"The best that a booster can offer us is a restoration of effectiveness, gaining back about 10% efficacy."
Why do you say that? Have you seen a study indicating that? Because I see no obvious reason that it would not increase efficacy beyond the original two-dose regimen, especially if you change to a different vaccine for the booster. (There have been studies showing that using different first and second doses produces better antibody and t-cell response than two of the same agent.)
I agree with your conclusion, which I agree is obvious, but that one sentence puzzles me.
How much better than 95% effectiveness would you expect a booster to be able to achieve?
Imagine you're right, and the booster does produce better protection than the original 2-dose regimen. Then we have...96% effectiveness? 97? 98? That's still the same order of magnitude as 10%, and is a really small marginal gain.
I don't really need a study to demonstrate that vaccinating new individuals is going to be better than anything a booster can do, because the absolute best a booster could do is get people to 15% better protection. Can't do better than 100% effectiveness, after all--and I don't think any vaccine has ever been 100% effective anyway.
I do think boosters have value for certain smaller populations that are at substantial risk--immunosuppressed folks, for example--but as a population strategy they're a losing proposition and that can be demonstrated just through a thought experiment.
"I do think boosters have value for certain smaller populations ... but as a population strategy they're a losing proposition and that can be demonstrated just through a thought experiment."
Depends on how fast the effectiveness of the first series falls off, of course. As I say, I agree with you as of the current situation.
The effectiveness of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines against Delta seems to be somewhere around 80%. I'd love to have my own protection boosted to 95%, but again, not until vaccines are available generally and globally.
Yes--if the effectiveness drop were a complete one to 0%, then the circumstances would be very different. Then, a booster that restores full effectiveness would be actually better than vaccinating new people, because it would get the same impact with half as many doses. But, that's not where we're at...thankfully. Yikes, that's frightening to contemplate.
"The best that a booster can offer us is a restoration of effectiveness, gaining back about 10% efficacy."
Why do you say that? Have you seen a study indicating that? Because I see no obvious reason that it would not increase efficacy beyond the original two-dose regimen, especially if you change to a different vaccine for the booster. (There have been studies showing that using different first and second doses produces better antibody and t-cell response than two of the same agent.)
I agree with your conclusion, which I agree is obvious, but that one sentence puzzles me.
How much better than 95% effectiveness would you expect a booster to be able to achieve?
Imagine you're right, and the booster does produce better protection than the original 2-dose regimen. Then we have...96% effectiveness? 97? 98? That's still the same order of magnitude as 10%, and is a really small marginal gain.
I don't really need a study to demonstrate that vaccinating new individuals is going to be better than anything a booster can do, because the absolute best a booster could do is get people to 15% better protection. Can't do better than 100% effectiveness, after all--and I don't think any vaccine has ever been 100% effective anyway.
I do think boosters have value for certain smaller populations that are at substantial risk--immunosuppressed folks, for example--but as a population strategy they're a losing proposition and that can be demonstrated just through a thought experiment.
"I do think boosters have value for certain smaller populations ... but as a population strategy they're a losing proposition and that can be demonstrated just through a thought experiment."
Depends on how fast the effectiveness of the first series falls off, of course. As I say, I agree with you as of the current situation.
The effectiveness of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines against Delta seems to be somewhere around 80%. I'd love to have my own protection boosted to 95%, but again, not until vaccines are available generally and globally.
Yes--if the effectiveness drop were a complete one to 0%, then the circumstances would be very different. Then, a booster that restores full effectiveness would be actually better than vaccinating new people, because it would get the same impact with half as many doses. But, that's not where we're at...thankfully. Yikes, that's frightening to contemplate.