How about you just shut up today? I am in a bad mood and kicking your arse like retarded Todd may just happen today.
So what is your point here because the boosters have only been introduced for a few weeks. No can pull any long term analysis from that, only that in the few weeks boosters have been used they have shown to be effective.
You just need to stop thinking about how things might affect you all the time. Stop looking in that mirror. I know the doc said to watch your drinking but that's not what he meant.
What the potential Covid-19 booster rollout could look like... Local health departments planning for potential Covid-19 booster rollout, but there is still 'some confusion' https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/16/heal...-local-health-departments-wellness/index.html
exactly... my point. Now take that same thinking skill and apply it to the bigger picture... For instance... Giving out temporary vaccines in the middle of a pandemic... Let's apply your statement: "No (one) can pull any long term analysis from that," (this is what I have been arguing the whole time.) It bothers me for the future... that so many people are drones... But its even worse... than that... So many capable of critical thinking only apply those thoughts to one side. Its is Orwellian. (by the way I am not directly going after you on this... I do not know if you have been applying critical thinking skills to both sides.)
Let me say that I believe there needs to be an approach for boosters based on actual antibody tests of individuals. While there is strong evidence the immunocompromised and elderly (above 65) will need boosters earlier than the one year mark -- many other people may not require boosters before one year if they have sufficient antibody levels from their original vaccinations. It would be best to test every individual at the eight month mark and later intervals as well to see if they have sufficient Covid antibody levels to stop infection. Only give boosters to those whose antibody levels are low (below a threshold). There are now cheaper antibody tests available (and under development) which can quickly provide Covid antibody results. They should ask people to take a antibody test before they get a booster shot... and tell them when they need to come back for their next test in several months (if more vaccination is not needed). Of course there is the question of who would pay for these antibody tests -- there would need to be government funding to support this testing. I would note the overall cost nationwide in the U.S. would be a tiny fraction of what the government has spent on Covid. Likewise this approach can be used for allowing "natural immunity" after infection count as a vaccination for "passport" purposes. It should be noted that governments in Europe only allow "natural immunity" post-Covid infection to count for 90 days. In some individual the antibody levels may be sufficient for many months after this mark, and in others not last after this mark. As noted before, studies have shown 40% of individuals infected with Covid do not have sufficient antibody levels to stop reinfection at the 6 month mark -- however this means that 60% do have sufficient levels to stop reinfection at the six month mark and beyond. IMO those wanting "natural immunity" should be tested every three months after recovery and considered to be the equivalent of vaccinated for "passport" purposes if their Covid antibody levels are above the threshold to stop re-infection. However if an individual who was naturally infected with Covid does not have sufficient antibody levels then they would be required to get a booster vaccination. I will note there have been a few medical professionals in Europe who pushed for this type of antibody testing of the infected to allow "natural immunity" to be counted for longer than 90 days. I recognize this type of policy supporting testing for "natural immunity" would be controversial when the national focus is to get everyone vaccinated -- and they even have mandated large employers with 100 employees in the U.S. require vaccination. Along with the reality that the associated risk from catching Covid with a Case Fatality Rate of 2% is a terrible way to obtain immunity. Coupled with concerns along the lines of what if you have "natural immunity" at 6 months and then not at 9 months -- during this three month interval is the person an infection risk vector. Well -- the reality is that the vaccinated needing boosters have the same type of risk. Effectively the first-generation of Covid vaccines, which are not universal or permanent, have the same types of risk with fading immunity that "natural infection" has. No matter which path an individual acquired immunity from -- vaccination or natural infection -- their immunity is going to fade over time. The question is how quickly. And the best way to create a national strategy to prevent re-infections and spread is to tailor antibody testing to individuals.
Here is more food for thought for wanna be doctor, wanna be scientist, GWB. Try harder fool. Even so called scientists do not agree with you. That speaks volumes. Joe Biden, your leader said you all need booster shots. Hear that, ET trolls? https://www.yahoo.com/finance/m/b5e7429e-e77d-3af5-a23d-fe305a76e6e2/scientists-continue-to-say.html
So what part of what I have proposed about boosters goes against anything outlined in this article. I know we will crickets from you when you are asked to cite something specific.
It is interesting that you now believe in natural immunity. However, your thoughts are anti data, anti study, essentially anti science with respect to natural immunity. Persistent antibodies are a sign... your immune system did not handle Covid well. With respect to natural immunity the less persistent your antibodies the stronger your immune system.. the more likely you were asymptomatic.. the less likely you had a severe case. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanmic/article/PIIS2666-5247(21)00025-2/fulltext " We observed a distinct stepwise progression from the negative group to the persistent group, whereby patients with persistent antibodies were older and had more comorbidities, including hypertension and diabetes mellitus." The demographic differences we observed were probably related to increased disease severity, as patients in the persistent group had poorer clinical outcomes, including pneumonia, supplemental oxygen requirement, intensive care unit admission, and mechanical ventilation. Baseline symptoms and investigations reflected this increased disease severity, with a greater proportion of patients with fever, cough, dyspnoea, reduced lymphocyte count, increased C-reactive protein, and increased lactate dehydrogenase in the persistent group. We observed a greater proportion of asymptomatic individuals in the negative group (11 [58%] of 19 patients) compared with the persistent group (three [6%] of 52 patients).