CDC backs Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine booster shots for millions of seniors and some others
Source: CBS News
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on Thursday endorsed booster shots for millions of older or otherwise vulnerable Americans, opening a major new phase in the U.S vaccination drive against COVID-19. CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky signed off late Thursday on a series of recommendations that a panel of advisers made earlier in the day. The advisers said boosters should be offered to people 65 and older, nursing home residents and those ages 50 to 64 who have risky underlying health problems. The extra dose would be given once they are at least six months past their last Pfizer shot.
However, Walensky decided to make one recommendation that the panel had rejected. The panel voted against saying that people can get a booster if they are ages 18 to 64 years and are health-care workers or have another job that puts them at increased risk of being exposed to the virus. But Walensky disagreed and put that recommendation back in, noting that such a move aligns with a Food and Drug Administration Pfizer booster authorization decision earlier this week. The category she included covers people who live in institutional settings that increase their risk of exposure, such as prisons or homeless shelters, as well as health care workers.
The panel had offered the option of a booster for those ages 18 to 49 who have chronic health problems and want one. But the advisers refused to go further and open boosters to otherwise healthy front-line health care workers who aren't at risk of severe illness but want to avoid even a mild infection. The panel voted 9 to 6 to reject that proposal. But Walensky decided to disregard the advisory committee's counsel on that issue. In a decision several hours after the panel adjourned, Walensky issued a statement saying she had restored the recommendation.
"As CDC Director, it is my job to recognize where our actions can have the greatest impact," Walensky said in a statement late Thursday night. "At CDC, we are tasked with analyzing complex, often imperfect data to make concrete recommendations that optimize health. In a pandemic, even with uncertainty, we must take actions that we anticipate will do the greatest good." Experts say getting the unvaccinated their first shots remains the top priority, and the panel wrestled with whether the booster debate was distracting from that goal. All three of the COVID-19 vaccines used in the U.S. are still highly protective against severe illness, hospitalization and death, even with the spread of the extra-contagious delta variant. But only about 182 million Americans are fully vaccinated, or just 55% of the population.
Read more: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cdc-backs-pfizer-covid-19-vaccine-booster-shots-for-millions-of-seniors-and-some-others/
Wow. This was breaking at 3 am EDT and a big change was that Wallensky disregarded the "nay" vote for question #4 by the ACIP, and will allow a booster for frontline workers 18 - 64.
As a note, this is the FINAL approval after the recommendations that happened yesterday and posted here - https://www.democraticunderground.com/10142804213
The 4 questions posed for a vote yesterday all passed except for the last one which was this (now overturned by Wallensky) -
Basically people who had Pfizer 2-dose (NOT the Moderna or Janssen (J&J) ones yet) and fit the criteria, and are 6 months or later from their 2nd dose, can go ahead and get a booster.
As I understand from watching the Committee meeting yesterday, the actual recommendation language was going to be tweaked a bit (e.g., including that last one to broaden "institution" to "setting" so it covers more - probably including something like home healthcare personnel who are not operating in a longterm care "facility", etc).
= new reply since forum marked as read
"teachers" were included in that "frontline" worker group (i.e., they are in "institutions" or "settings" that have a higher risk for exposure in places that have a high COVID-19 transmission rate). It's just that the Committee voted "nay" on that group but that has now been overturned by Wallensky. 
Of course the debate about that question also included that members believe much of the infection spread was not actually happening at those "institutions" (or "settings" ) per se, but were happening "at home", where people are generally unmasked and interacting with their families/friends/neighbors, and contract it there vs randomly in a school or supermarket, etc.
IMHO when you do have those "indoor" places with unmasked people and poor ventilation, then naturally that is where you can still get it, and IMHO that would include schools in douchebag districts that refuse to have mitigation like masking by staff and students.
I just posted this below in the thread - https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=2804506
ETA to note though - the virus is not "spontaneously generated" in the household, so it had to get there SOMEHOW and that is from "outside the home", which then suggests what exactly? 
because I know the blow-back would have been fierce if that had not been done. Lots to have to absolve for the "Get vaccinated, throw off your masks indoors, and go hug your grandkids" recommendation.
as a former scientist myself, sciencey people, and that includes physicians (I was in many classes with pre-med majors as a chem major myself) are not always "people people", and often engage in "black or white" thinking with little shades of gray. For many things, they were taught that way for their fields. And one would think that someone who plans to be a doctor one day would also need to be a "people person" if they intend on actually working with patients (at least those who deal with patients who are not under anesthesia ).
But as many of us have experienced, doctors can run the gamut of being overly clinical, cold, and even nasty, to being effusive, gregarious and often (thankfully) trained through extra "workshops" on "listening" and "communications" skills.
When you hear the oft-used term "follow the science", that is where things can break down because when presented with a specific set of "facts", the "scientists" might interpret what those "facts" mean very differently.
As an example - say you work in an office with no windows and have been deep in some project all day and finally get a break, so you head outside for a bit to maybe pick up some lunch and you notice the sidewalks are all wet and the sky is overcast. Well you could then "assume" -
1.) sidewalks are wet therefore it rained
But then as you walk around outside, you eventually find that the streets are dry and then you spot a big landscaper pickup truck that has a huge 500 gallon water tank in the truck bed and there's a guy standing nearby with a hose attached to the tank spraying the flower beds nearby with water, and the runoff is wetting the adjacent sidewalks. Now you have found that your original "assumption" was "wrong" because you apparently "didn't have ALL the 'facts'".
There were 2 fairly vocal "objectors" among the ACIP members who basically felt that when it comes to transmission of the virus, they insist that "most of it" is coming from the "home environment" and not from a workplace exposure. So they feel there is no need to give people boosters based on their occupations and risk of exposure to the general public at a workplace, and they believe it is basically "hype" (or I think I heard the term "hysteria" or similar used) to assume people are contracting the virus in the workplace.
Yet (IMHO and from what I have heard from them during other meetings) they never pipe up about recommending that if they feel that way, then they should recommend that people should "mask up" at home. 
I agree that you probably have much of the spread happening at home but what gets neglected from that argument is - "Well then how did the people 'at home' contract it in order to spread it 'at home'"? It sure as hell didn't "spontaneously appear" in someone's home. It was BROUGHT there from somewhere by someone exposed to it "outside of the home". 
THAT is where the "in areas of high 'community transmission'" factor should take precedence.
but so far, Moderna has actually been found not to wane like Pfizer so it might actually not be needed right away!
ETA, the above are from the slide deck presented to ACIP Thursday and available here (PDF) - https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-2021-9-23/03-COVID-Oliver.pdf
So there was a limited approval for a Moderna booster (actually a "3rd dose" ) already!
That to me, was a "boss" giving a "deadline" to come to some decision.
I think he's trying to literally jam as much as he can in now while he's got the momentum because no one knows what is going to happen next year and he knows Congress will soon be out campaigning ,and it will be even more difficult.
