Could someone elaborate why this particular comment is being downvoted? Or I guess in other words, is there something unique about the mRNA vaccines that make it unnecessary to require "booster shots" (if "booster shots" equate to yearly shots we are used to with the flu variants)?
(I legitimately don't know and I am curious. I see the article does reference protection against a variant during a study, but it's unclear to me if that means all future variants as well.)
There's no basis to believe at this point that we'll need "booster shots" of any kind with COVID vaccination, and in fact the opposite seems to be the case, so this comment is being downvoted for spreading misinformation (amusingly, this specific comment will probably be disliked by both vaccination proponents and disease proponents :)
The reason we won't need yearly vaccinations as with the flu shots isn't a property of the mRNA vaccine, it's a property of COVID-19. The watered-down explanation is that this particular sort of virus simply doesn't mutate as much as the flu virus because it has a mechanism that prevents it. We do see variants, but they're actually quite similar so the same vaccine still works (thankfully).
It's also why we're talking about COVID "variants" and flu "strains". In this context, a different "strain" usually signifies different surface proteins, i.e., you need a different vaccine for it. I don't believe that we've seen a second COVID strain yet.
We really don't know yet if (and when) a booster shot would be needed, and if we would need an extra shot of the same vaccine (to help with immune escape) or a tweaked version (for resistant variants). So far research suggests that we're good, but this isn't something that's set in stone.
If you're a vaccine maker, it's a good idea to have something ready if it turns out that a booster is needed. If you're in charge of public health, it's a good idea to plan for that possibility. That doesn't make it the plan yet.
Also note that you're looking at a press release. Scientific press releases take the information from the article, summarize it by giving the main achievement, removing any caveats, and otherwise presenting it in the best possible light possible. There are press releases like that for vaccines that were later shown to be ineffective, because at that point they were promising.
I don't know why the original comment is being downvoted. It is not a conspiracy theory to assume that we need booster shots. Is it not like our situation with the flu?
No, as other commenters pointed out coronaviruses are different from the flu viruses in that they cannot mutate as easily as flu does. Hence it is possible that booster shots will not be required.
That also doesn't mean that that there's no longer a decent chance of immune escape. Before this research came out, it was a reasonable position to think that we needed boosters. It is NOT a conspiracy theory.
If you read any of the articles I've cited one of them has the CEO of Pfizer stating that we will likely need a yearly booster shot.
It's hard to determine that as a laymen when you have the CEO of Pfizer (who is likely being advised by Pfizer's own researchers) saying, "A likely scenario is that there will be likely a need for a third dose, somewhere between six and 12 months and then from there, there will be an annual revaccination, but all of that needs to be confirmed. And again, the variants will play a key role"
(I legitimately don't know and I am curious. I see the article does reference protection against a variant during a study, but it's unclear to me if that means all future variants as well.)