https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/news/ecdc-ema-update-recommenda...

e.g. "At the moment, there is no clear evidence to support giving a second booster dose to people below 60 years of age who are not at higher risk of severe disease. Neither is there clear evidence to support giving early second boosters to healthcare workers or those working in long-term care homes unless they are at high risk."

- [1] https://www.oslo.kommune.no/english/coronavirus/corona-vacci...

- [2] https://time.com/6232103/covid-19-reinfections-effects/

There is also far more than that. The press spun it quite a bit, in a different way.

Personally, all my family members and myself have had a contact with SARS-CoV-2 within the past months. It wasn't particularly pleasant, but certainly not a "deadly virus" (prior vaccination helps, but I'm not a person at risk anyway). It will be the first of many. I stopped caring after I got my second dose, and there's no way I will care now.

Flu for me was way worse than a SARS-CoV-2 infection (think 40C fever).

SARS-CoV-2 was deadly for a specific part of an immuno naive population (60+). The age stratification was known since February 2020 (first Chinese paper on that from the Wuhan data). My country had zero excess deaths in the 0-50 range since the start of the pandemic.

EDIT: Anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccines do not block transmission, certainly not now. And as thus, their protection is primarily for one's own benefit.

I know somebody who contracted Malaria and lived. It wasn't particularly pleasant but certainly not a "deadly disease".

I would drop out of Harvard if I was young and was being told to get this vaccine knowing the risks/benefit of the vaccine in young men.

Come on. This is not how medical recommendations work. It's either recommended, or it's not. If the medical community thinks people should get it, they would recommend it. Besides that, Harvard is mandating the vaccine.

>I'm not actually sure why you are bringing up Norwegian vaccine guidance, unless it's to suggest getting the booster is a bad idea for everyone else or maybe you are Norweigan

Why not? Are Norwegians some mutant species with different abilities to research and/or needs of their populace? Why are some bodies requiring it, and others are mostly indifferent? Who's right?

That's not how this works at all. For instance there is no recommendation for flu vaccine except for at-risk groups by the EMA, yet there is a request to achieve a 75% vaccination coverage by countries which clearly implies that people should be vaccinated for whom there is no recommendation.

The booster is an approved and safe procedure, but it confers no benefit unless you have risk factors.

[1] https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/news/ecdc-ema-update-recommenda...

That is exactly the point that I made above.

And where does it so clearly state in the website that second part? And of course it's ok, but that doesn't make it a recommendation.

Just because a drug is approved doesn't mean you should take it indiscriminately. It is "safe" to drink NyQuil every night. Doesn't mean you should. If it confers no benefit to you in your unique circumstance, you shouldn't take it. Hence, the booster is not recommended for certain groups - because it is not needed and provides no benefit.

https://www.fda.gov/drugs/information-consumers-and-patients...

> If the Phase 2 trials indicate that the drug may be effective--and the risks are considered acceptable, given the observed efficacy and the severity of the disease--the drug moves to Phase 3.

This year it appears they've approved 30 and last year they approved 50. That's quite a few.

If this was literally any other medical procedure, the "trust the experts" crowd would be protesting the US ignoring what the rest of the world thinks.

The same goes for therapies for diseases. Each disease has a list of therapies/drugs available that are officially recommended by authorities, and usually what insurances pay for is based on that, but exceptions exist (in both directions).

It is also possible for people in the 18-64 year age group without underlying risk conditions can choose to take a new booster dose if they wish.

Anecdotally, I have 2 friends who are doctors in the kommun and both said the hospitals are short staffed, beds are filling up and they're seeing much more of the RSV/flu/Covid mix coming to the ER from people that are not in the listed "at risk groups". This matches what my best friends wife, who is a pulmonologist in the US, is saying.

The provincial and federal governments here encourage all to get the bivalent vaccine.

"National Advisory Committee on Immunization (NACI) continues to recommend that bivalent Omicron-containing mRNA COVID-19 vaccines are the preferred booster products for the authorized age groups. (Strong NACI recommendation)"

People aged 18–64 who are medically at-risk due to:

- chronic cardiovascular disease, including stroke and high blood pressure (hypertension)

- chronic lung disease such as COPD, and brittle asthma

- other conditions that impair lung function or the ability to cough and clear mucus (for example, extreme obesity, neuromuscular disorders or multiple disabilities)

- chronic liver and kidney failure

- diabetes types 1 and 2

- conditions that severely weaken the immune system as a result of illness or treatment

- Down’s syndrome

- those who are pregnant with pregnancy-related risk factors such as being older than 35, high blood pressure (hypertension), diabetes, a BMI over 30 or other factor following individual assessment.

English link: https://www.folkhalsomyndigheten.se/the-public-health-agency...

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/quebec-vaccination-c...

Health is a provincial domain.

This isn't simple at all then. You are following one set guidelines unless you see "a problem", then you follow another set. What makes you think you can identify the problems?

But I still concur with OP. I am not an expert, and I don't know how to choose between experts with differing opinions. What I do know is that I trust certain institutions more than others.