Booster Shots: When will you get a booster (3rd) shot of the vaccine?

Although I don’t like to put it in terms of fear, I will lay my doubt in the media and, sadly, the govt (pretty much the same if a democrat is in power). Thus, I’ll pay the higher (according to the media) pucker factor for not getting the vaccine. If surviving the inevitable death that covid brings, I’ll feel confident in being able to repopulate the planet with hard working Republicans. :rofl:

Unless you also consider the fact that it’s been a year and a half, and the total case count is still less than 15% of the population.

1 Like

This is what I will hold out for. Hopefully avail by early next year?

Yes, several are working on combo covid + flu vaccine / boosters. At this point, I wonder why they’re just giving the same shots again as boosters instead of delta-specific ones. I was told the mRNA tech made it quite easy to customize it so you’d get more specific and presumably more effective antibodies vs the current dominant strain.


I already got infected with Covid and have natural antibodies so I won’t be getting the vaccine or any boosters.


It may be easy to customize, but a new version would require new testing from the beginning.

1 Like

Not as I understand it. There was talk of an extremely accelerated review process in the same way they don’t do full phase 3 trials for the new flu vaccine each year (or it’ll have changed again before the shot was useful). The safety profile shouldn’t depend on the actual mRNA message, at least under nearly all plausible biological models, so once it’s “safe enough” and you just test it in a small group vs Delta and show it works better, and go for it.


Hopefully you’re right xerty.

Wouldn’t it be nice to completely finish the Covid vaccination program with a booster and call it day.

But is it just wishful thinking? Make Biden a winner!! :blush:

that’s how it’s supposed to be. Also an efficacious anti cancer treatment. Hope that comes soon and may help convert some of the anti vaxxers too?

A lot of people not getting the covid vaccine are not “anti vaxxers” who need “converting”. And there’s a pretty big difference between taking a new treatment to cure a disease you have, and taking a new treatment to prevent a virus that might make you really sick if you happen to catch it and aren’t part of the majority who don’t even know they’ve caught it without being tested.

This whole thing has taken on some pretty distinct religious connotations, where the missionaries embark on a crusade to teach nonbelievers how they’re such terrible people for not jumping on their bandwagonsorry, “spread the word of god”.

If your only interest is to spread what you believe to be the truth, you’d make your best case then leave everyone to reach their own conclusions. There’s a reason juries deliberate in private. The currently popular strategy of yelling insults really loud until the other side gives up only indicates that your position has no real substance. (No, although this is a reply to you, this isn’t directed at you)


Polio was less dangerous than covid19, and largely exhibited by asymptomatic infections. No, this isn’t all uncharted territory. We defeated polio through mass vaccination. Even after a mistake very early after vaccine development that ended up with a couple hundred people paralyzed…

1 Like

Now if the CDC said something like this, I’d trust them more … not enough, but more. :sunny:

Congrats on becoming American … or did you just change your identity/pronoun? If the former, remember all of the other things “we” did. :grinning:

FDA says not enough evidence to justify boosters.

“It should be recognized that while observational studies can enable understanding of real-world effectiveness, there are known and unknown biases that can affect their reliability,” agency staff said. “Furthermore, US-based studies of post-authorization effectiveness of [PFE/BNTX] may most accurately represent vaccine effectiveness in the US population.”


Not what it says at all. It says they’re in process of reviewing, have not independently reviewed enough to make a determination, and will meet Friday to further review whether to make a determination.

That is not really the same as “saying not enough to justify”, they did not declare the negative.

It’s even in the title you posted. “Declines to take a stance” [yet]. That’s not the same as taking a negatory stance.

1 Like

Sure, just like they say there’s not enough evidence for ivermectin :wink: maybe in due course, we’ll get enough to know more.

But yeah, the FDA are trying to keep their credibility and not to look like PFE wrote an election check to Biden and he’s calling the shots telling the US (and the FDA) to approve the boosters before the FDA even has enough data to look at. Oddly, i suspect the same people who wouldn’t take “Trump’s vaccine” when the FDA was under pressure last year will happily take these. Remember we saw several senior vaccine experts leave the FDA recently because of Biden’s bad behavior.

PFE was trying to use Israeli data to justify US boosters, despite a lot of differences there, and the FDA wasn’t buying it til they get the US data.


??? No, they left and their paper said it was because they share the WHO stance (I thought the WHO is a villain now to the maga bleach, lightbulbs, vitamins, and horse-dewormer types?), that it would just be better to distribute to the low income countries around the world first before anyone gets any boosters, regardless of boosters providing benefit or not.

Of course, that would also involve mobilizing massive other resources as well as simply diverting vaccines…

Well, the untruncated title is “Declines to take a stance, citing lack of verified data.”

So, yeah, they pretty specifically did say there isnt enough evidence to justify boosters.


No, they said they hadn’t verified it yet…

It’s semantics, but words matter. They didn’t state a negative.
And things will change as they obtain and/or verify more data. Which could be in days, weeks, or months.

1 Like

Of course words matter. Especially the ones that get intentionally left out.

No one is claiming that they stated there never will be any evidence, or that there is evidence against them. Just that there is no evidence supporting them at this time.

Yet the President is out pimping them anyways.