Follow the Science. Whose Science?

Image by Katja Fuhlert from Pixabay

James Earl Biden. Yesterday was supposed to be the day when almost all American adults could start getting the first booster shot for the Pfizer vaccination. On August 18 the Biden Administration announced that a Pfizer booster shot would be available to Americans who received their second Pfizer dose at least eight months prior. At the time of the announcement, Biden said, “This will boost your immune response. It will increase your protection from COVID-19.  That’s the best way to protect ourselves from new variants that could arise.”

While the Biden announcement contained the usual boilerplate notation that approvals had to be secured from the FDA and CDC before the booster program could begin, it seemed obvious that the administration expected approval.

The scheduled date for broad based Pfizer booster shots came and went yesterday without a broad based booster program.

Follow the science? Health and Human Services “medical experts,” including CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, issued a statement on the same day Biden predicted booster shots starting on Sept 20 (yesterday). It read, in part: “Based on our latest assessment, the current protection against severe disease, hospitalization, and death could diminish in the months ahead, especially among those who are at higher risk or were vaccinated during the earlier phases of the vaccination rollout. For that reason, we conclude that a booster shot will be needed to maximize vaccine-induced protection and prolong its durability.”

Ready, set … stop! Per VerywellHealth, “On September 17, an advisory committee to the Food and Drug (FDA) Administration voted 16 to 2 against approving booster doses of Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine for all adults ages 16 and older. It did, however, recommend boosters for certain people — including those at high risk for serious illness and people over the age of 65.”

The FDA advisory committee’s decision is not binding on the FDA as a whole. However, a 16-2 vote against broadly providing booster shots at this time certainly sounds like an impediment to near-term FDA approval.

Who is on first? The CDC issues statements saying, in part, ” … we conclude that a booster shot will be needed to maximize vaccine-induced protection and prolong its durability.” President Biden described the booster program as, “the best way to protect ourselves from new variants that could arise.” The Israelis have implemented a booster shot program. They have also initiated studies on the effectiveness of the booster program. “What we discovered is that the vaccine’s effectiveness with respect to viral load gradually wanes over time, until after six months, [viral load] reaches a high level, similar to that of an unvaccinated person,” said Matan Levine-Tiefenbrun, a doctoral student at Tel Aviv University who is also affiliated with the Technion and was the lead researcher. “Nevertheless, we discovered that the booster shot brings the viral load back down by a factor of four, to what it was before.”

Follow the science? What science? The Israeli science? The CDC science? The science as summarized by Biden? The science of the FDA sub-committee.

But why?  To the layman it seems unclear why the FDA sub-committee voted 16-2 against a broad roll-out of booster shots. The explanations oscillate between needing more data and concerns about myocarditis, especially among young men and boys. However, other factors may be involved. A number of so-called western medical experts have begun claiming that booster shots in the West amount to a “vaccine nationalism.” In their estimation, any additional vaccines available should should be shipped to poor countries rather than used in the West for boosters. The U.N., through the World Health Organization, has called for a moratorium on booster shots until more of the developing world gets their first jabs. Could the FDA sub-committee be channeling Gen. Mark Milley with a bit of freelance foreign policy? Biden speaks at the U.N. today. Maybe his administration wanted to get past this speech before defying the WHO.

Fallout. As the Houston Chronicle reports, “State health officials are bracing for confusion as they manage expectations about coronavirus boosters that President Joe Biden announced last month would be widely available to adults this week.” Chaos and confusion seem to become the handmaiden of Biden’s statements and policies, from Afghanistan to a submarine deal with the Aussies that somehow has the French in fits. Now we have the booster bungle.

Michael Fraser, Executive Director of the Association of State and Territorial Health officials is feeing the pain. He said, ” … “the expectation has been set by the administration that we now have to manage. It puts the states in a difficult position.” Incompetence at the federal level often puts people in “difficult positions.”

As Chron reports, “Some states, such as Virginia, anticipating the interest in boosters, have posted online notices urging residents to be patient and to wait for further guidance once final recommendations have been provided by the federal government.”

The chief medical officer for Alaska wants to know if her state can start giving booster shots when they have vaccines nearing expiration and patients who understand the risks. Good question.

Finally, in a development that should surprise nobody, Americans are finding ways to get the booster with or without the federal government’s approval. As a pharmacist in New York’s East Village says, “We don’t ask for proof. If you think you are eligible, then we give a third dose.”  I guess that’s one way to “follow the science”.

— DJ Rippert


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

40 responses to “Follow the Science. Whose Science?”

  1. I re-wrote Don’s headline from “Biden Bungles the Boosters” to “Follow the Science? Whose Science?” I give our contributors wide latitude to write on topics of their own choosing with the proviso that there’s always a Virginia tie-in. Don’s post doesn’t explicitly tie in to Virginia until the the third-to-final paragraph, and only in passing.

    That’s not to say that the subject matter covered in Don’s post is irrelevant here. A phrase we perennially hear is “follow the science” — here in Virginia as elsewhere. It is one of Governor Northam’s catch phrases. There is a conceit among our ruling class and its apologists that certain COVID policies follow the “science,” unlike the “disinformation” spread by anti-maskers and anti-vaxxers heard among the great unwashed. Now we have a case in which there is a disagreement in the ruling class on what the “science” is.

    That discussion is as relevant in Virginia as it is anywhere, and one worth discussing on this blog.

    1. DJRippert Avatar

      Fair enough. While there may not be much of a unique tie in to Virginia … these national matters certainly affect Virginia.

      On Sept 20 Virginia experienced 8,943 new cases of COVID raising our 5 day average to 3,580.

      COVID deaths have trended up as well – from low single digit 7-day averages in July to a 7 day average of 32 yesterday.

      As an aside, I don’t believe anybody has accurate data on the level of breakthrough infections. How many fully vaccinated people even bother with getting tested if they feel a relatively minor cold / flu coming on?

    2. LarrytheG Avatar

      re: ” Now we have a case in which there is a disagreement in the ruling class on what the “science” is.”

      It’s not a first time at all. Such disagreements are common, but largely unnoticed by many who don’t pay much attention anyhow.

      Where in the world does “ruling class” come from to start with? We insist on being paranoid about govt and science?

      But it’s just silly to believe that because there is disagreement in science , to then disavow science or worse start believing folks who are not scientists or even if they are but have no background in the field they are weighing in on.

      “Follow the Science” has never been unquestioned acceptance of any/all of science. Science does not work that way and never has.

      It IS and always has been – an evolving body of knowledge – that is never static and is always changing… it’s the best assessment – at any given point in time.

      1. DJRippert Avatar

        “But it’s just silly to believe that because there is disagreement in science , to then disavow science or worse start believing folks who are not scientists or even if they are but have no background in the field they are weighing in on.”

        The CDC issued a statement on Aug 18 clearly stating that boosters were necessary.

        The FDA sub-committee voted 16-2 against boosters os Sept 17.

        Which group should be disavowed and which should be believed?

        1. LarrytheG Avatar

          There is not a consensus – CLEARLY.

          It may well take some time for consensus – as there are conflicting policy issues.

          The CDC and FDA have a long history of “not agreeing”. They interests are somewhat adversarial to begin with. Sort of like the NTSB and FAA.

          That’s not a bad thing but it IS troublesome for folks looking for flat simple answers.

          It’s not to be,but in my mind, what is important is that they are experts in their fields.. they have the academic knowledge and career background to deal with the issues – much more so than people who do not have those credentials.

  2. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
    Dick Hall-Sizemore

    In its effort and enthusiasm to stay in front of COVID and avoid a possible resurgence this winter, the Biden administration got too far out in front of itself. As Don notes, the proposal to make the boosters available on Sept. 20 was always contingent on FDA approval. But that was not emphasized and folks just overlooked or ignored that aspect of the plan.

    Because we need a flu shot each year, I always assumed that “boosters” or annual COVID shots would be needed.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      I did also but was willing to let it play out in the scientific community – as opposed to cursing the darkness and blaming science and other foolishness.

    2. DJRippert Avatar

      Biden was on the right track with his Sept. 20 idea. But his execution was badly lacking. As President, setting a specific date and then missing that date doesn’t instill much confidence in the vaccine reluctant.

      The fact that it’s hard to really understand the reasons for the sub-committee’s 16-2 vote against recommending boosters at this time also beggars the question of how safe these vaccines really are? At least, in some people’s minds.

      1. Stephen Haner Avatar
        Stephen Haner

        Gee, was something else going on at the time which Biden might want to distract attention from with this half-assed effort? Something in Asia?

      2. LarrytheG Avatar

        I thought Biden screwed up when he did essentially similar stuff not unlike Trump –

        Biden should have CONSULTED with FDA/CDC – BEFORE he said what he said – IMHO – for no other reason besides looking stupid AND unnerving the public by demonstrating he was not consulting.

        There actually is something called leadership.
        IMHO again.

        1. DJRippert Avatar

          Trump is gone now. Time to focus on the present and the future.

          1. LarrytheG Avatar

            Oh I agree.. I’m just saying Biden is far from perfect… and apparently prone to some similar flaws.

  3. Where is the CDC/NIH study on acquired immunity? Not a single study has been done, nor published, nor discussed. When Fauci was asked about it last week, he’s response: “That’s something we need to look into” LOOK INTO? A YEAR AND HALF AFTER this all started our all-star health officials HAVE NOT EXAMINED this aspect. I think I can proposed the next over the horizon drone strike.

    1. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      You need definite cases, AND they cannot have received a vaccine. I don’t see many of the unvaccinated rushing to be members of a government conspiratorial study, do you? Why, Hell, they’ll probably inject them with tracking chips.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        and…. CDC/FDA do not, by themselves, do any/all studies… they consult credible studies from credentialed scientists around the world.

  4. DJRippert Avatar

    Unvaccinated Israelis – who account for 17 percent of the population eligible for a vaccine – make up about two-thirds of the total number of serious cases.

    Which means, I think, that 1/3 of the people with serious cases have been vaccinated.

    In the over-60 age group, 222 of patients in serious condition are unvaccinated, while 101 have received two doses of the vaccine and 46 have received a booster shot. Among those under 60 who are in serious condition, 200 are unvaccinated, 49 have received two doses, and seven have received a booster shot.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      We’ve mentioned Israel several times about vaccinations and boosters but do we know how other developed countries are dealing with these issues?

      Is there some reason why Israel has become the standard for the issue?

      1. killerhertz Avatar
        killerhertz

        Because Israel publishes their data in a transparent manner and they achieved mass vaccination the earliest.

  5. Stephen Haner Avatar
    Stephen Haner

    My doc has already told me to go to the pharmacy, mention my age and cardiac history, and it is likely I can get the third shot. Just did the flu vax and I want to create some space, but if EUA is not granted soon will do just that.

    Biden doesn’t have to be competent at anything. Anything. He just needs to continue being “not Trump.”

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      did you also get the pneumonia vax?

      1. Stephen Haner Avatar
        Stephen Haner

        When I turned the magic 65, sure. Hey, I’ve seen evidence that the flu vax had at least some value in preventing COVID. Basically any exercise for the ol’ immune system is good.

        Ah, Larry, who worships “science”. I hope you’ve noticed how messy this has been, and how stupid it is to have the blind faith in “consensus,” because the consensus is quite often totally wrong.

        I’m growing more convinced that the drug guys knew full well at the beginning that a third shot would be needed. Certainly the hints were there.
        So wrong and messy might not be the only problems….might have to add dishonest.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar

          I don’t “worship” science at all. I’m totally pragmatic about it rather than choosing to be ignorant about it.

          “Consensus” is not 100%, of course, but when a significant number of people who have the background and knowledge in a field have some collective concurrence, it’s NOT AT ALL like folks who have no background and knowledge blathering out their respective butts.

          On the 3rd shot, how would you even know ? Why not just two or four or one every year? How would any uneducated person have a clue, much less question someone who really is an expert in that field?

          It’s not a guessing game where some “smart people” are better at guessing than others…

          If we’re gonna go on “guesses” on epidemiology, as bad as some think it is , I’ll take the folks who have the requisite background and knowledge ANY day over “smart people”.

          1. DJRippert Avatar

            Consensus?

            1. The Israelis have already done the Pfizer booster shots.

            2. Biden essentially said “Sept 20” the US would follow Israel.

            3. The CDC issued a “we need boosters” statement on Aug 18.

            4. The UN, through the WHO, says boosters are immoral and possibly fuel variants in those who could have used the booster as their first pr second shot.

            5. The sub-committee, in a very lopsided vote, said, “no”.

            6. The rules have been rigged to allow a lot pf people not qualified by the limited approval to get the shot anyway.

            This isn’t consensus it’s chaos.

          2. LarrytheG Avatar

            Yes. – there is NOT “consensus” on the boosters.. CLEARLY!

            And YES, throw some politics in to boot!

            The FDA/CDC seems to have arrived at a consensus on boosters for most Americans.

            In the meantime, the FDA thinks kids can get shots.

            It’s two-steps forward, one step-back.

            Ya’ll are hard to please.

            If there are no rules, it’s CHAOS

            If there ARE rules, it’s the “ruling class” and King Northam.

            which is it?

          3. Matt Adams Avatar

            Science is not “consensus”, never has been and never will be. I find it humorous that even when you were confronted with a quote regarding the notion of “scientific consensus” from an M.D. you still parrot it.

            You’d be better off talking to a virologist about our current situation.

            “If we’re gonna go on “guesses” on epidemiology, as bad as some think it is , I’ll take the folks who have the requisite background and knowledge ANY day over “smart people”.”

            Also, the smart people quip again, making you look more and more foolish.

    2. energyNOW_Fan Avatar
      energyNOW_Fan

      Also got the flu vax last week. Wow it seemed potent this year. Of course we get the older persons 4x dose flu shot. I will get Pfizer #3 after I see if you sruvive a triple dose.

      Larry- I got the first pneumonia shot at Age 60 on my request, because I knew the older you are, the less effective it is. At 65 I got the Prevnar a few years ago. This year I may repeat the first shot, and next year I may repeat the Prevnar. I am confused why they make us wait to 65 for the pneumonia shots. Still have not done the Shingles.

        1. energyNOW_Fan Avatar
          energyNOW_Fan

          In so many words, it says I can get another PPSV23 as I planned to do next, but they are not recommending another Prevnar 13.

  6. LarrytheG Avatar

    The “science” has NEVER been absolute nor without change. It’s a misconception to think otherwise.

    And the fights between the CDC and FDA are not rare either.

    This is a new virus and the “science” is ongoing and far from consensus, much less “settled”.

    We all want certitude and quick to blame when it’s not there.

    The truth is that science is still learning AND that politics is also part of it.

    Don’t forget that “science” produced the vaccines including the boosters that most take for granted, even the critics.

    When science says “boosters” and disagrees, as frustrating as it is , it is NOT a reason to then gravitate to “un-science” , i.e. “smart people” who have little or no specific epidemiology background but more than willing to put their opinions up there with folks who actually do have the appropriate backgrounds and knowledge.

    Yes – DO – “follow the science” but be an adult about it. Science is not Santa Claus.

    1. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      So you are open to the strong and growing evidence that the Climate Catastrophe narrative is total bull? No you aren’t. Science to you is just an extension of politics and control.

      1. Matt Adams Avatar

        Of course not, that science has been “settled”. Reminds me of a FPOTUS who said their view evolved.

      2. LarrytheG Avatar

        I’m open to the science on climate of which you clearly are not – and you’re in a minority that is getting smaller and smaller and clearly anti-science.

        1. DJRippert Avatar

          “To clarify: There will be no nationwide mandate. I was referring to mandates by private institutions and portions of the federal government,” Walensky wrote in a Twitter post. “There will be no federal mandate.”

          That statement was made about five weeks before Biden announced the mandates.

          https://www.reuters.com/world/us/biden-administration-weighing-federal-mandate-covid-19-vaccine-cdc-director-2021-07-30/

          1. LarrytheG Avatar

            Who knows what she really meant but if she meant a universal to everyone, man women and child from the POTUS – probably not.

  7. killerhertz Avatar
    killerhertz

    The headline should have just been “Biden Bungles”

  8. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    It’s cost effective to not boost everyone, not that a 20-year old would not benefit physically, but society, ICUs specifically, would not as much.

    If they developed vaccines for the clap, then everyone over 10 would benefit equally, but shingles, pneumococcal pneumonia? Not so much.

    Now go get your whooping cough and flu vaccines

    1. DJRippert Avatar

      But it’s not cost effective to let young, healthy UVa students who have gotten end recovered from COVID to bypass their original vaccinations?

      Plus, Biden could have said his administration would start giving boosters to those over 40 on Sept 20 if anybody can suspend their disbelief long enough to think Biden gives a rat’s ass about the cost effectiveness of federal programs.

      1. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        You’re forgetting the cost of verification. Do you think the Army asks a recruit, “Have you had a tetanus vaccine in the last year?” Or, do they just line ’em up and inject them?

        1. Matt Adams Avatar

          “Nancy Naive DJRippert • 8 minutes ago
          You’re forgetting the cost of verification. Do you think the Army asks a recruit, “Have you had a tetanus vaccine in the last year?” Or, do they just line ’em up and inject them?”

          If you have your shot records, you provide them at MEPS else, you get the shot.

Leave a Reply