health

U.S. panel backs COVID-19 boosters only for elderly, high-risk

9 Comments
By MATTHEW PERRONE and LAURAN NEERGAARD

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2021 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

9 Comments
Login to comment

This should have been the guidance all along for all the vaccines because they’re so “leaky.” You can’t vaccinate your way out of an outbreak unless you have a solid vaccine, and the mRNA solution isn’t it.

0 ( +9 / -9 )

I really have trouble” supporting it for anyone down to age 16.

High level scientists are starting to jump ship.

-1 ( +6 / -7 )

This should have been the guidance all along for all the vaccines because they’re so “leaky.”

The experts' opinion is the opposite and their points are well supported by data. Your "option" is to let a lot of people die unnecessarily by irrational opposition to safe and effective vaccines. "Leaky" vaccines work wonderfully to stop outbreaks for many other diseases, your problem is thinking that just because vaccinated people get little to no symptoms they were never infected, you would be surprised to find out how many vaccinated people actually get infected around an outbreak of measles for example.

High level scientists are starting to jump ship.

No such thing, the scientist are doing exactly the same thing from the beginning, following the scientific evidence. Thinking they are "changing teams" because you find easier to accept the evidence now, and not before, is deeply irrational and typical of an anti-scientific way of thinking.

0 ( +6 / -6 )

I knew this was going to happen, at least the ethical ones have now come to grips what this is really abll about.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

I knew this was going to happen, at least the ethical ones have now come to grips what this is really abll about.

There is nothing that is being done "now", this is the same that has been done from the beginning. Seeing the evidence and making recommendations about it. The problem is not on the side of the experts, but on the side of the people that have double standards and only accepts the recommendations when they are on line with their personal beliefs and reject them when they don't, even if both are solidly based on scientific evidence.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

bass4funkToday  02:06 pm JST

I knew this was going to happen, at least the ethical ones have now come to grips what this is really abll about.

Any issues with the vaccines can be traced back to the person who pushed for crash vaccines via Operation Warp Speed.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

An important article in today's Los Angeles Times stated that the efficacy rates of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines after four months were different. While both were very good at preventing death and hospitalizations, Pfizer's efficacy rate against mild infections was in the 70 percent range after four months, while Moderna was still in the 90 percent range.

If the assertions in the LA Times are verified, then perhaps an argument can be made for making the booster shot Moderna for those who got two Pfizer shots initially.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Or the argument against Moderna can be made due to contaminated vials?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Or like the article states boosters for elderly and high risk only!

which by the way should have been the advice for vaccination as a whole initially!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites