The debate over the necessity of booster shots for COVID-19 has been going on for months, especially as the delta-variant breakthrough cases are on the rise. On Thursday, the CDC Agency Panel, in a contentious 9 to 6 vote, endorsed boosters for older adults and younger people at high risk for the disease but did not include front-line workers, such as teachers, health care workers, and others whose jobs put them at risk. This was contrary to the FDA’s position on booster shots for high occupational risk adults. Much to the surprise of many, the director of the CDC, Dr. Rochelle Walensky, overruled the panel’s decision. Her move was unexpected because the chief’s agreement has mostly served as a formality in the past, so it is out of character for someone in her position to actually override a decision made by the panel. Dr. Walensky does risk upsetting her advisers as well as her staff.
Prior to the panel meeting, President Biden and the White House had been marketing the booster shots for a large segment of the population. Because the CDC was yet to announce their opinion on this, the White House received much criticism for their premature push. However, Dr. Walensky’s boldness was a boost for Biden’s Campaign.
The White House, with its new approval to begin rolling out booster vaccines, has successfully distributed them to over 400,000 Americans via pharmacies in just a few days. Nearly one million people have scheduled their appointments to receive the shot over the coming weeks. Ultimately, this is a campaign victory for Biden.
The president himself has received his booster shot and continues to urge Americans to do the same.
Questions:
Do you believe Dr. Walensky was right to overrule her panel’s decision?
Do you think her move was worth the potential backlash?
Sources:
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/24/world/covid-boosters-vaccine-cdc-director.html
10 comments:
While in the end it was Dr. Walensky's personal choice to overrule the CDC Agency Panel's decision, I feel like it was not necessarily the best one, considering all of the interparty strife that has happened because of vaccines as a whole. Walenksy's recommendation may just serve to confuse people as to if they should take the booster or not, and further fuel the fire of "The CDC can't make up their mind" (as in, the multitudes people that have commented about how the CDC changes policies and doesn't stick with one thing; while many changes were probably necessary, this one might feel arbitrary). In the end though, it is up to her to decide what she wants to do and what she doesn't.
-Amogh Parvate
I honestly don't know enough about the science vs politics the CNC Panel, D. Walensky, and the FDA are taking into consideration. From what I know, the boosters aren't actually a medical requirement (let alone necessity) unless the person is old (65+) and has prior health conditions. That being said, I don't agree with Dr. Walensky's medical decision - but I'm not criticizing her exercise of power - I just simply don't know as much as she does with the science. Either way, I think the US should focus more of its vaccine power on other nations with a less vaccinated country. We're on our second and third shots while most of the world still needs their first - especially after the vaccine catastrophe in India.
I agree with what Amogh said, as I do think having unified and clear responses when it comes to Covid-19 policy is important. When there is a lack of coherent guidelines, it leads to confusion and distrust. It's difficult, though, as the disease and the science surrounding it can change very rapidly. However, much of the confusion surrounding guidelines has to do with federalism, and the wildly different guidelines imposed in different states. I linked an article at the bottom that I thought was interesting and demonstrated the differences in policy that we continue to see at a state level, and it's relevant to us as it discusses mask mandates in schools. I think that it would be best for everyone's health and safety if all states followed the CDC's science-based guidelines, even if that seems unrealistic. I think Dr. Walensky probably made the best decision, as she knows more about the science than I do, but I think that a unified front would help people feel more confident, as Amogh said.
https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2021/10/06/1043627959/arizona-masks-covid-grants-governor-ducey
I agree with what Amogh and Zara have said about having a unified policy on vaccines and COVID in general. When it came to managing the pandemic in the first place, many issues stemmed from a lack of clear federal guidelines with the Trump administration, CDC, and each state providing a variety of somewhat contradicting information. I think that the main issue is that there is a lack of education for the public about booster shots and third doses in general. Booster shots are only for the Pfizer vaccine while both Pfizer and Moderna are approved for third doses for those with weakened immune systems. As a whole, I believe that the decision to overrule the panel's decision was not the greatest choice as it has just stirred up more conflict and controversy regarding vaccines in general. It seems that the booster shot campaign by the Biden administration is being overblown considering the recommendation from the CDC that only those with weakened immune systems need an extra dose. This again boils down to the lack of a cohesive plan or guideline for people to follow, creating more issues than necessary.
-Alex Kao
I agree with everyone on the point that this effort hasn't presented the country's leaders of health and public good as a unified front. With something as threatening and scary as a pandemic, the public is searching for a confident voice and front to lead them, not one that is arguing amongst itself. I do absolutely see where Dr. Walensky is coming from in her decision, but I think that the timing of it wasn't exactly right given the current state of distribution in and out of the US as Maya said. I really don't know enough to predict what is best moving forward, but if the older generation is receiving the highest level of protection against the virus, and frontline workers who feel they need it, I don't really see it becoming a problem for the public.
I agree with Amogh that Dr. Walensky’s overruling was a risky one that could be costly in the future for the CDC’s reputation and image. Without a good image, more and more people won’t follow the guidelines of the CDC and that will just lengthen out the pandemic in my opinion. At this point, we need people to follow the CDC if we are going to make a speedy and efficient recovery to a normal life. Her move wasn’t worth that kind of backlash where people may not follow the CDC. However, I am curious why exactly she overruled the panel’s decision. If it was because front line workers won’t be getting vaccine boosters, I get it. Front line workers need to be treated. They are at a humongous high risk and the last thing we need is for those workers to be dying off and becoming fewer. We need them right now. It is of utmost importance that they got shots. I do wonder why they didn’t allow booster shots for these frontline workers. Biden and the Democratic government have been arguing for vaccine boosters for a while especially for frontline workers. Is it because they don’t feel like it's safe to have frontline workers get booster shots? That could make sense but I mean not getting the booster shot would put them at tremendous risk too which is why I would favor just giving it to them even if there could be consequences. Chances are, those consequences aren’t death and COVID can lead to death especially if the vaccine effect wears off.
I agree with my peers that Dr. Walensky’s recent decision weakened the CDC’s supposedly unified front. Throughout this pandemic, policies have been constantly changing because as we learn more about the virus, our approach to fighting the virus must shift. However, many people have chosen not to trust the CDC because of these constant changes in policy. I think that a lot of the back and forth in the CDC has definitely contributed to the anti-maskers and anti-vaxxers who do not feel that they can trust the government. In order to get these last citizens vaccinated with at least one dose, the CDC needs to make an extra effort to be reliable and trustworthy. Most Americans recognize that the CDC is very qualified and reliable, but there are some who are very wary and the CDC and the White House must do everything they can to earn the trust of these Americans. Although I have no problem with her exercising her power, I think that given the circumstances, this decision by Dr. Walensky just weaken’s the CDC’s image.
I think I agree with Maya that I can't personally judge Dr. Walensky's decision as I personally do not know what goes into the decision making, and the science behind the vaccine. After reading the Washington post article linked in the sources, I found that Dr Walensky's reasoning behind going against the vote was because she recommends those at higher risk getting the vaccine. I also agree that the lack of a cohesive decision and overruling could lead to distrust and confusion for some people. This could make some not want to get the vaccine due to the lack of trust from the CDC as they can't all agree on the decision. However, I also think that her decision was based off of wanting to make sure everyone is safe. According to the article, the FDA even greenlit a third shot for those at high risk, which may give some reasoning behind Walensky's decision. Back to Maya's point, I agree that before we start getting third doses, it is important that underrepresented countries are also getting a vaccine.
I'll answer the first question directly: Dr. Walensky was not right to overrule her panel's decision. It seems like the decision regarding booster shots was already set in stone before the panel voted. It was either, the panel votes to allow distribution of booster shots to frontline workers/workers with high exposure, or Walensky overrules. Now, I admire people in the comment section for admitting that they don't know the science behind the vaccine. I truly don't know much myself. But what I do know is that the argument for older people and immunocompromised people getting the booster shot is completely justified. There is no definite knowledge on how long the Covid vaccines will last. It is literally one of those situations where we have to "wait and see." Check out this informative article for more info on the vaccines' durability: https://www.yalemedicine.org/news/how-long-will-coronavirus-vaccine-last. In fact, there is also a solid argument for frontline workers getting the booster shot (what if the vaccine wears off and frontline workers start spreading it to immunocompromised people?). My point is, although Dr. Walensky's overrule will ultimately benefit the public (and I wish the panel voted that way), it basically indicates that the "panel" has no real influence. She can just overrule if she doesn't like what they decide on. That is asinine. I also agree with Amogh and Zara that unity is extremely important. Even if it means they have contentious votes, they should be able to accept the winning vote and move on. But she didn't accept the vote. Because ultimately, it seems some of them make their votes based on science, and some of them make votes based on politics and virtue signaling. And for most of them, it seems to be a mixture of those two things.
Post a Comment