Page six labels the 512 BA.4/BA.5 test as "Part H"
> Part H enrolled Aug 10-23, 2022
These people entered the study less than a month ago?
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2022/08/18/1117778...
> Part H enrolled Aug 10-23, 2022
These people entered the study less than a month ago?
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2022/08/18/1117778...
As that article notes, flu shots have a similar regulatory regime:
> And some scientists say health officials know enough about how vaccines work to start handling the COVID-19 vaccines like the flu vaccines, which are changed every year to try to match whatever strains are likely to be circulating but aren't routinely tested again every year.
and that the new vaccine still expresses the original proteins the already-approved vaccinations were expressing; in the worst-case scenario that mice and humans react similarly to Alpha/Delta but wildly differently to Omicron/BA.4/BA.5, we're still likely generating the at least the original immune response:
> The new booster will be identical to the original vaccines except it will contain genetic coding for two versions of the protein the virus uses to infect cells — the protein from the original vaccine and proteins from the BA.4 and BA.5 omicron subvariants.
A rapid approval process is going to be important for boosters, for the same reasons it is in flu shots. It's very clear the claim that it was only tested on eight mice is false.
Kinda like how we get a new flu vaccine every year that doesn't go through a years long clinical study
(Edit to fix a typo)
You are anti this vaccine, and your posture is largely fear based rather than scientifically consistent given your not-an-anti-vaxxer self probably gets every year
You see the tautology here, right?
Many years of experience with vaccination gives us useful info on how bodies react to them, which allows us to approve vaccines based on logical criteria.
It is possible to believe the vaccines are safe, and to support their use, while still conceding this point.
Sure, that'd require a time machine. Thus, we're left going "hey, what happened with every other vaccination we've ever done?" and making decisions based on that wealth of information.
People attempting to make this point like to pretend the same isn't true for not getting the vaccine. What's the long-term effect of unvaccinated people getting COVID? Do we have a 20 year safety study on going unvaccinated in this pandemic?
Now you're being disingenuous. There is another approach, and it is the one traditionally endorsed by the medical profession: prudence.
Put plainly: the deontologically correct way of proceeding would have been to say "we don't know enough to assert the vaccines are safe", and not thrust them onto an unwilling public.
>Do we have a 20 year safety study on going unvaccinated in this pandemic?
No. This is why I am not arguing against vaccines. I am arguing against mandates.