So the news today was this: Interestingly, if you read the data (or lack of it) you get exactly to the opposite conclusion. Booster shots are good, but scientist would prefer if the limited worldwide supply would go to the unvaxxed. Fafalone: "They make it sound reasonable by downplaying the strength and degree of evidence on how much effectiveness dropped in July. They make no mention of several data sources that back the Mayo Clinic number but do complain about the wide CI. The make no mention of the CDC cited study showing the elderly were significantly below the rosier studies. And most significantly, they keep using extremely vague language and never mention what level of effectiveness they mean when they say 'data shows it's still highly effective'. If they cited all the available data, and gave the numbers... their conclusion would be far weaker, especially because they didn't even attempt to quantify the benefit... given current production levels, if we withheld boosters, how much faster could the world get vaccinated? In the US, Pfizer and Moderna have productions numbers such that the answer is a month or less, for our exports alone."
Exactly. That would show that the original shots drop probably 30% in effectiveness after 6 months. Now if we account that the original 3 weeks between shots was not even close to the optimal 8-10 weeks, a person's vaccination effectiveness could be down 50% compared to a longer waiting time and booster shot.