[incrudible]

Please provide a link to the RCT measuring efficacy against Omikron.

> Except that we already know that the exact substance we're sticking in teens is safe in teens, because its half of the exact same thing as in the initial doses. So if your concern is safety, its fine, and if your concern is efficacy, well we have strong RCT evidence of efficacy.

My concern would be risk/benefit. As far as I'm aware, not everyone gets a half dose for the booster, but even then there's a risk for Myocarditis with the third dose, among other things. What is the additional risk reduction for an Omikron infection in a healthy young (male) teenager that has already been vaccinated with two doses? Is it really worth the risk of side-effects? There is no good data on this.

https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/...

[ericb]

> Please provide a link to the RCT measuring efficacy against Omikron.

Even if that's the hill you've chosen to die on, Delta is still out there and at a high prevalence especially in North America and you've admitted that the vaccine is effective but wanes, so a booster makes sense in that cost benefit regardless.

[incrudible]

It was claimed that there exist RCTs that demonstrate boosters providing "robust protection against Delta and Omikron variants". Where are they, then?

These boosters are administered to teenagers, who are also at the highest risk for Myocarditis. What makes you so confident that the imputed benefit of a booster outweighs the risk? Where is the data?

If you want to administer boosters to everyone based on speculation and weak observational data, go right ahead. Just don't act as if you have "the science" backing you up.