health

Who really needs a second COVID booster? Here's what to know

39 Comments
By LAURAN NEERGAARD

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

© Copyright 2022 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.

©2022 GPlusMedia Inc.

39 Comments

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

four months after their last vaccination.

Every 4 months, got it.

Let's do the math, start at 5 years old and finish at 85.

80 years * 3 vaccinations per year = 240 mRNA vaccinations.

Yeah, I'll pass thanks.

5 ( +13 / -8 )

The Never Ending Story….Everybody knows about that vaccine. But it goes on and on…

Give us a break, please!!!

5 ( +10 / -5 )

How long is this nonsense gonna go on ? What is it that people don't understand the meaning of experimental vaccine ?

-2 ( +7 / -9 )

Bronco Today 07:21 am JST

80 years * 3 vaccinations per year = 240 mRNA vaccinations.

Correct. Four shots in two years can only mean one thing: it will continue forever in the same interval. That's the reason why everyone receives more than 150 tetanus shots in their life.

The correct result is of course: four. It might become five, maybe even six. As of right now, it is four.

But 240 is only in your mind. If you want to get outraged over a number you made up, go ahead. It's a bit weird and may lead to wrong decisionmaking, but you do you. Just be aware that you're getting outraged over a fact you yourself invented.

-1 ( +6 / -7 )

Last year at this time it was just 1.

That is a fact. It is a thing that is verifiably true.

Next year at this time it will be 7.

And that is conjecture. It is a thing you imagine.

It could become so, of course. Not very likely, seeing as the vaccine has served its purpose and the world collectively isn't naive to Covid anymore. And it's (a bit prematurely maybe, but not unjustifiably) moving beyond Covid measures and restrictions. But if it happens, I will reevaluate my position based on the new circumstances. As of right now, I am not expected to have the 4th shot with no indication that this will be the case anytime soon.

Last year at this time it was just 1.

So which number was okay for you? Which number was too many? And why? Because I guessing you have a more fundamental problem with the vaccine, not just the number of shots or Pfizer's profit margin.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

“Yeah, I’ll pass thanks”

You’ve always passed, even when it was just one shot. You have rigidly opposed vaccination against Covid at every opportunity, citing every “reason” you can think of from “experimental vaccine” to the self-proclaimed superiority of your own immune system. I’ve listened to people like you, and I’ve listened to real experts who’ve advised vaccination, and like anyone able to make rational decisions based on actual evidence, I’ve opted to follow the real experts and get vaccinated. The hospitals and the graveyards are disproportionately chock-full of people who’ve decided to go the other way.

7 ( +9 / -2 )

Every 4 months, got it.

You understand what this means, right? it means that the disease still represents a risk so important that a booster greatly reduces it even for healthy young people. Against this what is the option you give? to run the much higher risks that come from a natural infection, reinfection? that makes no sense.

The moment the risk becomes low enough to be the same as the background risk from normal life a booster also becomes unnecessary. This could have come sooner if everybody was vaccinated equally and variants did not come to happen, but even with them this is a point that will still come.

How long is this nonsense gonna go on ? What is it that people don't understand the meaning of experimental vaccine ?

Well, since mRNA vaccines are not experimental (in Japan they never were considered like that) this is irrelevant. What people that still wonder how long will this continue need to understand is the concept of risk, because reducing it is the whole point, and since vaccines keep doing exactly that they are still justified.

I can't imagine how surprised you will be when you find out that other vaccines also require many boosters when the risk is still high, Being vaccinated against Rabies for example is an actual never ending story for veterinarians in territories where the infection is prevalent.

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

@Taki MataToday

"That's the reason why everyone receives more than 150 tetanus shots in their life."

Who receives more than 150 tetanus shots in their life? I had one when I was about 6 and got a nail through my foot, but I have not had one since.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Who receives more than 150 tetanus shots in their life? I had one when I was about 6 and got a nail through my foot, but I have not had one since

That is precisely the whole point. Making the ridiculous claim that a person will need 240 inoculation against COVID is as likely as expecting people to usually receive 150 tetanus shots.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

... took the 3rd.

... heard about the 4th the other day.

... there’s the possibility of a 5th.

My question is :

when will it be over ?

...

sighs

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Who really needs a second COVID booster?

Old people with other health issues should get it if they do not have access to effective treatments.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

My question is :

when will it be over ?

When the boosters no longer reduce the risk from the infection. For example that would happen if the infection no longer represents a higher risk compared with the time before the pandemic.

> Old people with other health issues should get it if they do not have access to effective treatments.

Having access to effective treatments is not a replacement from the protection offered by the vaccines. It is not like people can't be treated if they were boosted. And in reality the more people (that need a booster) getting it means they will not need treatments that will remain available for other people.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

Many Americans now can get a second COVID-19 booster, but it’s hard to tell who really needs another shot right now and who could wait.

The need for a second booster is highly disputed among global experts in the medical field.

virusrexApr. 3  10:46 pm JST

When the boosters no longer reduce the risk from the infection. For example that would happen if the infection no longer represents a higher risk compared with the time before the pandemic.

Extremely naive conclusion.

The drug companies obviously will do all they can to promote their vaccines and other drugs related to treating covid.

As anyone on earth knows, they are in it for the long run.

Anyone with a contrary opinion better have scientific evidence to try and disprove this.

virusrexApr. 3  07:14 pm JST

That is precisely the whole point. Making the ridiculous claim that a person will need 240 inoculation against COVID is as likely as expecting people to usually receive 150 tetanus shots.

This, coming from someone who rationalizes why it makes sense to get a yearly flu shot, or roughly 80 inoculations in one's lifetime for someone living past 80.

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

The drug companies obviously will do all they can to promote their vaccines and other drugs related to treating covid.

So what? if they are effective at preventing disease, complications and death there is nothing wrong about that. As you say, do you have scientific evidence that prove the vaccines are not effective (and obviously this means evidence of a lack of effect when comparing vaccinated against unvaccinated people) or are others just supposed to believe you you are right and the scientists of the whole world are wrong?

This, coming from someone who rationalizes why it makes sense to get a yearly flu shot, or roughly 80 inoculations in one's lifetime for someone living past 80.

Again, there are perfectly valid examples that actually reduce risk, and there are totally invalid examples that depend on exaggerating out of proportions something that is not even thought to be a permanent situation.

You would understand it if you learned why seasonal influenza requires a a new vaccine every year, not a booster.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

virusrexToday  06:09 am JST

So what? if they are effective at preventing disease, complications and death there is nothing wrong about that. As you say, do you have scientific evidence that prove the vaccines are not effective (and obviously this means evidence of a lack of effect when comparing vaccinated against unvaccinated people) or are others just supposed to believe you you are right and the scientists of the whole world are wrong?

So you do support 240 boosters for Covid. Settles that.

Again, there are perfectly valid examples that actually reduce risk, and there are totally invalid examples that depend on exaggerating out of proportions something that is not even thought to be a permanent situation.

You would understand it if you learned why seasonal influenza requires a a new vaccine every year, not a booster.

Oh, I understand. You obviously are not aware that all flu vaccines in the United States are quadrivalent vaccines. So, have a good time on your way to getting 80 of these in your life time.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

So you do support 240 boosters for Covid. Settles that.

So you think people normally get 150 tetanus shots? settles that.

Oh, I understand. You obviously are not aware that all flu vaccines in the United States are quadrivalent vaccines. So, have a good time on your way to getting 80 of these in your life time.

Why would that have anything to do? quadrivalent vaccines are still completely different from a booster, they are for all practical purposes new vaccines every year. You were doing great asking about things you had no understanding, why going back to assume mistaken things again?

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

virusrexToday  08:42 am JST

So you think people normally get 150 tetanus shots? settles that.

No, but I wonder why you do, according to your earlier posts and hypotheticals.

Why would that have anything to do? quadrivalent vaccines are still completely different from a booster, they are for all practical purposes new vaccines every year. You were doing great asking about things you had no understanding, why going back to assume mistaken things again?

If you had a rudimentary understanding of how vaccines are developed, then you would understand that the flu vaccine is not built from scratch every year. This is a very basic concept.

You keep making the same error of trying to impose upon people why they should get the covid vaccine, but then you back away and offer no proof why they don't need multiple vaccines.

Repeating the same fallacy over and over does not make your mistaken theory a fact.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

No, but I wonder why you do, according to your earlier posts and hypotheticals.

Where exactly? calling this a ridiculous thing to believe is exactly the opposite of believing in it. Are you confused? try to re-read the comments and see who was the person that believed this to be said seriously.

If you had a rudimentary understanding of how vaccines are developed, then you would understand that the flu vaccine is not built from scratch every year. This is a very basic concept.

Sorry but you still are mistaken and obviously speaking about something you do not anything about. The flu vaccines are made with a new formulation for the new variants, without ever being intended to boost the immunity elicited by previous influenza vaccines. This is something that do not require any special preparation to be known, is a huge difference with the COVID vaccines that ARE actually used as boosters (and why there is no need for reformulation).

Try getting an official source to read and present here, that will let you know that you idea about the vaccines is wrong.

You keep making the same error of trying to impose upon people why they should get the covid vaccine, but then you back away and offer no proof why they don't need multiple vaccines.

Correcting false or misleading information is not imposing anything, sorry if you had mistaken ideas that were so easily demonstrated as such, anybody is free to reject safe and effective health interventions if they want, but making up false reasons to do it is not valid, because this could mislead people that are actually trying to make informed decisions.

Repeating the same fallacy over and over does not make your mistaken theory a fact.

And repeating that something is false based only on that personal misunderstandings do not make that something actuall false. How about a scientific source first?

https://www.eastmeadowmedical.com/blog/why-the-flu-vaccine-is-reformulated-every-year

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

virusrexToday  09:10 am JST

Sorry but you still are mistaken and obviously speaking about something you do not anything about. The flu vaccines are made with a new formulation for the new variants, without ever being intended to boost the immunity elicited by previous influenza vaccines. This is something that do not require any special preparation to be known, is a huge difference with the COVID vaccines that ARE actually used as boosters (and why there is no need for reformulation).

Try showing an official source. Prove it.

Correcting false or misleading information is not imposing anything, sorry if you had mistaken ideas that were so easily demonstrated as such, anybody is free to reject safe and effective health interventions if they want, but making up false reasons to do it is not valid, because this could mislead people that are actually trying to make informed decisions.

Then stop doing that.

And repeating that something is false based only on that personal misunderstandings do not make that something actuall false. How about a scientific source first?

https://www.eastmeadowmedical.com/blog/why-the-flu-vaccine-is-reformulated-every-year

This is hilarious! The first time you provide a real source--and it supports my point!!

I wonder why others here don't respond to you anymore?

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

Try showing an official source. Prove it.

Did you even read the comment, an official source that explicitly says the vaccines are new formulations every year is included. This appeal of lack of official sources loses all its value when those sources have been already included.

Then stop doing that.

You are the one that have brought exaclty zero sources saying the influenza vaccines are booster, this applies exclusively to your mistaken argument. Provide a source first then you can complain about it.

This is hilarious! The first time you provide a real source--and it supports my point!!

It does not, even the title of the link contradicts you, why misrepresent something that clearly says the opposite of what you believed is true if anybody can simply read it?

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

virusrexToday  11:20 am JST

Did you even read the comment, an official source that explicitly says the vaccines are new formulations every year is included. This appeal of lack of official sources loses all its value when those sources have been already included.

No sources? Surprise!

You are the one that have brought exaclty zero sources saying the influenza vaccines are booster, this applies exclusively to your mistaken argument. Provide a source first then you can complain about it.

Oh yeah--when someone else provides sources, they aren't sources! Nice argumentative technique.

It does not, even the title of the link contradicts you, why misrepresent something that clearly says the opposite of what you believed is true if anybody can simply read it?

Did you even read the title? Hilarious!

Tell us again how zoology is a hard science!!!

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

No sources? Surprise!

The source is clearly written there, there is no problem in just copying and pasting it every time you want to pretend it does not exist.

https://www.eastmeadowmedical.com/blog/why-the-flu-vaccine-is-reformulated-every-year

Oh yeah--when someone else provides sources, they aren't sources! Nice argumentative technique.

Which source have you provided that say influenza vaccines are yearly boosters? none. Sorry but pretending to do things where everything remains written is only self-humilliating.

Did you even read the title? Hilarious!

What part of the title does not contradicts you? it literally says "reformulated".

Tell us again how zoology is a hard science!!!

Sorry if apparently being demonstrated wrong affects you that much but just writing incoherent things completely outside of the topic is not going to help defending your ideas, again, which source do you have that prove influenza vaccines are yearly boosters?

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

My question is :

when will it be over ?

It won't, because the experts no longer know what they're talking about.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

zichiToday  12:54 pm JST

you have said you have not been vaccinated

No, never said this.

but traveled out of Japan eight times recently so that must have affected those travels with PCR tests and quarantines?

A positive result on a PCR test would have a negative affect for sure.

Would not get a second booster though.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

It won't, because the experts no longer know what they're talking about.

Any source for this? or are you suppoedly speaking in behalf of the experts?

The risk is bound to decrease, this can be delayed if new variants appear, or accelerated if an improvement on the antigenicity of the vaccines is achieved, but the final result is the same. Once a booster do not decrease the risk from the infection there will be no need for it anymore.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

virusrexToday  01:34 pm JST

The risk is bound to decrease, this can be delayed if new variants appear, or accelerated if an improvement on the antigenicity of the vaccines is achieved, but the final result is the same. Once a booster do not decrease the risk from the infection there will be no need for it anymore.

Any source for this? or are you suppoedly speaking in behalf of the experts?

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

Any source for this? or are you suppoedly speaking in behalf of the experts?

I was referring to the experts, not you.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

Any source for this?

Encyclopedia Japonica.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

Any source for this? or are you suppoedly speaking in behalf of the experts?

Plenty, anybody not living under a rock and actually interested in the pandemic can find many sources of experts repeating this

https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/healthcare-systems-and-services/our-insights/when-will-the-covid-19-pandemic-end

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00396-2

See? once you learn to ask instead of making mistaken assumptions you can actually learn a lot about something.

I was referring to the experts, not you.

And I am asking about a reference that actually proves the experts are as you are trying to misrepresent them, so, are you supposedly to be representing them or can you get a source?

Encyclopedia Japonica.

That is not a reference.

Tom--he knows he is not an expert.

I have never claimed to be an expert and specially I have never based anything on that imagiray claim, opposite from those that refuse to bring references and base their comments only on their personal authority. You can keep asking for references any time you like, unfortunately you keep trying to ignore them, but copy-pasting them again takes literally seconds. People unable to accept what the experts actually have to say end up pretending people never bring references and do as they, but in a medium like this, where things remain registered that has no weight.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Encyclopedia Japonica.

That is not a reference.

I knew that, but did you?

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

I knew that, but did you?

Obviously, that is why it is written without quations marks.

Good to see you at least recognize your comment is false and have no reference to defend it.

Many posters here have been doing so; except you.

You are including in your quote exactly what you are accusing me of not doing, you managed to prove yourself mistaken in a single line.

And those "sources" you provide here do nothing to support your assertions.

Since they are talking precisely about how the pandemic is bound to become a less important risk they do are adequate references about that thing you ignored the experts have been expressing. Can you at least try and quote the parts you misunderstood as "not supporting" this? or is it much to ask for you to actually read what you asked for?

You obviously have not learned anything as you keep disagreeing with expert opinions.

Are you trying to present yourself as an expert? because you have not presented any expert opinion that I have disagreed with. At much you have misrepresented unrelated opinions that do not support your view, but there is nothing to disagree with the experts quoted, just on the invalid way you tried to interpret them.

I have never claimed to be an expert

No, because it is not necessary, well known experts have shared their opinions about the pandemic, the way it is evolving and the value of vaccines and boosters, why would anybody (but you) base a comment in anything else?

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Quotation marks?

Question marks, I did not ask if that was a reference, but said it was not one.

This is not about punctuation, but about claiming something false that is made evident after you recognize you have no basis to say it excpet your personal belief.

Scientists do know what they are talking about, they have made effective and useful recommendations during the whole pandemic even if people repeatedly tried to mislead others by lying about what the scientists say. Not being able to precisely predict the future of the pandemic because of the important role of things that are not known (such as the appearance of new variants) is not the same as not knowing what they are talking about.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

There are constant articles about Covid19 vaccines, but there is NEVER any mention of the vaccine adverse effects. Why isn't there at least one article about the data Pfizer was recently forced to release? I am sure the people would want to know about this very important information

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

There are constant articles about Covid19 vaccines, but there is NEVER any mention of the vaccine adverse effects. 

Because they are rare and mild, specially with the adverse effects from not getting vaccinated and getting instead the natural infection. When you see an article about the dangers of bacteria resistant to every known antibiotic do you also question why the adverse effect of those antibiotics also madethe main point?

Why isn't there at least one article about the data Pfizer was recently forced to release? 

Mostly because it is a well known hoax from antivaxxer groups, the data has no importance, it has already been evaluated exhaustively, it is a tiny spec in the universe of evidence that has been collected from billions of people and it was not released even "recently" but from last year.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Why isn't there at least one article about the data Pfizer was recently forced to release? 

Mostly because it is a well known hoax from antivaxxer groups...

What hoax? They are actual documents submitted by Pfizer.

the data has no importance, it has already been evaluated exhaustively

Yeah, by the same captured officials that approved toxic ineffective products like remdesivir and molnupiravir.

it is a tiny spec in the universe of evidence that has been collected from billions of people and it was not released even "recently" but from last year.

The FDA had the data last year, but only publicly released last month the data from the first 3 months of vaccination (with some redactions). The results show a surprising number of serious adverse effects and deaths. This should be discussed widely and openly, instead of being summarily dismissed. Until then, there is no true informed consent.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

What hoax? They are actual documents submitted by Pfizer.

The hoax where the information is supposedly new, it contradicts the safety and efficacy data from billions of vaccinated people in the world and that scientist base their recommendation in ignoring it, all those things are false.

Yeah, by the same captured officials that approved toxic ineffective products like remdesivir and molnupiravir.

Sorry but you pretending every single institution of science and medicine of the planet supporting and pushing supposedly toxic things that are going to be used on their members, their families and friends just because they want to supposedly keep their jobs is in no way credible. Maybe people with serious moral deficiencies that would do that themselves would think this could be something common, but for the vast majority of the people it is clear this is obviously nonsense.

The FDA had the data last year, but only publicly released last month the data from the first 3 months of vaccination (with some redactions)

No, that is part of the hoax, the data has been open for discussion by anybody since november last year, the experts already saw it and found it perfectly coherent with what has been found from billions of people and that prove vaccines are safe and effective. Only people that fell victim to the hoax still think the data was "recently" released. Many antivaxxer groups already tried to misrepresent the same results (even less edited) since december and failed spectacularly to fool people, that is why they now pretend the data is "new" and important. In reality is old, obvious and do not contradict at all the safety and efficacy of the vaccines.

This has been already discussed widely, found unimportant and no matter how many times it gets recycled by the antivaxxers it remains the same.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites