- #1
- 4,789
- 3,852
- TL;DR
- FDA approved today 22--Sep-2021 booster shots (Pfizer COVID vaccine) for seniors 65+, immunocompromised, and health care workers
(US) FDA approves Covid Pfizer booster (3rd shot) for Seniors 65+....
- Thread starter jim mcnamara
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Covid
Click For Summary
Discussion Overview
The discussion centers around the FDA's approval of the Pfizer COVID-19 booster shot for seniors aged 65 and older, as well as other specified groups. Participants explore the implications of this decision, the categorization of individuals eligible for the booster, and comparisons with vaccination strategies in other countries, particularly the UK.
Discussion Character
- Debate/contested
- Technical explanation
- Conceptual clarification
Main Points Raised
- Some participants note that the FDA approved booster shots for seniors 65+, immunocompromised individuals, and healthcare workers, with additional categories for those aged 18-64 at high risk of severe COVID-19.
- There is a discussion about the complexity of medical terminology, with one participant expressing concern that terms like "metabolic syndrome" may confuse non-medical individuals.
- Another participant suggests that "metabolic syndrome" should be more widely recognized, citing statistics from the CDC about its prevalence among US adults.
- Participants compare the US approach to the UK's Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) stance, which suggests that COVID-19 vaccination for healthy children aged 12 to 15 may not be justified due to the marginal benefits compared to potential harms.
- Concerns are raised regarding the impact of COVID-19 on children's education, with a focus on the need to minimize school absences due to illness.
Areas of Agreement / Disagreement
Participants express differing views on the necessity and justification of booster shots for various age groups and health statuses. There is no consensus on the appropriateness of vaccination strategies for children, particularly in comparison to the UK’s recommendations.
Contextual Notes
Limitations include the lack of clarity on the definitions of terms like "high risk" and "metabolic syndrome," as well as the evolving nature of vaccination guidelines and recommendations in different countries.
- #2
.Scott
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
- 3,904
- 1,957
The second category is "individuals 18 through 64 years of age at high risk of severe COVID-19". That's the same language describing the category that was allowed early access to the vaccine in March. It isn't just "immunocompromised". It March, it was anyone with at least two of about 11 factors that made COVID especially dangerous - thing like diabetes, kidney disease, obesity, and immunocompromised.jim mcnamara said:
- #3
- 4,789
- 3,852
@.Scott
You are correct I did not exactly specify the entire population. Thanks.
I think it confuses non-medical people and sometimes me as well when we start using terms like metabolic syndrome, Addisons disease, PASC( post-acute sequelae SARS-CoV-2 infection ), etc. You are free to disagree.
Acronyms abound in medical-ese.
You are correct I did not exactly specify the entire population. Thanks.
I think it confuses non-medical people and sometimes me as well when we start using terms like metabolic syndrome, Addisons disease, PASC( post-acute sequelae SARS-CoV-2 infection ), etc. You are free to disagree.
Acronyms abound in medical-ese.
- #4
.Scott
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
- 3,904
- 1,957
I think "metabolic syndrome" needs to become part of the vernacular.jim mcnamara said:
From the CDC:
Or perhaps it is enough to say "get fat and you'll die much sooner".
- #5
pinball1970
Gold Member
2025 Award
- 3,677
- 5,844
Meanwhile at the other end of the scale in the UK
JCVI indicated that jabs for this age group is not justified but the government advisors are still rolling it out….so far.
“For otherwise healthy 12 to 15 year old children, their risk of severe COVID-19 disease is small and therefore the potential for benefit from COVID-19 vaccination is also small.
The JCVI’s view is that overall, the health benefits from COVID-19 vaccination to healthy children aged 12 to 15 years are marginally greater than the potential harms.”
“Taking a precautionary approach, this margin of benefit is considered too small to support universal COVID-19 vaccination for this age group at this time.
The committee will continue to review safety data as they emerge.”
The emphasis seems top be to stop kids having more time off sick damaging their education further.
https://www.theguardian.com/society...itable-unvaccinated-children-will-catch-covid
JCVI indicated that jabs for this age group is not justified but the government advisors are still rolling it out….so far.
“For otherwise healthy 12 to 15 year old children, their risk of severe COVID-19 disease is small and therefore the potential for benefit from COVID-19 vaccination is also small.
The JCVI’s view is that overall, the health benefits from COVID-19 vaccination to healthy children aged 12 to 15 years are marginally greater than the potential harms.”
“Taking a precautionary approach, this margin of benefit is considered too small to support universal COVID-19 vaccination for this age group at this time.
The committee will continue to review safety data as they emerge.”
The emphasis seems top be to stop kids having more time off sick damaging their education further.
https://www.theguardian.com/society...itable-unvaccinated-children-will-catch-covid