To Booster Shot or not to Booster Shot? That is the question.

HIPAA just says a provider can't disclose without your permission.  you are free to disclose yourself.  there are so many 'conditions' on the at risk list so many people are eligible.  but there does not seem to be any shortage or hordes of otherwise young and healthy people wanting the shot....seems to be no reason to not open it up to all.

when i got my 1st shot, they ran through the list of eligible conditions asking if I had each one, with the 3rd they just asked if I was eligible

LaSalePute said:

Not sure if some of you have received a call from the New Jersey Health Department inquiring if you believe you may be eligible for a booster shot. Then the representative on the phone suddenly looks up a place where the booster shot is available and BANG!  You have an appointment to get your booster shot.

But why do I need a booster shot?  Why does anyone need a booster shot?  It has only been six months since my regular double dose of exquisitely sexy Moderna shot.  

I didn't get Coronavirus before the shot all last year. The dreaded 2020.  

I didn't become a wildly popular celebrity break through case after the shot.  

I dined out all through COVID when permitted by the local politburo.

I attended concerts with 5,000 or more in attendance in Atlantic City.  Still no COVID.

I travelled to at least one country that had a short period of permitted visits by reckless Americans.

I am not over the age of 65.

I do not have any preexisting health conditions that could lead to hospitalization or death or be aggravated by COVID.

So why? Why the booster shot? Any thoughts anyone?  Have you received the same call?  Is it just because of the election, is it a routine six month reach around by Essex County, or is it a phone scam?   

 

 I believe it’s a routine due to the fact that data has shown the vaccine loses its effectiveness after 6 months or so. But I totally understand where you are coming from. Almost seems as If it’s really not needed. 

I think of the COVID - 19 vaccine shots as a group insurance policy.  It is there if and when you need its protection.  If you have friends/family members/co-workers who are not/cannot be vaccinated, it becomes an extended policy in which you helping to protect others as well as yourself.  

Got my booster Monday, waited 2 weeks after my flu shot. I'm grateful that Sears is available and to all of the courteous volunteers. 

I wasn't looking forward to feeling a little sick for a day but I think people are underrating the risk of a new variant. I agree with a few posts that people are getting more relaxed. Family friends had plans on visiting me but when I checked on their booster status I decided to postpone.

There are too many health issues that we have no control over so why not lessen the chance of one that we have some control over.

sac said:

 I'm wondering about the "You can if you want" comment.  It seems that to do this you must lie - either explicitly or by failing to disclose the fact that you are not "eligible", right?   Those administering the vaccines really cannot quiz people about health compromises without adding a whole layer of HIPAA beaurocracy which it seems they had (appropriately) decided is not an efficient use of time, so that leaves us all on the "honor system".  But I don't know if (or when) it is justifiable to take advantage of that system and go ahead and get it "if you want".

 OK, you are theoretically correct. But nearly everyone is in one of the eligible categories because, as @sprout said, one of the categories is if you have occupational risk. That's open to interpretation. Anyway, FDA will be clearing boosters for everyone over 18 very shortly. 

I'll add that your understanding of HIPAA privacy rule is flawed. HIPPA privacy rule does not enter into this scenario for many reasons.

Great interview yesterday with Dr. Fauci on The Daily podacast. Fauci makes a strong case for boosters. I'm glad I got mine.

So you want to have a 95% of not getting COVID or a 75%.  That’s the drop off after 6-9 months. 

different studies say different things.  1 said older men had 11% effectiveness by the 7th month. (age 60+) I don't remember the rest of the break down.

jeffl said:

So you want to have a 95% of not getting COVID or a 75%.  That’s the drop off after 6-9 months. 

This is not how it works. The "effectiveness" numbers are not in an individual. They are population numbers and are affected by other variables, such as the proportion of a population vaccinated. A 50% "effective" vaccine in a population that's 98% vaccinated is much more effective than a 98% "effective" vaccine in a population that's 50% vaccinated.

shoshannah said:

jeffl said:

So you want to have a 95% of not getting COVID or a 75%.  That’s the drop off after 6-9 months. 

This is not how it works. The "effectiveness" numbers are not in an individual. They are population numbers and are affected by other variables, such as the proportion of a population vaccinated. A 50% "effective" vaccine in a population that's 98% vaccinated is much more effective than a 98% "effective" vaccine in a population that's 50% vaccinated.

Are you sure about that? That's not how the "effectiveness" number is being presented.

shoshannah said:

jeffl said:

So you want to have a 95% of not getting COVID or a 75%.  That’s the drop off after 6-9 months. 

This is not how it works. The "effectiveness" numbers are not in an individual. They are population numbers and are affected by other variables, such as the proportion of a population vaccinated. A 50% "effective" vaccine in a population that's 98% vaccinated is much more effective than a 98% "effective" vaccine in a population that's 50% vaccinated.

The point is that the vaccine effectiveness wanes with time. There’s no reason to let your chances of getting COVID increase when boosters are available. 

jeffl said:

shoshannah said:

jeffl said:

So you want to have a 95% of not getting COVID or a 75%.  That’s the drop off after 6-9 months. 

This is not how it works. The "effectiveness" numbers are not in an individual. They are population numbers and are affected by other variables, such as the proportion of a population vaccinated. A 50% "effective" vaccine in a population that's 98% vaccinated is much more effective than a 98% "effective" vaccine in a population that's 50% vaccinated.

The point is that the vaccine effectiveness wanes with time. There’s no reason to let your chances of getting COVID increase when boosters are available. 

Yes, this is true, and I think everyone should get boosters. Looking at the big picture, ALL vaccines wane with time -- but after a critical proportion of the population is vaccinated it does not matter. Immunity-waning matters with SARS-CoV-2 only because we have not yet reached the critical proportion of population vaccinated.

You are likely no longer immune to mumps (which has the lowest "effectiveness" rate of the child vaccines), whooping cough, and possibly polio. But it doesn't matter because those diseases don't circulate or barely circulate precisely because well over 95% of the U.S. population is vaccinated. That's why you need a polio booster when you travel to certain parts of the world and why doctors are recommending whooping cough boosters to new grandparents.

I want more people to grasps that vaccines are more of a population solution than an individual solution. The individual solution is shaky unless the population solution kicks in.

drummerboy said:

shoshannah said:

jeffl said:

So you want to have a 95% of not getting COVID or a 75%.  That’s the drop off after 6-9 months. 

This is not how it works. The "effectiveness" numbers are not in an individual. They are population numbers and are affected by other variables, such as the proportion of a population vaccinated. A 50% "effective" vaccine in a population that's 98% vaccinated is much more effective than a 98% "effective" vaccine in a population that's 50% vaccinated.

Are you sure about that? That's not how the "effectiveness" number is being presented.

Yes, I'm positive. There's a lot of lazy journalism out there. 

Here, this is a good lay explanation from WHO.

https://www.who.int/news-room/feature-stories/detail/vaccine-efficacy-effectiveness-and-protection

shoshannah said:

drummerboy said:

shoshannah said:

jeffl said:

So you want to have a 95% of not getting COVID or a 75%.  That’s the drop off after 6-9 months. 

This is not how it works. The "effectiveness" numbers are not in an individual. They are population numbers and are affected by other variables, such as the proportion of a population vaccinated. A 50% "effective" vaccine in a population that's 98% vaccinated is much more effective than a 98% "effective" vaccine in a population that's 50% vaccinated.

Are you sure about that? That's not how the "effectiveness" number is being presented.

Yes, I'm positive. There's a lot of lazy journalism out there. 

Here, this is a good lay explanation from WHO.

https://www.who.int/news-room/feature-stories/detail/vaccine-efficacy-effectiveness-and-protection

Thanks. I get it now.

This booster is still not recommended for children under 18.  Yet I see people getting their teens a third shot.  

DanDietrich said:

This booster is still not recommended for children under 18.  Yet I see people getting their teens a third shot.  

I would guess that most children under 18 probably did not get their first shot more than 6 months ago (?)  I know that 16-17 year olds were approved for Pfizer from the start, but in many places (including NJ), they were not prioritized for it at the beginning (same as many adults.)  But has it been 6 months since it was approved for the 12-15 year olds?  The under-12s are barely getting their initial shots now.

I think it's been over 6 months since the 16-17 yr old range could get the shots (first April, and second in May). And I think it's around 6 months since the 12-15 yr old range could get the shots (first May, and second in June).

Okay, well this sucks. Get vaccinated, folks. It's here and it don't give a **** if you had its cousins before.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/02/world/africa/virus-omicron-variant-reinfection.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur

Go today, forget appointments Got this last night from NJ:

From The State of NJ:This is a message from the New Jersey Department of Health to inform you that COVID-19 vaccines are available on Tuesday, December 7th between the hours of 5:00pm and 8:00pm at the Jonathan Dayton High School, on a first come, first serve basis. The location is 139 Mountain Ave, Springfield, NJ 07081. Vaccines are available for children ages 5-17 years of age, and for adults 18+ (for primary series and boosters). There is no cost for the vaccine. Thank you and stay safe.

NYT article today suggests that the Pfizer booster may be much more protective for Omicron than the first two doses.  

This is so sad:

https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/09/us/hospital-covid-19-deaths-michigan/index.html

75% of those who died were not vaccinated.  0% died who got a booster shot.

jamie said:

This is so sad:

https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/09/us/hospital-covid-19-deaths-michigan/index.html

75% of those who died were not vaccinated.  0% died who got a booster shot.

you know, it isn't sad to me anymore.  I can't feel sorry for people who won't get vaccinated unless they have a medical reason.  I also don't want the government footing hospital bills for the unvaccinated. 

DanDietrich said:

you know, it isn't sad to me anymore.  I can't feel sorry for people who won't get vaccinated unless they have a medical reason.  I also don't want the government footing hospital bills for the unvaccinated. 

I'm sad our society is reduced to this. 

My empathy for the vaccination refuseniks is gone. They have put the seriously immunized and those who can't be vaccinated for medical reasons at much higher risk while adding to healthcare worker burnouts. As you said, they also cost all of us besides overloading hospitals thereby causing the denial of hospital services for some who are at need. Very, very selfish.

To prevent hospitals from paying their bills would likely need legislation which would never pass the senate. But, its possible state insurance legislation can be changed. 

Also, there are a lot of people threatened with delays for so-called "elective" surgery which includes many procedures that can be time-sensitive, such as for cancer treatment.  Why should those people have their health threats increased by vaccine refusers taking up too many hospital beds?

I feel mostly for the health care workers who have to deal with mostly unvaccinated people at this point.  This has got to be the hardest job out there throughout this whole ordeal.

Get vaccinated!  I'm double vaccinated and had a booster but tested positive for covid almost 2 weeks ago.  I had mild symptoms but you do yourself no favor by not getting vaccinated.  Luckily, I'm done with the quarantine and my symptoms are gone but I will wear a n95 mask in public until the CDC says not to anymore.  Omicron is out there whether you believe or not and it's very easy to catch.  I'm never really in groups of the public (except for the supermarket) but showed 8 properties on Palm Beach on the 14th/15th of this month and 2 days later I had symptoms (dry cough and upper back pain) so I went to get tested and was positive.

I went for my annual wellness check up yesterday at a Summit Medical Group office.  The place was a ghost town from the number of people out with Covid.  Creepy.

I can't think of any rationale for someone who had the initial dose(s) of any of the COVID vaccines to NOT get the booster when eligible, unless they had side effects so serious that it was medically inadvisable.  Am I missing something?  (I definitely didn't enjoy my brief but intense "flu-like" condition after my second shot but I said then that I would do it again in a heartbeat in order to avoid severe Covid illness.  Luckily for me, the booster did not cause significant side effects, but I was prepared for that.)