Should everyone get a COVID booster? Experts divided

Is this the direction we want to take society in?

You mean with decisions made according to reality and not what you really really wish be happening? that would be yes.

For people used to believe in sacred figures that decide everything and that never change their minds must be puzzling that science is not like that, that everything comes down to evidence and when evidence points out the situation has changed then the recommendations and measures deemed necessary also change.

Not all scientists are as enthusiastic.

What? I'm confused. Especially after reading what many people here keep writing about the "science".

I guess whichever science fits their narrative is the science to follow.

*so that we can move around *freely,

Really?

Look at Belgium and Austria...

Bring it on. As soon as the government sends out the next set of coupons, I'll be first in line.

If the drug companies have their way, you will need booster shots forever. Don't forget, in the beginning it was one shot that would fix you, next you need another and now because these are not really effective you need the booster shot. This is not the end because they are saying you may need booster shots every few months.

Why do so many people desire to get these shots when it is a fact that Covid has a survival rate of more than 98 percent.

@Big Yen

don't-give-a-damn opposition?

Ok...let me try to explain:

What I don't like from the vaccinated people is, that they blame each single increase of cases or hospitalizations to the non-vaccinated people

That is defintiv wrong.

Vaccinated people will probably not getting sick, but they can catch and they can spread the virus too.

But many of the vaccinated people do not understand that, or do not want to hear that, or do completely ignore that.

I don’t want to know how many people who are hospitalized, got infected by a vaccinated person.

We, as vaccinated persons have to understand, that we also can infect others with the virus and make them sick. But many don’t understand or do not want to understand that.

Many of the vaccinated persons thinks that ONLY the unvaccinated are spreading the virus.

Basically I can not blame the vaccinated persons for that kind of thinking, because they were told so, via many misleading information day in day out from the media and some “special” persons.

What I also don’t like is, that the vaccinated people are saying that the unvaccinated are not responsible.

Not responsible to people around them, not responsible to the society.

That is completely nonsense.

Because...in my opinion...a vaccinated person, who throw away the mask and forgot all personal preventions, even it is known that vaccinated people can also spread the virus, are much more irresponsible to the society, than a unvaccinated person who follows the basic prevention rules.

And like I said above:

I don’t want to know how many people who are hospitalized, got infected by a vaccinated person.

Just to get a vaccine doesn’t make you automatically responsible for the society.

Why? Because you took the vaccine for yourself.

You took the vaccine that you are not getting sick.

Nobody took the vaccine because he or she doesn’t want to spread it to the society.

(Especially because it is proven that a vaccinated person also can spread the virus).

On this board here are many people who refuse to take the vaccine.

If you read their posts and argues here clearly, and try to understand their points, you will find out that many points makes a lot of sense.

Not all scientists are as enthusiastic.

What? I'm confused. Especially after reading what many people here keep writing about the "science".

I'm with you - why take a booster when it's just the same vaccine that doesn't work, can make you sterile, and can even kill you....

Anyone who says this vaccine "is safe and it works", is just lying and putting people in serious danger...

https://www.foxnews.com/media/trump-urges-all-americans-to-get-covid-vaccine-its-a-safe-vaccine

What concerns me is the lack of education on the treatment side of the virus.

When will the media start talking about available treatments?

Only vaccinations can do so much if breakthrough infections exist.

If COVID is here to stay, I've heard doctors mention that we're all going to have to get infected at some point to ensure herd immunity. Only now are they starting to discuss the implications of "natural immunity" in lieu of vaccinations.

If I get COVID at some point, I would like to know what treatments are available.

I mean I've heard stories of people being told to stay home while they recover. What treatments are available in such cases?

What concerns me is the lack of education on the treatment side of the virus. 

When will the media start talking about available treatments? 

Only vaccinations can do so much if breakthrough infections exist.

If you are vaccinated a breakthrough infection will in most cases require no treatment. It’s called preventative healthcare, just like exercise and eating your greens.

What? I'm confused. Especially after reading what many people here keep writing about the "science".

I guess whichever science fits their narrative is the science to follow.

Not at all only deeply antiscientific people would think that proper scientific discussion means you can support anything you want to believe.

If the drug companies have their way, you will need booster shots forever. 

Imaginary situations pulled out of thin air are not arguments, if the only thing you can do is repeat baseless predictions of the future that means you are recognizing you have no actual argument with the available evidence.

Why do so many people desire to get these shots when it is a fact that Covid has a survival rate of more than 98 percent.

Because death is not the only negative result from the infection, and 2% is actually quite a lot of risk, what do you think is the risk of dying in a car accident? and people use seat belts to avoid it.

What I don't like from the vaccinated people is, that they blame each single increase of cases or hospitalizations to the non-vaccinated people

That is too bad, you don't liking it does nothing to refute that unvaccinated people increase the risk for everybody because of irrational fears and deeply antiscientific beliefs. That is the actual problem.

Because...in my opinion...a vaccinated person, who throw away the mask and forgot all personal preventions, even it is known that vaccinated people can also spread the virus, are much more irresponsible to the society, than a unvaccinated person who follows the basic prevention rules.

People that actually listen to the science instead of pretending they would know better just because they think their personal opinion is supreme are more likely to vaccinate, and they are also more likely to keep all the other measures that decrease the risk of spreading. Sorry if you don't like this but just pretending someone actively refuting science will obey scientific recommendations is not believable.

Getting a vaccine surely shows that a person have at least some social responsibility, and at least some capacity of logic (so they will understand they are much better by being vaccinated) people that actively refuse it are showing not only that they are unable to understand risk, they are also showing disdain for public health.

Especially because it is proven that a vaccinated person also can spread the virus.

That has absolutely no importance, a sober person can still cause an accident, so according to you there would be no need to stop people from driving drunk, right? The important part is that not vaccinating (and drinking and driving) can be demonstrated scientifically to increase the risks for yourself and others, that is why measures can be implemented to stop it.

And no, if you need to deny science and believe in impossible conspiracies for an argument to make sense that only means those points are worthless.

When will the media start talking about available treatments?

You can find many articles talking about actual treatments being developed for the disease, the problem is that some people insist on pushing for things that have demonstrated to be worthless and refuse to even consider the idea that something they like may not be useful against the disease, so when media does not echo their mistaken beliefs they think they are hiding those supposed treatments.

If COVID is here to stay, I've heard doctors mention that we're all going to have to get infected at some point to ensure herd immunity

Those doctors would be mistaken, as easily proved as searching for medical or scientific institutions that say so (and finding none). The only reason why any booster would be necessary is because they are less risky than being infected in the first place. At this point being infected do not ensure herd immunity, as reports have shown that people can get reinfected and sometimes get even a more serious disease the second time.

Wanting a treatment is a very poor argument to say there must be one, things are being developed and hopefully will turn out effective, but that is not something that have to happen just because people want it very much. At this point the best protection is to avoid being infected and to be vaccinated.

This shouldn't even be a debate. If you want the booster get it if you don't want don't get it. Why can't people just mind their own business?

This shouldn't even be a debate. If you want the booster get it if you don't want don't get it. Why can't people just mind their own business?

Agreed. But some who apparently oppose all Covid vaccines are rioting, and those who oppose the boosters are the loudest and most repetitive. There has to be a counter to such foolishness.

This shouldn't even be a debate. If you want the booster get it if you don't want don't get it. Why can't people just mind their own business?

Exactly, this all about money and control.

What concerns me is the lack of education on the treatment side of the virus.

When will the media start talking about available treatments?

Exactly, doctors throughout the world have been using safe, cheap, and effective repurposed drugs for over a year. And during that time, western MSM have only mentioned them to try to discredit them. And they also refuse to talk about certain simple health measures that people can take to greatly increase their chances of survival, more so than any vaccine ever will.

Exactly, doctors throughout the world have been using safe, cheap, and effective repurposed drugs for over a year. 

And the data still points out the patients do no better than if nothing was used, which is exactly why there is no point in doing it, even if people let their personal bias replace actual professionalism.

Mass media have nothing to do with ivermecting and HCQ (the drugs you always try to push) from being discredited, that is all because studies could not find them useful, If you only check primary sources (as in peer reviewed indexed aritcles) the situaiton is the same, neither HCQ nor ivermectin help. Not even the reports that were retracted because of fabricated data ever indicated any of them to be as useful as the vaccines have proved to be, much less the studies done properly and without making up false data.

Exactly, this all about money and control.

Still no, nobody can believe every scientific and medical institution is hiding data in order to prevent drugs from being used on their own family and friends, even if you think this is something easily expected, that only evidence a problem with what you personally think is normal.

Exactly, doctors throughout the world have been using safe, cheap, and effective repurposed drugs for over a year. And during that time, western MSM have only mentioned them to try to discredit them. 

Governments have done plenty to discredit them too, because they don’t work.

Still Indonesia Dreamin’ ?

Share a link to recent governmental data advocating the miracle drugs you are talking about. Go on.

And they also refuse to talk about certain simple health measures that people can take to greatly increase their chances of survival, more so than any vaccine ever will.

Do share. MSM can’t silence you.

But don’t confuse censorship with common sense if you are going to talk about obesity and healthy eating. Is there some great secret you are not allowed to reveal?

Medical opinions are irrelevant. Governments are stipulating time limits at which your previous vaccination is deemed to be too long ago to count, so we will all have to get a booster to avoid being excluded from society. Mine is due in the next few weeks.

I'm a bit surprised Japan didn't add vaccination status to their My Number system. Other countries are already using it as a universal ID to weed out overstayers and end illegal immigration. It would have saved the duplication of data and solved their uptake problem.

Medical opinions are irrelevant. Governments are stipulating time limits at which your previous vaccination is deemed to be too long ago to count

Based on medical opinions, which are very relevant.

tso we will all have to get a booster to avoid being excluded from society.

If that's what the data shows us is needed to end the pandemic, then that's the correct course of action.

I'll be getting my booster early next year, I am not an idiot!

-Strangerland. You are mistaking my point. We have to do what our governments tell us to do or be subject to exclusions and restrictions. It doesn't matter what the medical advice is or whether governments follow it. Even if Covid vanished, we would still have to do what our governments told us to do. The mechanism of control is now in place and will not be going away. So get a booster jab when they tell you to, as I will be.

Reading the comments here has made me an expert on this topic.

The man is a leading expert in the field. Who are you to diss him? He makes more sense than anyone.

No it is not, he is a cardiologist without any treaining on infectology, epidemiology, statistics, etc. He repeatedly say things without any evidence to support those claims, and even things that have been proved completely false (such as young people having no risk from COVID, or that asymptomatic people can't spread the infection).

A good rule of thumb is that if someone is completely unable to present any scientific publication (or even pre-publication) for claims that are contradicted by the scientific consensus it means this is not a leading expert, because that is the minimum requirement of evidence to be presented. If this person insist on presenting videos with debunked claims that he has not been able to defend, then his interest is not to inform but the opposite.

The man is a leading expert in the field. Who are you to diss him? He makes more sense than anyone.

No it is not, he is a cardiologist without any treaining on infectology, epidemiology, statistics, etc.

It's not the virus itself that kills, it's the body's response. There is no reason why a cardiologist would not be qualified to comment about Covid-19, which is basically an inflammatory thrombotic disease...

Anyway, a quick PubMed search shows that he has authored/coauthored at least 4 Covid19-related papers...

Anyway, a quick PubMed search shows that he has authored/coauthored at least 4 Covid19-related papers...

It's not hard to publish papers. Are any of his peer-reviewed?

It's not the virus itself that kills, it's the body's response. 

That is still part of the pathogenicity of the virus, specially with the immunomodulatory proteins it produces to disregulate the response so the virus can survive for much longer.

There is no reason why a cardiologist would not be qualified to comment about Covid-19, which is basically an inflammatory thrombotic disease...

Nothing that has been criticized and debunked in his comments has to do with his specialty, he clearly used false information that anybody in the field of infectology, virology, epidemiology, etc. easily debunks, none of his papers support the false things he has said. That is why he is in no way a "leading expert" in COVID related matters, much less outside of his field of specialization. This explain why his terribly deficient paper on supposed risks of the vaccines was retracted permanently, an obviously invalid way to use VAERS is not justified even on medical doctors without any experience in science.

virusrexToday  10:31 am JST

No it is not, he is a cardiologist without any treaining on infectology, epidemiology, statistics, etc. 

You saw his university transcripts and know he dod not even have courses in these subjects? Here is one example of where statistics is part of the undergraduate curriculum of a pre-med student;

https://www.csbsju.edu/pre-professional-health/pre-medicine/curriculum

*You saw his university transcripts and know he dod not even have courses in these subjects? Here is one example of where statistics is part of the undergraduate curriculum of a pre-med student;*

He do not claim any of those fields as part of his preparation.

Pre-graduate level statistics courses (in any biological or medical syllabus) should be enough for anybody to avoid making false claims on data from which the opposite conclusions are readily proven. The less negative assumption is that he never got to have those courses, but it can also be the case he took them but didn't had the capacity to understand them, and that is why he persist in making such invalid claims. (And misusing a database in exactly the way the same database clearly explains it can't be used).

virusrexToday  02:16 pm JST

He do not claim any of those fields as part of his preparation.

Did Fauci claim to have studied statistics in his pre-med or medical programs?

Did Fauci claim to have studied statistics in his pre-med or medical programs?

Who knows? since he has not made evident a terrible lack of preparation on the field as McCullough has done with his anti-scientific views it is not likely anybody have had the need to ask.

virusrexToday  02:53 pm JST

Who knows? since he has not made evident a terrible lack of preparation on the field as McCullough has done with his anti-scientific views it is not likely anybody have had the need to ask.

I see--credentials only matter if an expert's opinion conflicts with your opinion.

I see--credentials only matter if an expert's opinion conflicts with your opinion.

No, credentials matter when someone is trying to pass himself as an expert but is found to make obvious mistakes and is repeatedly proven wrong by the scientific community, not by any single person in particular.

"Obvious mistakes" such as?"

Obvious mistakes" such as?"

Making false claims not supported by any evidence, or even debunked by available evidence, arguing against well validated data using only his personal opinion, misusing the VAERS information exactly as the database warns it can't be used in its front page, saying he proved some treatment works even if he had done no such thing, etc. The kind of thing someone that knows nothing about science or data may do because of lack of knowledge, but that are completely unjustifed in someone that supposedly tries to present himself as an authority on the topic (specially if he tries to present himself with professional credentials that are false as he has done).