"don't recommend" isn't the same as "recommend don't." They clearly state other people in those age ranges can get it. This makes the recommendation much closer than what you seem to be suggesting. (I'm not actually sure why you are bringing up Norwegian vaccine guidance, unless it's to suggest getting the booster is a bad idea for everyone else or maybe you are Norweigan).
>"don't recommend" isn't the same as "recommend don't." They clearly state other people in those age ranges can get it.
Come on. This is not how medical recommendations work. It's either recommended, or it's not. If the medical community thinks people should get it, they would recommend it. Besides that, Harvard is mandating the vaccine.
>I'm not actually sure why you are bringing up Norwegian vaccine guidance, unless it's to suggest getting the booster is a bad idea for everyone else or maybe you are Norweigan
Why not? Are Norwegians some mutant species with different abilities to research and/or needs of their populace? Why are some bodies requiring it, and others are mostly indifferent? Who's right?
> This is not how medical recommendations work. It's either recommended, or it's not.
That's not how this works at all. For instance there is no recommendation for flu vaccine except for at-risk groups by the EMA, yet there is a request to achieve a 75% vaccination coverage by countries which clearly implies that people should be vaccinated for whom there is no recommendation.
This is not true. The Norwegians clearly state they are ok with people outside their recommendations getting the vaccine, which contradicts what your saying based off of that guidance. Either follow their guidance or don't, but don't do so selectively if you are using this as the foundation of your argument
They don't recommend because they don't see clear evidence in outcomes. See my EMA link below. This doesn't make the recommendation any closer than recommending not to.
No, "not having evidence" isn't the same as having evidence against. They clearly state in that website that it's ok for people outside of there recommendations to get the booster.
> At the moment, there is no clear evidence to support giving a second booster dose to people below 60 years of age who are not at higher risk of severe disease.[1]
The booster is an approved and safe procedure, but it confers no benefit unless you have risk factors.
I’m not antivax or anti-medicine in any way but shouldn’t the null position be don’t inject things into your body and then it takes at least some evidence to overcome that?
Well, there are plenty of approved drugs with tests and clinical trials that were later withdrawn from the market for being dangerous. What I'm saying is that the process is not infallible and in some cases it proved to be susceptible to corruption. We need to improve the process and that's not going to happen by blindly trusting Big Pharma.
Of course it's not infallible but you have to "put up or shut up". Saying the FDA is fallible is not evidence that vaccination recommendations are in error. A country not recommending a vaccine is not evidence that the vaccine doesn't work or is dangerous. What data did they use to make that decision?
Suppose the FDA, as opposed to Norwegian authorities, approved the vaccine with an indication of over 65, pregnant women, and those with serious underlying conditions. It could be taken off label by others but that was the approval. Would you then say healthy 18-22 year old should not take it?
Clinical trials gets a drug approved for use. It proves that the drug meets certain safety requirements.
Just because a drug is approved doesn't mean you should take it indiscriminately. It is "safe" to drink NyQuil every night. Doesn't mean you should. If it confers no benefit to you in your unique circumstance, you shouldn't take it. Hence, the booster is not recommended for certain groups - because it is not needed and provides no benefit.
> If the Phase 2 trials indicate that the drug may be effective--and the risks are considered acceptable, given the observed efficacy and the severity of the disease--the drug moves to Phase 3.
Yeah but the FDA is famous for approving expensive drugs that have no/little effect. So at least in the USA if a drug is approved it doesn’t mean it does anything useful
Fame is about one spectacular thing not usally a body of work. There are lots of drugs they routinely approve but it’s how they handle the big controversial ones that shape the public image
Recommendation is an established concept when it comes to vaccines. When you travel to country X then it's recommended to get vaccines for A, B, C. Or when you have age N and gender G you are recommended to get vaccines D, E, F. And so on. In many instances, whether your insurance pays or not depends on whether the vaccine is recommended for you by official authorities. At least in Germany, a doctor if they deem it useful for your health is still authorized to order the vaccine and put it into your arm, but you have to pay the bill for that. Sometimes insurances also pay for non-recommended vaccinations.
The same goes for therapies for diseases. Each disease has a list of therapies/drugs available that are officially recommended by authorities, and usually what insurances pay for is based on that, but exceptions exist (in both directions).
However, "don't recommend" is very different from "mandate", which is what is happening in the US.
If this was literally any other medical procedure, the "trust the experts" crowd would be protesting the US ignoring what the rest of the world thinks.
