What you call a “significant indication that a third dose of an mRNA vaccine has a good safety profile” seems to be mostly just statements by vaccine manufacturers. … Also, statements by vaccine manufacturers can obviously be important evidence (in a Bayesian sense) for the safety profile
I agree that statements by Pfizer and Moderna are important evidence. Additionally, the Moderna report I linked included “The frequency of any Grade 3 solicited local or systemic adverse events was 15% after the third dose of mRNA-1273 and 10.5% after the third dose of mRNA-1273.351. There were no Grade 4 solicited local or systemic adverse events. The most common solicited local adverse event was injection site pain in both groups. The most common solicited systemic adverse events after the third dose of mRNA-1273.351 or mRNA-1273 were fatigue, headache, myalgia and arthralgia. In general, mRNA-1273.351 had a lower reactogenicity profile than mRNA-1273 in this study.”
Perhaps I should have been more explicit about this evidence not having been reviewed yet by other parties.
Furthermore, in your list of 8 “reasons to not pursue a booster vaccine now” you don’t directly mention anything about potential health risks from taking a booster shot (which I’m not aware of the FDA claiming to be safe).
In that list is:
Some, such as the CDC and FDA, don’t think a booster is currently warranted.
More data on safety, optimal timing, etc. will be forthcoming and may help you make a better decision.
Given the evidence for a good safety profile (which also does include evidence I didn’t cite in my post), I personally think that this was an appropriate degree to which I indicated that safety wasn’t as validated as it could be, although perhaps:
Some, such as the CDC and FDA, don’t think a booster is currently warranted.
would have been better as:
Some, such as the CDC and FDA, don’t think a booster is currently warranted; they also have not reviewed the safety of a booster dose.
To be clear, something can be ‘substantial/important evidence’ (in a Bayesian sense) even if it causes one to update their credence in something from 1% to 2%.
You mostly use the word ‘indication’ instead of evidence (e.g. “There is significant indication that a third dose of an mRNA vaccine has a good safety profile” and “I agree with them that this indicates a similar safety profile to the first two doses”). I’m not sure what you mean by that word in this context. Can you share with us your credence in the prediction that: [in 5 years it will be widely believed that such a booster shot (taken in July 2021) had a good safety profile] [such a booster shot having a good safety profile]?
I agree that statements by Pfizer and Moderna are important evidence. Additionally, the Moderna report I linked included “The frequency of any Grade 3 solicited local or systemic adverse events was 15% after the third dose of mRNA-1273 and 10.5% after the third dose of mRNA-1273.351. There were no Grade 4 solicited local or systemic adverse events. The most common solicited local adverse event was injection site pain in both groups. The most common solicited systemic adverse events after the third dose of mRNA-1273.351 or mRNA-1273 were fatigue, headache, myalgia and arthralgia. In general, mRNA-1273.351 had a lower reactogenicity profile than mRNA-1273 in this study.”
I agree with them that this indicates a similar safety profile to the first two doses, in which “15.7 percent experienced a severe “systemic” adverse reaction and 7 percent, a severe “local” reaction.” https://www.vox.com/22158238/covid-19-vaccine-side-effects-explained
Perhaps I should have been more explicit about this evidence not having been reviewed yet by other parties.
In that list is:
Given the evidence for a good safety profile (which also does include evidence I didn’t cite in my post), I personally think that this was an appropriate degree to which I indicated that safety wasn’t as validated as it could be, although perhaps:
would have been better as:
Thanks for highlighting your concern!
To be clear, something can be ‘substantial/important evidence’ (in a Bayesian sense) even if it causes one to update their credence in something from 1% to 2%.
You mostly use the word ‘indication’ instead of evidence (e.g. “There is significant indication that a third dose of an mRNA vaccine has a good safety profile” and “I agree with them that this indicates a similar safety profile to the first two doses”). I’m not sure what you mean by that word in this context. Can you share with us your credence in
the prediction that: [in 5 years it will be widely believed that such a booster shot (taken in July 2021) had a good safety profile][such a booster shot having a good safety profile]?