Sowing Confusion

File this Washington Post editorial under “funny if it weren’t so sad”:

When the Biden administration first announced plans for booster shots, the rollout was to begin the week of Sept. 20. Now it appears that not all the scientific research and regulatory reviews are in place, and delay is likely. The public is confused about the reasons and the timetable for boosters. An administration that champions science-based decision-making needs to mount a strong new effort to communicate clearly with the American people.

In the announcement in August, Surgeon General Vivek H. Murthy said, “Recent data makes clear that protection against mild and moderate disease has decreased over time. This is likely due to both waning immunity and the strength of the widespread Delta variant.” The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has published a series of reports suggesting that mRNA vaccine efficacy against covid-19 infections is waning. The administration’s initial plan was to give boosters eight months after inoculation, but the optimal timing has yet to be determined.

Overall, there’s a consensus that boosters may be wise for those with compromised immune systems and the elderly — they were the ones who got the early shots. But some experts have raised questions about whether a booster is necessary now for the general population. One argument, advanced by the World Health Organization and others, is that added shots would be better utilized to meet global vaccine shortages, slowing the pandemic and the rise of new variants. We have disagreed that it is either/or; both boosters for Americans and expanded production abroad should be possible. Another argument questions the interpretation of the reports on waning immunity. The reports generally document a weakening protection against infection, while the vaccines protect against severe disease, hospitalization and death. Thus, the argument goes, the vaccines are working against the worst outcomes. These experts say that some amount of continued infection is to be expected, and that the virus can never be eradicated.

What makes this “funny if it weren’t so sad” is something the editors touch on but don’t underscore sufficiently: the confusion they’re calling on the administration to dispel is of its own making. I happen to agree with the WHO: in a world of limited resources, something the WaPo does not seem to acknowledge, getting more people in other countries (in the case of the U. S. particularly in Mexico, Guatemala, etc.) inoculated at last once to my eye would seem to reduce COVID-19 in the U. S. more than a third inoculation, particularly for people who aren’t at high risk.

What’s particularly interesting about this episode is that it illustrates the remarkable continuity between presidencies. Although his supporters may have expected something else, President Biden seems intent on following the path blazed by his predecessor, sowing confusion in his wake.