Boost now? Boost later? Tricky calculation for a 4th coronavirus shot/ WaPo--I say it's crazy to boost, given the facts laid out by the WPo itself

Here's the deal:  according to the best evidence, from generally healthy healthcare workers at Israel's top hospital, there is practically no protection by 2 months after the 4th shot.  (I blogged about this previously, and the Wapo correctly discusses these data today.  They are better than what was presented to the VRBPAC on April 6.) 

What the 4th shot might give you is a milder or asymptomatic case with high nasal virus titers, allowing you to spread COVID without realizing it.  Is that what our governments are now seeking:  to create asymptomatic spreaders?  Asymptomatic spreaders were the pandemic's bogeymen not so long ago.  I don't think creating millions of Typhoid Marys is the way to control COVID.

From the WaPo today:

Medical advisers to the federal government have debated the necessity and ethics of a fourth shot given that there are higher public health priorities, including reaching unvaccinated communities and ensuring wider global access to vaccines. But in their late March authorization, federal agencies said people 50 and older could get an additional booster it they are at least four months past their previous shot.

Strikingly, the agencies did not clearly recommend that booster for everyone who is eligible, and federal officials’ advice varies.

Rochelle Walensky, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said people 65 and older and those 50 and older with underlying medical conditions are most likely to benefit. Ashish Jha, White House covid-19 response coordinator, told “Fox News Sunday” the data were “pretty compelling” for people older than 60 to get a second booster. Anthony S. Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said on MSNBC that people older than 50 should get a fourth shot.Data from Israel, which offered fourth shots to people 60 and older during the omicron surge, show that the additional shot increases protection against severe illness and death compared with a third shot. But against infections — most of which are officially deemed “mild” — a fourth shot provided only a modest and brief increase in protection, peaking at four weeks after the booster dose and dropping back to the baseline after eight weeks.

“[T]hese findings suggest that protection against confirmed infection wanes quickly,” the researchers concluded.

The article concludes with these quotes, which I think foreshadow the slow demise of the COVID vaccine program:

“Instead of more boosts of the same original thing, I think we need to use a better vaccine,” said Erica Saphire, president and CEO of the La Jolla Institute for Immunology.

Kristian Andersen, an immunologist at Scripps Research, has contended that people need to be boosted every six months or so. 

[Kristian is the first author of the March 2020 Nature Medicine article coverup of lab origin: Fauci's boy who was rewarded with large grants a few weeks later.  But he might be right here.  Whatever he says, you can be sure he is providing you with the cabal's messaging.]

“We just need to realize that immunity, unfortunately, wanes pretty quickly,” Andersen said. “We don’t want that to be true. We want lifelong immunity. We want measles-type immunity.”

He said that is wishful thinking at the moment.

“Our default assumption should be that we need to broaden immunity. If we don’t, the virus will bypass immunity even more than it has already with omicron. … But we’re not planning for that,” Andersen said. “Our entire response to this has been based on equal measure hope and wishful thinking, and that continues to this day.”

Didn't I tell you the vaccine narrative ship was turning?