health

Should you get a COVID-19 booster shot now or wait until fall?

30 Comments
By Prakash Nagarkatti and Mitzi Nagarkatti

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

© The Conversation

©2022 GPlusMedia Inc.

30 Comments

Comments have been disabled You can no longer respond to this thread.

Whatever happened to the term "fully" vaccinated.

15 ( +20 / -5 )

I had my three shots and that's all for this year.

My brother had 4 shots, (4!), and was horrible sick with Covid three weeks ago.

I am ok with an anual shot, same like influenca, and that's all.

I will absolutely not take a shot every 3-4 months.

8 ( +16 / -8 )

Funny how people with 4 shots get exactly the same symptoms as I did with two shots?

It seems that my immune response to the virus doesn’t need any prompting to rid my body of the virus.

Unless, there is a more virulent form of the virus out there, I won’t be seeking any more ‘vaccines’ as my body is doing just fine on its own!

7 ( +11 / -4 )

It seems pointless to try and warn people of the dangers of taking these injections even though the dangers and really bad side effects are all listed on Phizer and othe drug companies fact sheets.

In the past I have tried to show the list of side effects and the neferious substances in the " so called " vaccines " but end up getting deleted.

It is common knowledge that these vaccines are not effective against viruses, which by the way, Covid virus has never been isolated. Look up in a dictionery what is the meaning of isolated.

We are always getting these vaccine promoting articles from so called academics but never any from actual real experts in the field of virology, doctors, nurses, morticians and data from insurance companies who will not pay out life insurance if death from vaccines.

5 ( +12 / -7 )

The Novavax vaccine has been clinically tested in South Africa, the United Kingdom and the U.S. and found to be safe and highly effective with 90% efficacy against mild, moderate and severe forms of COVID-19.

well we’ve heard this before. Remember when the vaccine were first coming out. The various pharma’s were saying “our is 93%” “ours is 95% effective” I truly hope they can produce one that is that effective and and we don’t need to be boosted every so many months.

5 ( +9 / -4 )

Can’t wait to see Stephen Colbert and Elmo singing and dancing to the new versions of vaccines. But seriously, we need better versions and preferably one made in Japan.

-1 ( +6 / -7 )

Whatever happened to the term "fully" vaccinated.

It is there according to the purpose, either reduce the extra risk for others or be as fully protected as you can from complications and death.

I will absolutely not take a shot every 3-4 months.

If the recommendations are ever one shot every 3-4 months for you that means the vaccine reduces the risks for you significantly that way. With what would you replace the vaccines then? complete isolation? the much higher risks from the infection?

Funny how people with 4 shots get exactly the same symptoms as I did with two shots?

Present your data properly curated and analyzed and you would have an argument, else the scientists that clearly say this is not the case are much more worthy because that is what they use to prove it.

It seems pointless to try and warn people of the dangers of taking these injections even though the dangers and really bad side effects are all listed on Phizer and othe drug companies fact sheets.

Well, that would be because it is pointless, the risks from the vaccines are a tiny fraction from the risk of being not vaccinated. As long as the risks are reduced with the vaccines trying to misrepresent this is not only pointless, it is irresponsible.

well we’ve heard this before. Remember when the vaccine were first coming out. The various pharma’s were saying “our is 93%” “ours is 95% effective” 

And that was perfectly true, because it is data obtained from the clinical trials, pretending the developers assured people variants would never change that is misleading, because everybody readily considered this possibility as real and warned people about it even from before the vaccines were developed.

and preferably one made in Japan.

What would be the advantage of one made in Japan? the industry has decades of stunted growth thanks to the government making close to impossible to have local clinical trials and have things approved for the public. Japanese companies have had more than 2 years to come up with vaccines and have not even developed something at the level of the ones already available.

-10 ( +5 / -15 )

With what would you replace the vaccines then?

With my natural immune system.

Which was already recommended by my doctor after I took the second shot.

My doctor clearly said to me that it is not necessary to take the 3rd shot.

But I took the 3rd shot, even my doctor said opposite.

Basically I had the same opinion like him, but I decided otherwise and followed some idiotic experts and rich pharma representative and politicians recommendation to take a 3rd shot, which I recognized now that it was not necessary.

I will not say it was a big mistake to take the 3rd shot, but it was not necessary.

Especially when I see now how many people got strongly sick, even 3 or 4 times vaccinated, it is clear for me that it makes zero sense to take shots every 3 or 4 months.

Like I said, I am ok with an anual shot, like influenca, but that is all for me.

But everybody is free to decide how to go on with that vaccine madness.

6 ( +11 / -5 )

Should you get a COVID-19 booster shot now or wait until fall?

How about no to both!

7 ( +12 / -5 )

Looking at the data, the countries that are furthest ahead with various boosters also seem to be leading with the new waves.

Which is natural, those countries with a higher risk of transmission are usually the ones more interested in vaccinating the population to offset that risk.

With my natural immune system.

If the vaccines represent a benefit, by definition you are taking the worse option, the one where you get more risk to your health and life. That is not a rational decision, as long as you accept this you can take this option.

My doctor clearly said to me that it is not necessary to take the 3rd shot.

Then why do you complain about "having" to take it? the boosters are indicated according to the benefit they bring or not. If a professional validly reaches the conclusion that you don't get a benefit from the vaccine then tha is fine.

Basically I had the same opinion like him, but I decided otherwise and followed some idiotic experts and rich pharma representative and politicians recommendation to take a 3rd shot, which I recognized now that it was not necessary

In this case the problem are not the experts and professionals but your own lack of basis for a decision concerning your health. If the best experts in the world say you would have a benefit then it is much more likely you and your doctor were in the wrong here. Do you have any data to disprove those experts? because personal bias is the worst kind of reason to conclude that.

Especially when I see now how many people got strongly sick, even 3 or 4 times vaccinated, it is clear for me that it makes zero sense to take shots every 3 or 4 months.

Uncontrolled, unverified, badly detailed data on dozens of people is not enough to disprove well detailed and controlled data on tens of thousands of people that clearly prove people vaccinated and boosted do better against the infection. Why choose the worse kind of data?

-9 ( +5 / -14 )

Should you get a COVID-19 booster shot now or wait until fall?

Or not get a "booster" at all, because, as global experts point out, such booster might be ineffective against the dominant new variants.

And that was perfectly true, because it is data obtained from the clinical trials, pretending the developers assured people variants would never change that is misleading, because everybody readily considered this possibility as real and warned people about it even from before the vaccines were developed.

That is a myth, and any such conclusion would come from mistakenly reading the data results.

6 ( +11 / -5 )

This headline is asking the wrong question. Should be: Should you get a COVID-19 booster?

For most people, the answer would be a resounding, resplendent and magnificent NO!

8 ( +12 / -4 )

That is a myth, and any such conclusion would come from mistakenly reading the data results.

What mistake specifically? how are the best professionals all around the world mistaken in reaching those conclusions? obviously a nameless person around the world calling the scientific and medical consensus wrong is not exactly evidence. Specially without any data or even specific mistakes being pointed out.

This headline is asking the wrong question. Should be: Should you get a COVID-19 booster?

For most people, the answer would be a resounding, resplendent and magnificent NO!

Based on what? the scientific consensus say for most people there is a benefit (as in decrease of risk) what data do you have to prove otherwise?

-10 ( +4 / -14 )

A close acquaintance of mine who is a medical expert mentioned they will not get a 4th shot, and actually regrets getting the 3rd one.

That is called "hearsay" and proves nothing. If someone else writes here that a university professor in public health said that a lot of people that present themselves as a "medical expert" are none of the sort and make outrageous, false recommendations on naive people that believe them, would that be enough to rebuff your comment?

And your sources are . . . none

If your comment has zero arguments, zero mistakes pointed, that is the evidence.

Can you point out the mistakes? the arguments you made? if not, the argument against yours is proved.

-9 ( +4 / -13 )

Whatever happened to the term "fully" vaccinated.

Died from Covidianitis.

Funny how people with 4 shots get exactly the same symptoms as I did with two shots?

This vaccine, and specially the boosters, are not being given the proper risk analysis it deserves. Vulnerable people should take the vaccine, and maybe boosters for their own sake, but the rest of the population, specially young people, the benefits are really nebulous.

Not to mention that most booster approvals now only require to show antibody titers going up, which isn't that useful to know the actual benefits from the booster.

Not to mention that, there are a lot of studies that show that if you have got covid already, you have better immunity protection than the vaccine.

The whole point of the vaccine was to protect vulnerable people from developing a severe form of COVID-19, which the vaccine did, and now people should just stop worrying about it, but after 2 years of constant fearmonger, misinformation and disruptions to normal life, a lot of people have developed some form of anxiety disorder around covid, and they will not listen to reason or even objective data.

6 ( +10 / -4 )

A one size fits all measure is unscientific and just a money grab. Babies are now getting the jab, healthy young people are given the same advice as elderly and morbidly obese. No consideration is taking over prior infections with giving vaccinations. It’s a farce and a scam.

Yeah, the vaccines have benefits, but now with the new variants really only for the most at risk.

3 ( +7 / -4 )

Not to mention that most booster approvals now only require to show antibody titers going up, which isn't that useful to know the actual benefits from the booster.

That is the whole point of characterizing antibody levels as a surrogate of protection. To be able to take decisions more opportunely by analyzing the levels of antibodies knowing they correlate with protection.

The best professionals that deal with infectious diseases have concluded this evaluation of risk is adequate and correct, what evidence do you have that they are incorrect?

Not to mention that, there are a lot of studies that show that if you have got covid already, you have better immunity protection than the vaccine

To run the full risks of infection in order to prevent those risks is the opposite of "better", it makes no sense. What is more appropriate is to see if people that were infected are further protected by being vaccinated or not, and that has been already proved beyond any rational doubt.

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciimmunol.abn8014

Overall, our results show that SARS-CoV-2 infection before or after vaccination gives a significantly larger boost to the neutralizing antibody response compared with two doses of vaccine alone. The potency and breadth of the antibody response appear to improve concomitantly. It has been well established that natural infection alone provides short-lived protection from infection (17), showing the importance of vaccination, regardless of infection history. Because vaccination protects against severe disease and death (19), it is safer for individuals to be vaccinated before rather than after natural infection.

The whole point of the vaccine was to protect vulnerable people from developing a severe form of COVID-19

The point was to protect everybody, the vulnerable people are just those where the protection is more important. If people want to reduce their chances from 1/500 to 1/5,000 this is still perfectly valid. As long as the vaccine or booster can be demonstrated to have a benefit that outweigh the risks then it is justified to recommend it, and people are justified in wanting to be vaccinated.

-7 ( +4 / -11 )

Yeah, the vaccines have benefits, but now with the new variants really only for the most at risk.

According to the data presented by the experts this is false, and vaccines benefit even children. What data do you have to prove the experts are wrong? just your own personal opinion?

-8 ( +4 / -12 )

Virusrex

which experts and which data? All the worlds experts and and the worlds data? Do all countries agree to mass vaccinating babies and toddlers? Do all experts agree that under 5’s should have these vaccines?

In my home country the U.K. vaccines only start at 5 years of age, are the experts there not following the science? The vaccines there for children over 5 are not pushed like they are in the USA, are they basing their decisions on a bloke from YouTube or social media?

https://www.hud.ac.uk/news/2022/may/covid-vaccines-non-essential-for-uk-young-children/

5 ( +9 / -4 )

which experts and which data? All the worlds experts and and the worlds data? 

The experts that make the recommendations, and the data they use to justify those recommendations. This may be surprising to some, but not every country has the same amount of evidence available and some end up waiting more or less time depending on this.

In my home country the U.K. vaccines only start at 5 years of age, are the experts there not following the science? 

Are vaccines being recommended or not? that is an easy way to see which side the experts are in the question. Very specific populations obviously may not require as much urgency in being vaccinated, so people in charge of making the decision may be taking their time to evaluate the evidence precisely because the urgency is less, that does not make them antiscience. Anti-scientific would be to repeat false information such as vaccines being demonstrated as more risky than the infection for children under 5.

The approval of vaccines for young people in England has been delayed compared with many other countries in the world, so it is not unexpected for this to happen also for children under 5, After all health authorities were recommending the approval of vaccines for children 5 to 11 for months before they were finally used for this age group.

https://www.rcpch.ac.uk/resources/covid-19-vaccination-children-young-people

-5 ( +4 / -9 )

No thanks! Much prefer one of the prescription medications developed to fight covid that the news never talks about.

2 ( +7 / -5 )

Virusrex

Vaccines are NOT being recommended for 5-11 year olds, they are optional and here is no pressure via things like the media and Sesame Street characters to make parents get them for their kiddies.

vaccination take up for 5-12 year olds in U.K. is 8% and they have been available for a while. The majority made the decision to avoid the leaky vaccines for their children. Guess they must all be unscientific in their mindsets.

5 ( +10 / -5 )

Good question....

I can't recall any scientist giving any explanation on Japanese TV.

I do remember that 2 years ago Japan dismantled the official COVID scientific panel, and it's not been restored yet.

-5 ( +6 / -11 )

Vaccines are NOT being recommended for 5-11 year olds, they are optional and here is no pressure via things like the media and Sesame Street characters to make parents get them for their kiddies.

They are recommended in several countries based on clear evidence the infection is much more risky for them than the vaccines. The same is projected to happen also in England, that have followed the rest of the world before and it seems to still be behind this time.

vaccination take up for 5-12 year olds in U.K. is 8% and they have been available for a while.

And how does that prove the vaccine is not the best option? do you also think that few people following a healthy diet and life style proves sedentarism and high sugar diets are the best?

People can be antiscientific without recognizing it, most groups that are obviously so (and systematically reject all and every scientific conclusion they don't like) are also full of people saying they are not antiscientific. Which is obviously not the case.

-5 ( +4 / -9 )

Virusrex

Wrong again. vaccines were approved for 5-11 year olds in December last year. Available since February, very low take up. It an optional vaccine, the government only recommends strongly for those immune compromised or those living with a vulnerable person. It’s been available for 6 months and hardly any one wants it as it’s pretty much pointless for that age, yet you want it forced on babies.

2 ( +6 / -4 )

“Whatever happened to the term "fully" vaccinated”

its been a moving target and open definition. In the meantime, I am still COVID vax free.

2 ( +6 / -4 )

Wrong again. vaccines were approved for 5-11 year olds in December last year. Available since February, 

You were talking about the UK, where that information is completely false.

https://www.england.nhs.uk/2022/04/nhs-rolls-out-covid-vaccine-to-five-million-5-to-11-year-olds/

The vaccine became available for 5 to 11 year olds from April, months after the local professionals and experts called for their approval.

very low take up. It an optional vaccine, the government only recommends strongly for those immune compromised or those living with a vulnerable person

https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/coronavirus-covid-19/coronavirus-vaccination/coronavirus-covid-19-vaccination-for-children/coronavirus-covid-19-vaccine-for-children-aged-5-to-15/

COVID-19 is usually mild in most children, but it can make some children unwell.

1 dose of the COVID-19 vaccine gives good protection against your child getting seriously ill. But 2 doses gives stronger and longer-lasting protection against future COVID-19 variants.

Vaccinating children can reduce the risk of COVID-19 infection to your child and those around them.

The recommendation is for all children, and specially for those with special vulnerabilities, the same as in many other countries.

The available sources clearly prove your comment is all mistaken, why do you feel the need to discuss using arguments so easily disproved? is it that the real information contradicts you?

hardly any one wants it as it’s pretty much pointless for that age, yet you want it forced on babies.

The experts have said it is not pointless, that is only your personal opinion based on your bias, if the vaccine reduces the risk for children why try to convince parents this is not true without any evidence to support that opinion? is it so bad that parents want to be rational and make a low risk for their children even lower?

Again, a healthy lifestyle and diet is not as common as it should be, according to you being unpopular means it is wrong and people should be sedentary and eat sugars and fat right?

This is an appeal to popularity. A logical fallacy that consist on people trying to argue that things that are popular automatically are correct, and that things unpopular are incorrect because of it.

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

Virusrex

Incorrect, the vaccines for children were made available votar age group an were not recommended for all, just the vulnerable and those with vulnerable family members.

Incorrect that the experts and professionals called fo their use. Some did, some didn’t. If you had knowledge of the situation in the U.K. rather than parrot CDC stuff daily you’d know that,

Just over 8% take up in said age group still, seems like that majority in U.K. at least strongly disagree with you, Pharma Fauci and Elmo on this one .

2 ( +6 / -4 )

Incorrect, the vaccines for children were made available votar age group an were not recommended for all, just the vulnerable and those with vulnerable family members.

The official site contradicts your personal opinion about it, do you have any source that says the recommendation is not for all children (as the NHS source clearly says)? vulnerable children and those with vulnerable members are just those with special reasons for this. Having a good died and exercise is recommended for everybody, making an special case for diabetics (for example) do not mean this recommendation do not applies also for everybody else.

Incorrect that the experts and professionals called fo their use

The most important organizations about medical use of vaccines in the country, (Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation and the Chief Medical Officers) between others did call for the approval, so it is not incorrect, once again the source that disproves you come from the UK, not from the CDC. You should at least read the references provided.

Just over 8% take up in said age group still, seems like that majority in U.K. at least strongly disagree with you, Pharma Fauci and Elmo on this one 

That is still still the fallacy of appeal to popularity, if the experts and scientist can prove vaccines reduce the risk then that is correct, and being unpopular do not negates this, the same as living unhealthy lifestyles do not prove that is the best for your health, even if it is extremely popular.

-2 ( +5 / -7 )

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites