And I don’t think you punish the one group simply because you can’t get through to the other.
8 Likes
As above, I agree, but there are real equity issues that will have to be addressed, and public health agencies aren’t built for that, either.
2 Likes
It seems to me that many people from various areas are trying their best to get through to all groups.
3 Likes
You know what - since that post we had another rabies scare, this time from a chipmunk. I think we are just unlucky.
Don’t those frontline healthcare professionals working with Covid cases have the chance to be vaccinated? Are they working with seriously ill people from breakthrough infection - or from lack of vaccination?
I have a relative who sees Covid patients daily and has a medical exemption from vaccination (sorry - not able to provide details). This person isn’t worried in the least. They do think it’s a shame that more people had access to other early therapies once infected. Many show up to the hospital when it’s really too late . . .
Personal experience is helpful in many cases, but for this issue it’s not really “following the science” (to use a popular term). Think of the flip side - should someone avoid the vaccine simply because they know many who have had a bad experience with it? (those people are out there).
Three more than six might not seem like a lot to you - but it’s actually 50% higher. I can understand Walensky’s decision as a tie-breaker but that’s not what happened. But, as I mentioned - I haven’t read those decisions yet. If I read them and arrive at a different opinion I’ll definitely post it here.
The standard that a vaccine should be recommended because it “doesn’t cause harm” is a new one for me. How does that work?
Vaccine equity is a huge deal to the public health experts. And given the commentary on this thread recently - including how to get around attestations for one’s booster shot, I couldn’t agree more with Dr. Chen’s statement. There is no better way to demonstrate to marginalized populations that Covid protections are for the rich and/or educated elite than to figure out how to get your booster before your turn in line - or how to get your vaccine or your Covid test either, for that matter. This has happened time and again throughout this pandemic.
1 Like
And it’s “free” so there’s that.
I’m confused…he’s against boosters because of messaging issues? Or because he doesn’t think people will understand whether they should get a booster, or when to get a booster?
Using that logic, we should all wait and die from disease unless every person on earth gets vaccinated. Things don’t work that way, and that is why public health experts have bosses who understand the real world better. We do not all stop eating because some people in the world are starving; that just leads to more starvation and death in the name of equity. Shots are available, people want them, and there are numerous studies that they cause no harm. Who on earth are you, or the supposed FDA gurus worried about equity, to deny them? Do not take a booster if you do not want to, but do not pretend you have the right to make that decision for others. You do not. The FDA can ascertain if it is safe ( obviously is), and limit their finding to, it may be effective for some. Let adults decide what to do for themselves.
Can we please stop pretending access is an issue? There are thousands of free shots available to all Americans, and cities offer home delivery. Enough with the supposed access issues. Everyone can get a shot
9 Likes
Marginalized or those without access to information will be left behind. Doesn’t mean that frontline healthcare workers who are constantly putting their lives on the line shouldn’t get access to the booster. It’s not either-or. We’re trying to stop the spread of the virus, aren’t we? We’re trying to stop people from getting sick, aren’t we? There’s no evidence that it hurts people, is there? Then give them the booster if they feel they need it.
4 Likes
Seems like you and I were typing the same message at the same time! (I like yours better) 
2 Likes
I like yours a lot too!
1 Like
I absolutely agree with you. That’s a very weak argument against boosters. The vaccines have been available since Dec 2020. They are widely available now. Anyone who wants one can get one. Outreach to encourage vaccine uptake should continue but vaccine equity isn’t an issue and certainly not a reason to withhold boosters from the general public.
4 Likes
That’s a very common sense (and libertarian?) pov. But federal law requires that drugs and vaccines must be proven to be efficacious as well as safe. In other words, ‘might help, can’t hurt’ is not one of the legal options that the scientists get to vote on.
Regardless, boosting front line health care workers makes preventive sense given them near daily exposure to covid patients. OTOH, not sure about the science of adding young healthy Teachers to the boost list.
Young healthy teachers are exposed to germ-laden nonvaxxed kids all day, and get breakthru infections too
4 Likes
Of course, the kids bring in germs, but the question is where is the science that shows teachers are at higher risk to covid than the general population (of similar age, sex and health status)? Studies in UK and Sweden seem to indicate that they are not at higher risk.
Again, ‘cant’ hurt, might help’ is not legally defensible. (And was certainly not the pov of many on cc wrt hydroxychloroquine a year ago.)
Teachers are essential workers. Keeping schools open in person is an essential governmental function. They, like fire fighters, are needed always, to perform their jobs, and thus warrant a higher degree of protection.
Perhaps “can’t hurt” should be enough in a pandemic, hence my earlier query as to whether FDA and CDC are really capable of performing in a public health emergency. So far, it doesn’t look so good. Perhaps a different less bureaucratic mechanism that can respond rapidly is better.
Seriously, this isn’t that complicated, which is why most of Europe, much of Canada, Israel, Chile, UAE, and other countries have figured it out and are giving boosters.
3 Likes
Respectfully disagree. These vaccines are a public resource - paid for by the public (in case redundancy is necessary here). Those who want a booster before it’s medically warranted are demanding that the public fund their medical preference, not their medical need. Is that the way to spend our public health dollars - subsidizing those who feel like getting more shots? Does any private insurance plan work that way?
Repeating an earlier comment: so now the standard is “give me my extra shot because it causes no harm?” What vaccine has been remotely similar?
My biggest concern isn’t that others are denied but that boosters will now be unnecessarily mandated by the bubble-thinkers. But I do wonder where this sense of entitlement comes from. Budgets aren’t unlimited. When public officials cave-in to the squeaky wheels, they are allocating dollars away from everyone else. It isn’t just a tug of war between the vaxed and unvaxed. The more that is spent today means the less available for tomorrow’s public health crisis. So it’s prudent to spend money wisely as well as equitably. That really would be a minimum standard of fiduciary responsibility, and usually requires evidence to justify the expense.
1 Like
What does this have to do with being Christian?
One transfusion of MAb that helps 1 person for 3 months versus 100 boosters that help 100 people and those who they come in contact with for an as yet undermined amount of time. I think the financial cost is far greater in the former.
4 Likes