Top federal health officials warn that booster shots initially may be limited to Pfizer recipients
Janet Woodcock, acting commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, and Rochelle Walensky, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, told White House coronavirus coordinator Jeff Zients on Thursday that their agencies may not be able to approve a more expansive coronavirus booster plan that they, along with other top doctors across the administration, endorsed last month.
Woodcock and Walensky told Zients that, by the end of this month, they may be able to approve and recommend booster shots only for people who received the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine. Some officials said Friday that reviews of the other vaccines’ boosters could take an additional few weeks, though they cautioned it depends on the data. . . .
Now, Woodcock and Walensky, who have faced criticism for endorsing a plan before their agencies completed their reviews, have warned that staff may need more time to make a determination about boosters for people who received the Moderna vaccine. The FDA has only partial data on Moderna and Johnson & Johnson boosters. Pfizer and BioNTech submitted late-stage booster data late last month.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2021/09/03/booster-shot-delay-pfizer-first/
= new reply since forum marked as read
I guess we're part of an experiment. Hope we don't grow another head or turn into lizard people. 
They're just a bigger, seasoned vaccine provider and had all their ducks in a row before Moderna and Janssen (J&J). And those "ducks" are including a massive manufacturing capacity to provide many times more vials than their nearest competitors. So Pfizer/BioNTec shots are the majority of what was dished out in the U.S.
This is the approx. global distribution by manufacturer and for various countries -
Doses ordered (as of March) -
These companies have to submit data FIRST in order to get the various approvals. I have been watching both the CDC ACIP and FDA VRBPAC review/approval meetings since coming up on a year ago (and these go on all day) and what Israel provided is just one piece of the puzzle. But it is not the sole thing. CDC changed its masking requirements due to data outside of Israel that happened over the summer that I have posted about multiple times dealing with Delta and breakthroughs including in OPs and posts in other threads. E.g. -
https://www.democraticunderground.com/10142776000
https://www.democraticunderground.com/10142777706
So they have started correlating state data with efficacy drop and variant changes.
And as a note - THIS is Pfizer's too so soon we'll see ads like this from them for the COVID-19 vaccine -
and posted about the latest here - https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=2793245
(reproduced below)
(I have it on a little convertible laptop that I have used to stream them in the past and when they were done, I would just stop the stream and just minimize that browser window... And interestingly, when they have their next meeting, the new stream suddenly auto-starts the stream in that browser window, so out of nowhere I'll suddenly start hearing people talking while the laptop is on the lockscreen and am like WTF?
)
Anyway - the have a biggy going on right now that started at 10 am EDT (must be at least 50 people on it, including liason reps from HHS OPDIVs, the Vaccine-related Committee members, a pile of independent hospital/medical organization reps, a bunch of medical/pharmaceutical industry reps - all on this telecon) - https://www.ustream.tv/channel/VWBXKBR8af4
The agenda is to look at the data pre-post Pfizer full approval and apparently discuss the boosters.
One of the working group slide decks they presented at the beginning of the meeting included this slide (relevant to the OP) -
I think that slide says it all regarding the vaccines. It's not saying the people who are vaccinated aren't contracting it nor does it say that some are not being hospitalized, but it is stark about who IS being hospitalized to a very high degree.
The axis is X = time (since availability of the vaccine) and Y = rate of hospitalizations per 100,000.
That slide was (taken as a snapshot) from here - https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-2021-08-30/01-COVID-Daley-508.pdf (PDF)
Link to all the slide decks that will be presented today - https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/slides-2021-08-30.html
The slide decks with the agenda for that big meeting, might be helpful for you. THAT is how the "process" works and are "the facts".
I don't disagree with much of what you just wrote.
Moderna submitted their "full approval" package less than 2 weeks ago -
By Carolyn Crist
Aug. 26, 2021 -- Moderna has completed its submission to the FDA for full approval of its COVID-19 vaccine for ages 18 and older, the company announced on Wednesday.
Moderna began submitting data for the biologics license application, or BLA, in June. As part of the completed submission, the company has requested priority review from the FDA.
“This BLA submission for our COVID-19 vaccine … is an important milestone in our battle against COVID-19 and for Moderna, as this is the first BLA submission in our company’s history,” Stephane Bancel, CEO of Moderna, said in a statement.
In a final analysis of late-stage clinical trial data, the Moderna vaccine showed 93% efficacy, the company announced. The efficacy remained high through 6 months after the second dose.
https://www.webmd.com/vaccines/covid-19-vaccine/news/20210826/moderna-requests-full-fda-approval-covid-vaccine
Pfizer submitted theirs back in May -
By Alexa Lardieri | May 7, 2021, at 8:15 a.m.
U.S. News & World Report
Granting full approval of the vaccine could also boost the public’s confidence in it and encourage more people to get vaccinated.(JEAN-FRANCOIS MONIER/AFP via Getty Images)
Pfizer and BioNTech on Friday became the first companies to apply to the Food and Drug Administration for full approval of their coronavirus vaccine.
The companies announced they had initiated a rolling submission of a biologics license application with the FDA for the approval of their vaccine in people aged 16 and older. The companies will submit supporting data on a rolling basis for consideration in the coming weeks, with a request for priority review.
Pfizer and BioNTech have submitted their clinical data to the FDA, which includes six months of information on the vaccine's safety and efficacy. They will continue to submit more data, including information about the manufacturing of the vaccine, in the coming future.
https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2021-05-07/pfizer-applies-for-full-fda-approval-of-coronavirus-vaccine
So that's almost 4 months difference (although they had been doing "rolling submissions" of their data all along). It took 3 months of an expedited review to get Pfizer fully approved last month. If they spent the same amount of time, that might mean November for Moderna.
I have had issues with CDC for some time in terms of "lag" and what has been the messaging that was far to extreme and "definitive", and then that got magnified by the media, who added their own spin, thus making them look like fools when things changed. It essentially forced Fauci (who is not even part of CDC but is in NIH as director of NIAID) to go out on the media circuit to "smooth over" the mess.
However note that U.S. studies are always going on whether CDC explicitly "tracks them" or not. Meaning that all CDC has to do is to do a search and tap into what has been done right here in the U.S., which is what they have finally done, and add that to their knowledge base.
One of the problems we are going to have with these Committees however (as a heads-up) is that several members have objected to use of the term "booster" (which I sortof agree with) because they consider such shots as basically "3rd in a series", with "booster" having a different meaning.
Another problem is that some on the Committees still don't see a need for this and would prefer to have a "priority" to "vaccinate the unvaccinated", which IMHO this late in the vaccine rollout, is now a fool's errand.
and both of them (the FDA one and the CDC one) are large. They needed to quickly schedule get together, assess the data, and then make a decision. They had apparently seen the reports and had to formalize the "why" for a "pause".
The Committee members belong to and/or work for hospitals and hospital systems, medical research institutions, and university epidemiology departments, so the actual members who work in the relevant Centers/Offices of their federal agencies, are just a handful in comparison.
Whenever a decision is communicated by CDC or FDA, it is supposedly based on actual votes that these Committees hold (and they literally "vote" on statements and/or approval language). CDC and FDA then take those Committee decisions under advisement and concur or don't concur.
The problem here, just like I have posted about regarding a whole different subject - marking up legislation in Congress - is that the American public is unfortunately seeing the "sausage-making" that goes on behind the scenes - whether it is for vaccines or legislation. This is "normal" and typical. But generally, vaccines are "boring" and don't garner much attention. But COVID-19 changed that view, at least for now.
It can be even more awful because the media then takes "sound bites" from the Committees and the agencies and rus with them. That's why I calmly (and thankfully being retired I can do that) just listen to the discussions when they are streaming their meetings.
You were correct to be concerned about your son but again, you should also need to be concerned about the process and reasons why things happen the way they do - it's so that the advice on THAT particular vaccine could be properly calibrated and tailored. The same thing is going on behind the scenes with checking on the trials for children (both infants - 4 and 5 - 11), because there are possible cases of them experiencing some adverse reactions that adults might not experience since their little immune systems are still developing.
And for me, as an ACS-certified chemist, I don't give a shit about the jackass covidiots. Many of them may not even be above ground by the end of the year. You just have to make sure that you are aware of the pros and cons and risks and benefits so you can make an informed decision.
It can be difficult with all the conflicting info out there because what people are now also seeing is that scientists can and DO "disagree" - not so much about the "facts", but what the facts mean, so we all have to navigate around that too.
https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/development-approval-process-cber/vaccine-development-101
It's the same approval process that happens with other types of biologics, for drugs, cosmetics, and medical devices. There's no "appeasing". It's as they say, "regular order" and is codified as standard procedures that were created by mandate from the various public health laws passed by Congress since the early 1900s (with subsequent revisions).
Neither Woodcock (who had originally headed up FDA/CDER) and Wallensky (for CDC), "unilaterally" review. They rely on the experts - generally people who are not part of the federal government, and who will look at the clinical data and then decide on courses of action. Those experts work with a handful of designated agency experts (who work in the related agency Centers/Offices), to discuss the data and any concerns. They then summarize their findings, vote on their recommendations for next steps, and then present that to the respective agency heads.
Again, its' a shame that this process was completely unknown to the general public but it is what it is and has been for many many years.
ETA - here are the members of the 2 Committees -
CDC ACIP - https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/members/index.html
FDA VRBPAC - https://www.fda.gov/advisory-committees/vaccines-and-related-biological-products-advisory-committee/roster-vaccines-and-related-biological-products-advisory-committee
they were way ahead of Janssen in terms of dates for data submission, approvals overseas, and use there (and they are not approved in the U.S. by the way), but their vaccine vectors were obviously not 'identical".
The Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine was still being "paused" - e.g., by Canada - https://apnews.com/article/canada-panel-astrazeneca-vaccine-pause-under-55-06dde56d2db78d72c5bb9bcb97be4d5a as late as the end of March with stipulations added for use where Janssen's vaccine had only been given EUA approval at the end of February, and was just coming into the vaccine stream... Within a month, issues were popping up with it so they instituted the pause.
The "issues" were strictly MEDICAL. I.e., if any physician ran into a case where there was an adverse reaction that might have been related to the vaccine, then the agencies want to get info disseminated out to the medical community on how to TREAT that. I.e., this could NOT be treated with a standard therapy -
https://www.ajmc.com/view/pause-of-j-j-vaccine-to-continue-acip-to-reconvene-after-more-data-collected
You are just fussin'.
is that the "geeks" and "nerds" have been thrust into the public sphere and few are as dynamic as this guy -
or this guy -
There is a lot of "medical-speak" and "scientist-speak" that they are accustomed to using in their normal discourse and what they really need is some "interface" person who can better communicate some of this stuff.
I know in the past some had locked onto people like Dr. Sanjay Gupta to distill it all down, but I think they have all been relying on poor Fauci to "translate" what has essentially been gibberish to the average person, into something "tangible".
https://www.dw.com/en/between-sputnik-v-and-biontech-caught-in-vaccine-limbo/a-58915981
I still don't think they are approved in the EU yet and obviously not here, but apparently India is becoming a big distributor of it.
Was this posted on DU?
I'm still trying to find the article I read the other day. 
