Comment: FDA should fix its ‘one-size-fits-all’ booster advice

For older at-risk adults, more frequent covid boosters may be necessary, but others should wait longer.

By Faye Flam / Bloomberg Opinion

The Food and Drug Administration needs a new covid vaccine policy that follows the latest immunology and vaccine efficacy data. At a meeting scheduled for Thursday, the agency should acknowledge booster shots aren’t having much effect on the spread of covid. Pushing them on young, healthy people is a waste of resources and a drain on public trust.

If given at the right time, the boosters still decrease the odds of getting severely ill or dying; and any policy going forward has to focus on the people most at risk. But the ideal timing is complicated, and getting more shots isn’t necessarily better. The FDA’s plan, according to early reports, is to push boosters every fall, like flu shots; which makes sense for those at low risk but might not suit those over 75, who might benefit from more frequent shots.

Currently, the U.S. government has switched to a reformulated, “bivalent” booster; and the FDA has authorized the use of the Moderna version for everyone over six months of age and more than two months past the previous shot. While the FDA has authority over who can get which vaccine, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has made a recommendation that everyone get all the boosters they’re eligible for, though it does suggest people who were recently infected can wait three months from the onset of symptoms. But some immunologists say a booster will have only marginal benefit if given just two months after a previous shot (or three after an infection).

“The longer you wait, the better the boost,” says Dan Barouch, a vaccine researcher at Harvard Medical School and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, and a lead developer of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine. “If you get the booster two to three months after [a past boost] you really have a marginal benefit,” he said. “If you wait eight months, then you have at least a short-term benefit of 40 percent to 50 percent.”

Barouch pointed to new CDC data that showed those who got the bivalent shot had a temporary protection against symptomatic illness of 28 percent to 31 percent, but those who waited more than eight months saw protection between 43 percent to 56 percent.

It’s not clear how long that protection lasts; or whether the people who waited eight months might get longer-lasting protection than those who rushed to get the new booster.

For some high-risk people, there’s a downside to waiting. “If you have an elderly person and they get critically ill three months from now because they didn’t get the booster, then obviously that’s not better off,” Barouch says.

Paul Offit, director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, quoted that same CDC data in a recent New England Journal of Medicine opinion piece to argue that booster dosing is “probably best reserved for the people most likely to need protection against severe disease.”

He also pointed to a couple of disappointing studies of the new bivalent booster, which has been the only one available since September, reformulated with a component of the (no longer dominant) BA.4 and BA.5 variants. The studies showed it worked no better than the original booster. These were test-tube experiments using human serum and truncated versions of different variants. The shots have never been directly compared in a clinical trial.

It’s still a good boost, said Barouch, who is author of one of those studies; just not likely to be any more protective than the old one.

A recent, unpublished study out of the Cleveland Clinic reported that among health-care workers, those who got four shots had more infections than those who got three or two. Barouch said that doesn’t necessarily reflect a problem with subjects getting their shots spaced too close together. But it does mean we can’t assume that more shots are always better.

So, what’s the ideal timing for a booster for most people? “Well, the expert opinion is currently divided,” he said.

Immunologist Duane Wesemann of Harvard Medical School said he’s happy with the CDC’s current recommendation, as long as the public and doctors understand that a two-month wait is a minimum; and not optimal timing for most people.

He said he had a patient who had just recovered from covid a few weeks earlier, and who had had a rare allergic reaction to earlier shots, but nevertheless was being required by an employer to get a new booster. Wesemann said he managed to convince the employer to listen to reason. He doesn’t fault the CDC; the problem was with the employer for making the false assumption that anyone who doesn’t get as many shots as possible is a threat to others.

I asked him why timing would matter at all for boosters. He explained that there’s a slow process that happens in your immune system. After an infection or a vaccine, antibodies diversify, making a variety of slightly different versions of themselves. Waiting longer between shots means the boost will have more to work with; and will amplify the antibodies best suited to target the viral spike protein.

Wesemann hasn’t gotten the bivalent booster yet because he just had covid-19 in September. I, too, have waited because I also tested positive for a few days in September, have no comorbidities and am not elderly. Paul Offit said he skipped getting a second booster in 2022 because he got covid in the spring.

Some have worried about the prospect of immune imprinting; the idea that our immune systems are stuck on the original variant and aren’t responding to the new component of the bivalent booster. But Wesemann sees it differently. He points out that our immune systems and our now-outdated vaccines are keeping the hospitalization and death rates relatively low even with infections surging.

“Our immune system is still able to learn,” he said. “I get the sense from some of this debate out there that people think that their immune system is a lot dumber than it is.”

Back in 2021, getting vaccinated probably did serve to protect others by reducing the odds you’d get infected in the first place. That’s changed now that most antivaxxers have been infected, and new variants have allowed the virus to get around vaccine-induced immunity. The FDA should lead the shift away from one-size-fits-all mandates toward a more nuanced conversation about individual levels of risk.

Faye Flam is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering science. She is host of the “Follow the Science” podcast.

Talk to us

> Give us your news tips.

> Send us a letter to the editor.

> More Herald contact information.

More in Opinion

Artist Natalie Niblack works amongst her project entitled “33 Birds / Three Degrees” during the setup for Exploring The Edge at Schack Art Center on Sunday, March 19, 2023, in Everett, Washington. The paintings feature motion-activated speakers that play each bird’s unique call. (Ryan Berry / The Herald)
Editorial: For 50 years Schack Art Center there for creation

The art center is more art studio than museum, supporting artists and fostering creativity in kids.

Editorial cartoons for Wednesday, June 12

A sketchy look at the news of the day.… Continue reading

Everett principal Betty Cobbs served kids, community for 51 years

Education and community. Those words are the best America has to offer;… Continue reading

Tufekci: Covid a lesson for officials on fragility of trust

In seeking to manage the message, scientists and officials took risks that have cost the public’s trust.

Collins: Republicans’ zeal against Biden’s son a double-standard

While they’re attacking Hunter Biden’s gun possession, they’re working to relax similar gun measures.

Snohomish School District’s Clayton Lovell plugs in the district’s electric bus after morning routes on Thursday, March 6, 2024, at the district bus depot in Snohomish, Washington. (Ryan Berry / The Herald)
Editorial: Money well spent on switch to electric school buses

With grants awarded to local school districts, a study puts a dollar figure on health, climate savings.

Mangrove trees roots, Rhizophora mangle, above and below the water in the Caribbean sea, Panama, Central America
Editorial: Support local newspapers work to hometowns’ benefit

A writer compares them to mangrove trees, filtering toxins and providing support to their neighbors.

FILE - A worker cleans a jet bridge at Paine Field in Everett, Wash., before passengers board an Alaska Airlines flight, March 4, 2019. Seattle-based Alaska Airlines owns Horizon Air. Three passengers sued Alaska Airlines on Thursday, Nov. 2, 2023, saying they suffered emotional distress from an incident last month in which an off-duty pilot, was accused of trying to shut down the engines of a flight from Washington state to San Francisco. (AP Photo/Ted S. Warren, File)
Editorial: FAA bill set to improve flight safety, experience

With FAA reauthorization, Congress proves it’s capable of legislating and not just throwing shade.

Editorial cartoons for Tuesday, June 11

A sketchy look at the news of the day.… Continue reading

Krugman: Yes, the debt is huge, but we’ve got bigger problems

Reducing the debt is a relatively simple task, but it takes political will and bipartisan action now in short supply.

National leaders must address U.S. debt crisis

Kel Wilson’s Forum essay regarding the national debt is important (“National debt… Continue reading

Work and wisdom of Trump’s trial jury should be respected

Donald Trump was convicted on 34 felony counts of falsification of business… Continue reading

Support local journalism

If you value local news, make a gift now to support the trusted journalism you get in The Daily Herald. Donations processed in this system are not tax deductible.