Originally Posted by
jimcav
I'm not really following that rationale. If there was some significant personal or financial risk incurred in helping protect others in society by getting a booster, I'd see your point regarding being personally at lower risk and less in need of booster. However, there really isn't any documented significant additive risk in getting the booster after the initial 2-dose series (or single J&J), and for most here in CA, "can't afford the booster" isn't really a thing.
The studies show the booster not only increases personal protection to a personally serious negative outcome, but also reduces the infectiousness (ie spread) to others that aren't or can't get vaccinated (and these individuals continue to die in far greater absolute numbers each day than the high(er)-risk already-vaccinated). So, I don't really fathom the decision to not get the free, available booster.
Even if one is not at high-risk of a personal bad outcome from C-19, not getting the booster means any breakthrough infection one might get is more infectious than if post-booster: ie a choice to be a greeter risk to others. Each time a possible path for Delta to maximize it's purpose (max reproduction and reaching the next host) is allowed to remain, versus being reduced, that just ensures the pandemic continues. With widely circulating virus still present, all these seemingly small, individual decisions in total have large consequences, often for other individuals who have very limited options.
Bookmarks