18 panel members voted 16-2 against the booster dose for 16+.
18-0 for the booster shot for 65+ for people with a higher risk for developing COVID, and the second group seems to include some essential workers like healthcare workers, teachers, etc.
I was thinking... Did they take a vote for 60+? 55+? 50+? (The UK is going with 50+ and Isreal initially with 60+.)
They did not take a vote for any other age cut off. I think this is part of what plays into my sense that, together, Pfizer and the FDA are sending mixed messages and not only making some of us feel unsafe, but feeding into vaccine hesitancy or being anti-vax.
Pfizer says that people 16+ need boosters after a certain period of time - and Israel is now doing that. The FDA seems to be saying there's not data to support that. But they aren't ruling it out; they are not saying that the data shows that a booster is unnecessary or unsafe for people who are, for example, 50. They say the data isn't there. That may be Pfizer's fault for not obtaining enough data. (And the CDC isn't doing a ton of data collection, though their abilities have been limited by the fact that our contact tracing and testing are decentralized and aren't nearly as good as some other countries.)
There apparently is data that those who have been vaccinated the longest now have a reduced protection against severe illness (hospitalization and death). But, is that because the vaccine's protection wanes for everyone or is that because the people who have been vaccinated the longest are those who qualified earliest to be vaccinated and tend to be the oldest people and those who have more frequent and more prolonged exposure to those who are sick with COVID, such as doctors and nurses? I don't know if the science and data answer that. But, Pfizer's messaging definitely undermines my confidence in the degree of protection I have, especially given that I would qualify for a booster in both the U.K. and Israel and given how long I have been vaccinated.
It also undermines my confidence in whether I am currently safe that some of the FDA members authored an article opposing boosters largely because that will impact the ability to give some people their first two shots. I understand that from an ethical perspective and from the perspective that reducing the number of infections also reduces the risk for new and more dangerous variants. But, it does make me wonder how much those concerns affected the FDA decision and what the science says about whether people under 65 (including myself) are at a significantly increased risk of getting sick from COVID after 6 months. I also understand that there is at least some information suggesting that there are some heart problems as side effects, especially for younger adults, so they may want more data on that before approving the booster for more people and they may think they have time for that since a lot of younger adults were vaccinated later. But, since I appear to fall into a category that does not seem to have those heart issues and I would receive the booster if I lived in Israel or the U.K., I have to wonder what the basis is for the decision to go with 65 and not lower.
For now, I'm just trying to be extra cautious, especially since others seem to be less cautious as time goes on.
