I think part of the problem is that Omicron is too new to really quantify risks for the vaccinated but unboosted population.
That said, what we do know is that the side-effect risks associated with getting boosted are extremely low.
So, I would pose the question: why not?
The health risks associated with getting boosted is vanishingly small compared to other risks you take. For example, as an average 30-40 yo, the risk of death by simply getting out of bed and engaging in normal activities for one day is 1 in 200,000. That risk is far greater than the risk of getting boosted.
My take is that people are making a big deal out of nothing. If there's a chance that getting boosted will help us put an end to this virus sooner, and I'm not taking on any meaningful risk by getting boosted, why not?
I hear you, and you're not wrong, but the "why not" approach does feel like a slippery slope, which could be considered a logical fallacy except in that _it has already been slipping_. It is important for me for the numbers to justify the cause, and not just because "why not".
If the disease appeared today with its current severity, would the world stop?
That said, what we do know is that the side-effect risks associated with getting boosted are extremely low.
So, I would pose the question: why not?
The health risks associated with getting boosted is vanishingly small compared to other risks you take. For example, as an average 30-40 yo, the risk of death by simply getting out of bed and engaging in normal activities for one day is 1 in 200,000. That risk is far greater than the risk of getting boosted.
My take is that people are making a big deal out of nothing. If there's a chance that getting boosted will help us put an end to this virus sooner, and I'm not taking on any meaningful risk by getting boosted, why not?