It doesn’t explicitly forbid younger people from getting another dose now after having one last autumn. (I don’t think that’s how the CDC operates.) However, it does give advice, and pharmacies make policy based on that advice. The result is that at least some pharmacies are denying an update dose unless the customer is 65+ or immunocompromised, or didn’t get one last autumn.
I was surprised to learn this, so I checked for myself. The pharmacists I spoke to confirmed it. That was roughly 2-3 weeks ago, so I suppose something might have changed very recently, but I have no reason to think so.
Hm… I wonder if that could have anything to do with last autumn’s doses no longer being effective and the public health officials still not approving another dose for most people under 65.
You then cited a page that stresses the importance of vaccinations for the elderly and immunocompromised. My link is CDC efficacy conformation of Omicron, the current virulent strain, by the vaccine available last fall.
Please, find me a quote on that page that suggests lower efficacy for those under 65. It does not state or suggest an age minimum.
The page I linked was about efficacy of the vaccine against the Omicron variant. That is the vaccine I received, as well as the variant to which I was exposed. It’s absolutely applicable to what you wrote, as I’m under 65 and not immunocompromised.
Pharmacies do not have a right to refuse unless supply is constrained and you are not part of the priority group. You were either duped by the pharmacist, or they were low on supply at the time.
Your information is incorrect, and you should stop spreading it.
Please, find me a quote on that page that suggests lower efficacy for those under 65.
I have no idea how you interpreted what I wrote to mean that.
When I mentioned last autumn’s doses no longer being effective, I was simply referring to the fact that protection from these vaccines drops drastically over time. All the data I’ve seen shows it to be a small fraction of what it once was by the time 6 months have passed. I am not suggesting that this is somehow different for people of a certain age.
Edit: Data from one such study. That one would have been easy for you to find, had you actually tried, since it was circulated by various medical research outlets and reported by Time Magazine: “After six months, the overall effectiveness of the vaccines dropped further to 14%, and to 9% after nine months.”
Pharmacies do not have a right to refuse unless supply is constrained and you are not part of the priority group. You were either duped by the pharmacist, or they were low on supply at the time.
The priority group is age 65+ or immunocompromised, as I have already stated. All the pharmacies I spoke to said that supply was short. As a result, doses are being denied, just as I said.
Regardless, your information is incorrect, and you should stop spreading it.
No, it isn’t, but your combative misinterpretation of my words is tiresome, and you should consider trying to understand rather than looking for a fight and slinging false accusations of misinformation. Goodbye.
Now it’s “data that you’ve seen” not “multiple pharmacists?” Stop spreading misinformation.
I’d gladly entertain a conversation regarding opinions if the topic wasn’t directly misinforming people on public health. This topic is not subjective to opinion. Either back up your claims with credible sources or stop commenting against the direction of the CDC.
No, it is not.
Also, that page you linked is from last year. Here is a more recent one that calls out the age minimum:
https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2024/s-0228-covid.html
It doesn’t explicitly forbid younger people from getting another dose now after having one last autumn. (I don’t think that’s how the CDC operates.) However, it does give advice, and pharmacies make policy based on that advice. The result is that at least some pharmacies are denying an update dose unless the customer is 65+ or immunocompromised, or didn’t get one last autumn.
I was surprised to learn this, so I checked for myself. The pharmacists I spoke to confirmed it. That was roughly 2-3 weeks ago, so I suppose something might have changed very recently, but I have no reason to think so.
Great! But that has no bearing on what I wrote.
You initially commented:
You then cited a page that stresses the importance of vaccinations for the elderly and immunocompromised. My link is CDC efficacy conformation of Omicron, the current virulent strain, by the vaccine available last fall.
Please, find me a quote on that page that suggests lower efficacy for those under 65. It does not state or suggest an age minimum.
The page I linked was about efficacy of the vaccine against the Omicron variant. That is the vaccine I received, as well as the variant to which I was exposed. It’s absolutely applicable to what you wrote, as I’m under 65 and not immunocompromised.
Pharmacies do not have a right to refuse unless supply is constrained and you are not part of the priority group. You were either duped by the pharmacist, or they were low on supply at the time.
Your information is incorrect, and you should stop spreading it.
I have no idea how you interpreted what I wrote to mean that.
When I mentioned last autumn’s doses no longer being effective, I was simply referring to the fact that protection from these vaccines drops drastically over time. All the data I’ve seen shows it to be a small fraction of what it once was by the time 6 months have passed. I am not suggesting that this is somehow different for people of a certain age.
Edit: Data from one such study. That one would have been easy for you to find, had you actually tried, since it was circulated by various medical research outlets and reported by Time Magazine: “After six months, the overall effectiveness of the vaccines dropped further to 14%, and to 9% after nine months.”
The priority group is age 65+ or immunocompromised, as I have already stated. All the pharmacies I spoke to said that supply was short. As a result, doses are being denied, just as I said.
No, it isn’t, but your combative misinterpretation of my words is tiresome, and you should consider trying to understand rather than looking for a fight and slinging false accusations of misinformation. Goodbye.
Now it’s “data that you’ve seen” not “multiple pharmacists?” Stop spreading misinformation.
I’d gladly entertain a conversation regarding opinions if the topic wasn’t directly misinforming people on public health. This topic is not subjective to opinion. Either back up your claims with credible sources or stop commenting against the direction of the CDC.