would reduce it further, but after 2 vaccinations does it make sense to mandate a booster with these risk profiles?
Especially given that there are rare heart inflammation issues caused by the vaccine, I can see people having a difference of opinion about whether the booster is worth it compared to the risk, until the error bars on the risk measurement are narrowed down a bit.
It was a solid couple days for me after the second shot, with a nasty fever and chills. Once, I can deal with, but I'm seriously not looking forward to the prospect of booster shots every 6-12 months. As someone in an extremely low risk demographic, the cost/benefit seems quite poor.
I’m 34 and healthy. Each of my shots and the booster gave me severe flu-like side effects (chills, body aches, etc). I’ve lost 5-6 days over the last year to recovering from these side effects. Given my low risk from the actual virus, I don’t see myself getting another booster. I’m not anti-science, but there needs to be significant ROI for that level of discomfort and time lost to recovery.
Yes I had a horrible reaction to the 2nd dose. So did everyone I know. Yes it's possible the real thing might be worse for me but I'm going to take my chances. I will not be taking a booster. I'm healthy, exercise regularly and I'm not in the age group that's high-risk.
There are studies showing the vaccine isn't even effective at 3 months. There's no way I'm dealing with that shot every 3-6 months.
If you had an adverse reaction to any of the vaccines, every booster is a scary prospect, more so if they are more frequent. People would rather take an occasional risk over a frequent risk.
If most vaccine boosters are spaced out like this, then I think we should continue doing this. Additionally, we should be factoring in previous exposure to covid before administering vaccines. Especially considering the increased risk of adverse vaccine reactions if you have already been exposed to covid19.
As stated in a previous comment, I indirectly know four healthy young, that died shortly after taking their second shots.
Protection from the vaccine wanes over time. For the entire population, boosters reduce COVID-19 death/injury more than they increase vaccine death/injury.
Why do you think the vaccine is a one time risk? In the US, you are "highly motivated" in many circumstances to take two doses, and people under 30 are getting booster doses, even though FDA advisory committee members thought that was going to kill more people in that group than help.
That's not the case with me. I got the shots several days after exposure, and was told that if I was exposed anytime in the next 5 (10?) years I would need one booster shot only.
Sickness from the shot is not my main concern. I'd love to see the whole risk profile for my case. I have a feeling that governments are doing "booster for everybody" for political reasons. They don't want to single out particular age group.
GP made a valid point. The 5x increase of cardiac arrest after 2 shots might be OK if that risk was very low, but if you need to keep getting boosters twice a year, that risk will also grow (how? exponentially?), until one day it becomes a bigger problem than covid. That's my reasoning for waiting out on those booster shots.
There are many additional variables though. How much time since your last shot, which vaccine, how long between jabs, which variant of the virus you are exposed to, the state your immune system is in.
If you’ve had two jabs, spaced 3 weeks apart, last jab was 6 months ago, and you get exposed to omicron, it is a much worse scenario than “20% more likely to get symptoms”. So there is a rational push for boosters right now.
Its fine for right now. You will need another booster in a few months to remain protected (original estimate was every 6 months, CDC lowered that to 5 months already). Israel is already rolling out a fourth shot, and the CDC now recommends 4 doses for immune compromised people.
> So you want them decrease their risk from 0.2% to 0.1%
The linked study said those that had gotten a booster had 10% of the risk of those that didn't, so using your first number it would be like 0.2% to 0.02%.
> Expires in a few months
It's unknown how long the booster would last, or if after the booster the recommendation would be to move to something annual like flu shots.
> They've already had a history of reacting to (further shots always worse)
The person I responded to didn't say what their reaction was, or if it was time limited. Also, "further shots always worse" is demonstrably false, I know a couple people who had bad (yet, again very short term) side effects with the second dose and barely anything for the booster.
> No one takes liability for
The US government specifically runs a National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, https://www.hrsa.gov/vaccine-compensation/index.html
> Relatively has higher risk of side effects among their profile
The person I responded to didn't mention this
> Unknown long term risk
Vs. the now well-known long-term risks of contracting Covid, which given its prevalence seems highly likely that your long term choices are (a) never leave your house, (b) reduce likelihood and severity of infection with a vaccine, or (c) get Covid.
reply