That is not what the Pfizer & Moderna Ph3 studies evaluated: it was not prevention of severe infection, but symptomatic infection plus a positive PCR test.

Why? Because so few people get severe Covid, especially in a young healthy patient population as was in this study. The study would have to be much bigger and in older people to show what Offit suggests it does.

Why does that matter? Firstly there’s a degree of subjectivity as to who has symptoms and whether of not a PCR test is conducted - which is especially important if the study is not properly blinded (and testimony from Brooke Jackson suggests it wasn’t).

Secondly, who cares if a vaccine stops a person getting a mild cold? Extrapolating these data to a different patient population and with a different outcome, is 2 assumptions too far.

Did anyone need the initial jabs? Yes

Did the studies conducted look for the right benefit in the patient population that matters? No

Do we know they worked then? No we do not. Everything else is just post hoc rationalisation fraught with bias, wishful thinking and butt covering.

These “boosters” are a gamble for everyone, with the stakes far higher for the healthy. Don’t risk it.