The World Health Organization released a summary from a meeting of its expert panel entitled, “Roadmap for COVID-19 vaccination in the Omicron era.” The report is not final, but as of now there are four big-ticket items. 1. Boosters-for-all no longer needed. High-risk people should get additional boosters.
I’m dismayed that with the CDC ‘s decision those of us in the US over 70 can’t get an updated booster until Fall. My household provides primary care for grandchildren after school, and two of our adult children, all properly vaxxed and boosted, came down with covid just this week. I had covid last summer and do not want it again- even with Paxlovid, which worked well for me, I didn’t feel totally myself for almost three months and I’m very healthy and fit for my age. I find the decision political with the ‘data not clear it’s a benefit’ ignoring the impact on the daily lives of us elders.
Thank you for asking Dr. Jha during your interview with him about long COVID. I realize he was speaking about national public health so his answer was not particularly specific to middle-aged people who might not qualify for Paxlovid. But I do appreciate that you considered the concerns of your readers and asked him specific questions on our behalf. Thank you for that. This information from the WHO indicates that while our vaccines wane after a few months we may not get another one. Peter Hotez has indicated more than once that he believes we should vaccinate against long COVID. He is a respected vaccine scientist and a Jonas Salk of our time. The world owes him and Dr. Bottazzi a tremendous debt so if he sees value in vaccinating against long COVID, it’s likely that there is value in it. It makes sense. Decreasing the frequency and viral load of infections should protect against long COVID. He and other vaccine scientists and immunologists including Marc Veldhoen are not concerned with “imprinting”. It has not proven true and was a highly theoretical concern. Your colleague Dr. Katelyn Jetelina recently wrote, quoting ONS statistics, that the risk of long COVID falls from 4% after a first infection to 2.4% after a reinfection and stated that a person should not consider themselves “in the clear” after a first infection. She also included a link to an incredibly distressing video about Dianna Cowern, MIT graduate and physics science communicator, whose health and vitality at 33 years old has been destroyed by the ME/CFS-like worst form of long COVID. We are not the “worried well.” We respect experts. And the experts are telling us to worry about long COVID and that decreasing the frequency and viral loads of infections will help. So if we are not truly the “worried well” but rather the well and truly worried about long COVID, shouldn’t we get a yearly shot?
Do you think this will impact any permission for high risk people to get another 6 month booster in the US? Kaiser Health summary states that the CDC stated no second booster yesterday. So I guess that's moot.
"However, as I’ve also written, there is one pediatric group that absolutely needs vaccination because their risk is so much higher than all other children (and even many adults): infants. Infants are unlikely to have been infected before (infection provides substantial protection from future severe disease, even without a vaccine) and they are also the most likely to be hospitalized of all children."
I am looking at the data link you provided and the infant morbidity seems almost wholly driven by 0-6 months olds who are not eligible for vaccination.
I’m dismayed that with the CDC ‘s decision those of us in the US over 70 can’t get an updated booster until Fall. My household provides primary care for grandchildren after school, and two of our adult children, all properly vaxxed and boosted, came down with covid just this week. I had covid last summer and do not want it again- even with Paxlovid, which worked well for me, I didn’t feel totally myself for almost three months and I’m very healthy and fit for my age. I find the decision political with the ‘data not clear it’s a benefit’ ignoring the impact on the daily lives of us elders.
Please comment on the possible effectiveness of boosters in reducing the risk of Long-Covid.
Dear Dr. Faust,
Thank you for asking Dr. Jha during your interview with him about long COVID. I realize he was speaking about national public health so his answer was not particularly specific to middle-aged people who might not qualify for Paxlovid. But I do appreciate that you considered the concerns of your readers and asked him specific questions on our behalf. Thank you for that. This information from the WHO indicates that while our vaccines wane after a few months we may not get another one. Peter Hotez has indicated more than once that he believes we should vaccinate against long COVID. He is a respected vaccine scientist and a Jonas Salk of our time. The world owes him and Dr. Bottazzi a tremendous debt so if he sees value in vaccinating against long COVID, it’s likely that there is value in it. It makes sense. Decreasing the frequency and viral load of infections should protect against long COVID. He and other vaccine scientists and immunologists including Marc Veldhoen are not concerned with “imprinting”. It has not proven true and was a highly theoretical concern. Your colleague Dr. Katelyn Jetelina recently wrote, quoting ONS statistics, that the risk of long COVID falls from 4% after a first infection to 2.4% after a reinfection and stated that a person should not consider themselves “in the clear” after a first infection. She also included a link to an incredibly distressing video about Dianna Cowern, MIT graduate and physics science communicator, whose health and vitality at 33 years old has been destroyed by the ME/CFS-like worst form of long COVID. We are not the “worried well.” We respect experts. And the experts are telling us to worry about long COVID and that decreasing the frequency and viral loads of infections will help. So if we are not truly the “worried well” but rather the well and truly worried about long COVID, shouldn’t we get a yearly shot?
Fascinating about the negative imprinting
Do you think this will impact any permission for high risk people to get another 6 month booster in the US? Kaiser Health summary states that the CDC stated no second booster yesterday. So I guess that's moot.
"However, as I’ve also written, there is one pediatric group that absolutely needs vaccination because their risk is so much higher than all other children (and even many adults): infants. Infants are unlikely to have been infected before (infection provides substantial protection from future severe disease, even without a vaccine) and they are also the most likely to be hospitalized of all children."
I am looking at the data link you provided and the infant morbidity seems almost wholly driven by 0-6 months olds who are not eligible for vaccination.
Thank you. I am grateful that we can come here to get the updated facts and you always explain them so I can understand.