It is unfortunate when public health decisions are made in order to cater to special interests and re-election campaigns. But in general all such decisions are “political” in that they are made for the body politic. The leaders are elected (or appointed by the elected official) so it’s impossible not to consider the voting public and we saw that in 2020 - governors in states with a low tolerance for shutting everything down tended not to do that; governors in states with a significant fear of Covid had more political leeway to act aggressively. Each acted with the blessing of their constituents.
Our state did vax its teachers early but the goal was to get them back into the classroom as quickly as possible so that made sense. And all teachers - public, private, district, magnet, charter, etc. - were prioritized, not just the unionized. A younger person with co-morbidities (say, obesity, asthma, diabetes, etc) probably should get priority over a healthier older person but that may not be the sort of situation you observed. My sister was outraged that our parents (in their 90’s) were behind younger, healthier grocery workers. But my parents were also able to isolate until their turn, which came quickly due to their congregate living situation. There will always be inequities (perceived or genuine) and disappointments when the resource must be rationed and one doesn’t get the turn they were hoping for.
There is no wait in MN or IL (where I am at the moment) and I’m betting that it’s pretty easy to lie in order to get a booster pretty much anywhere! But why do it? Sure - it’s all about “politics” - but at least with the vaccine there was a general recognition of necessity by pretty much every health expert. This time, there isn’t. Those who really need the boost should get it - the data have validated that necessity. The rest would be engaging in an unnecessary and untested medical therapy - since when is that ever a good idea?
Rochelle Walensky just partly overruled the CDC advisory committee and authorized the Pfizer booster to anyone 18-64 years of age at higher risk of transmission or exposure due to occupational or institutional setting, in addition to older Americans.
This is good news, and rare that a CDC director breaks with advisors (it’s more common for FDA to break with their advisory committees).
Basically one could interpret this recommendation to include just about anyone because one just needs (at most) to provide a self-attestation that they qualify. Anyone who can’t stay at home who doesn’t have underlying conditions or is 65+ can probably qualify…for example, those who work with groups of students (outside of a school setting…e.g., coaches, tutors, counselors), take a train/subway to work, live in a congregant setting (eg., college students), eat in institutional cafeterias, etc.
The term ‘underlying conditions’ is also interesting, because what the media has often reported is ‘immunocompromised’ (and that’s what the initial August booster recommendation stated for both Pfizer and Moderna).
But, those with ‘underlying conditions’ that put them at risk for severe covid is much broader than ‘immunocompromised’. For example, overweight (BMI 25-29) and obesity (BMI 30+) are included in this group and nearly 74% of Americans are in one of these groups.
And yet while we are discussing whether we can get boosters or not (I personally am waiting for the 1/2 dose Moderna), we still have to deal with those who are not getting their first.
I am concerned that if people are lying that they have been vaccinated to begin with, they will be counted as getting “their first dose”, and our numbers of vaccinated will be artificially higher than reality
I checked at the pharmacy in our very small town, and there are 41 appointments available TODAY for a vaccination. So I signed up for one. We’re going to Florida mid-October (trip planned when everything looked better), so I want to be better protected.
Which is why our data is invalid now. For over a month people have been getting doses on their own based on their own risk assessment. No one know the true number of vaccinated or vaccinated + booster or the number of vaccinated with underlying health conditions or number of vaccinated who work in high risk occupations, etc. People are claiming different things at different places and perhaps are different people. Who knows now.
The government had a full year in 2020 to pull together a reporting system or health database or whatever for vaccine distribution that it knew would eventually occur. It failed to do so.
I am saddened that a casualty of the pandemic has been our faith in the FDA and CDC. Between all the missteps, reversals, overruling, it was inevitable but unfortunate. Similarly, I think those states that limited distribution to certain zip codes or other factors caused a lot of mistrust in state government. Most countries used age based distribution, (after HCW and nursing homes), which was at least clear, appeared equitable, and did coincide with the greatest risk factor. I know many people, including doctors, who have lost trust in the system.
That may contribute to the reluctance.
You make good points. I like to think that I’m listening to experts, but I admit I’m often confused and things seem to change so rapidly. Partly to do with the nature of a rapidly changing database of information.
The one thing I keep coming back to, and that should overrule anyone’s qualms, is that this disease can and does cause a lot of long term illness, serious life threatening illness, and death.
Some reluctant people just focus on death and think they aren’t likely to die if they get covid. My friend’s husband (“Dave”) who now needs a kidney transplant as a result of his liver transplant as a result of covid is all the proof anyone should need. How many other Daves are out there? How many others who still suffer long covid? I’m thinking many, many more than who died.
People should look past the back and forth between the government and the FDA and the CDC and get vaccinated. That’s one thing none of them have waivered on.
Didn’t seem to do so in 2021 either and there was a bit more certainty at that time as to a vaccine and its general availability. Boosters weren’t even on the table as a discussion point till a few months ago.
Both Covid and the vaxxes are relatively new, so everyone is participating in the Pandemic Experiment whether they want to or not. It’s merely which group people are choosing to be in. Previously there were the vax vs unvaxxed groups (broken down into which vax, etc). Now we have the vaxxed, booster, and unvaxxed groups for people to choose from.
Boosters are essentially just starting here in the US, but have been being used for a couple months now in Israel and Europe. Data perhaps is still inconsistent as to whether they work or not, or whether they work better than being vaxxed and then getting a “mild” case of Covid, but it has seemed to show there’s no harm in using them - no major “beware of” warnings are out there from them.
For those who aren’t a bit older or immunocompromised choosing the Booster Group in the Pandemic Experiment, it seems to go along with the “Might help, can’t hurt” tag. (For those who are older and/or immunocompromised data seems to show it helps.)
We’re personally leaning toward getting boosters for that reason.
I definitely don’t think boosters should be mandated like “basic” vaxxes are at this point. More data coming out after many of us choose our groups could change my opinion. With millions of us making our choices and Covid still out there, more data will come along soon.
We would not be asked either once showing up - and if the local CVS offers walk-in then that might be one way to by-pass the question or avoid an attestation. However, the online appointment system does have you specify your type of shot (extra dose due to weakened immune system and that you are confirming this applies to you) before you specify your zip code. In other words, that’s a hard-coded question - it won’t vary by zip. At the end, you attest that your information is factual and that if you are getting the extra dose that you have a weakened immune system. There’s no way to avoid it. So anyone using that approach to scheduling their booster appointment who doesn’t have a weakened immune system is providing false information. If they are aware of that, this is called a lie.
@twoinanddone, earlier you said, “I agree that many people are looking for a justification for not getting vaccinated, but that’s their right under the constitution.”
In this post, you say, “I’ve never seen a state require a vaccine unless you want to do something - work, go to school, use public services like a rec center. If you want to stay home, you do have the right not to be vaccinated.”
I’m not a lawyer (certainly not a constitutional lawyer). That said, I think that mandatory vaccination by a state (not restricted by activity) is exactly what Massachusetts required in Jacobsen v. Massachusetts. Per Wikipedia, “Massachusetts was one of 11 states that had compulsory vaccination laws.” @JBStillFlying further supported this in an earlier post.
You say that states are not currently asking for a blanket mandate (and I’m sure you are correct), but that is a different question.
I was just addressing the assertion that there is an unfettered right not to be vaccinated. That assertion seems to be incorrect.
Our country’s public health recommendations are based primarily on our own data, not that of other countries which may have different reporting standards, different Covid protocols, etc. That other data is useful for comparison purposes but shouldn’t drive decisions here.
Well, same with the clinical trials. But the CDC was very wary of most young people getting boosters here, given the risks of heart inflammation (as just one example). Setting up a situation where an employer or university would now feel free to require a booster on top of a recent vaccination without the data to support is medically just irresponsible.
But “Might Help Can’t Hurt” has been the basis for institutional decisions to require Covid protocols - masking is an example, as there are conflicting studies there. How soon will we start to read less about Choosing and more about Making people do boosters? I predict this thread will be about Not Being Selfish Get The Booster within three months. If Walensky has truly opened the floodgates by bowing to political pressure - which has to be the case if she’s overriding data-driven recommendations - then “choosing” may well becoming “requiring.” People are that desperate to just make this pandemic go away.
Let’s hope so, but a decision has already been made about who is eligible so it’s a small step for a university or employer now to require a booster at the six-month mark. Without the data. Because CDC says it’s ok. ETA: I hope I’m wrong, by the way.
Note that her recommendation went against the CDC, but aligned with the FDA’s recommendations.
We totally disagree here. It’s a world pandemic. Use whatever data is out there. Different countries have tried different approaches and it can all be useful to figure out what’s best - or not. There is absolutely nothing that makes the US “better” or “more intelligent” or “whatever” that we should only rely on our own data over that of other first world, quite intelligent, countries.
If the data shows it’s worth it, then I hope the thread does morph accordingly.
I’m hoping between Covid running rampant through the non-vaxxing group and vaccines working (with or without boosters) that Covid will have died down quite a bit in 3 months. Then we’ll have to see if it reemerges as immunity wanes. If so, and booster data shows it helps, yes, morph the thread.
Just to clarify, these decisions vary by state law. For instance, in the state of MN individuals have the right to attend public school despite vaccines, simply due to personal opposition (they have to jump through hoops, write a statement, have it notarized etc but they are allowed this option). W/r/t Jacobson, state law at the time empowered locals Boards of Health to require compulsory vaccination in emergencies (in that case, small-pox). It was the city of Cambridge, MA that actually ordered the compulsory vaccination. The state was able to dole out a consequence for not vaccinating (jail or fine, etc) because they have the power to enforce state law.
This sums up exactly what happened and it further fuels distrust of our supposedly objective and science based institutions.
Personally I think boosters should be available because there’s clearly evidence in other countries that support their use and the benefits derived by actual people. However, the public rift between the FDA and CDC does nothing but undermine the “follow the science” mantra we are fed 24/7.
Reduction in trust in government institutions that are supposed to be less political has been going on for years in the US; it is not new in COVID-19. The US appears to be moving to becoming a less generally trusting society, so that people’s trust in something depends on some sort of group affiliation (e.g. political party, race, gender, etc.), even if such group affiliation should not be relevant to whatever something is. That is probably a bad thing for economy, business, governance, and science in general, as COVID-19 and reaction to it shows*, although some individual actors may benefit (e.g. lower trust societies have greater opportunities for corruption).
*For example, vaccine reluctance being associated strongly with political party and somewhat with race/ethnicity. But also consider the politics of rationing vaccines during the earlier time when there was a shortage of vaccines.