This argument for caution against boosters is badly flawed. They are using pre-delta data to argue it’s inconclusive if boosters are needed against the delta-

https://mobile.twitter.com/michaelzlin/status/14380883906967...

A lot of these arguments seem to be strategic rather than scientific. Many people want to see wider vaccinations worldwide before anyone gets a booster, so they downplay evidence boosters are effective in order to steer people toward their preferred policies.

Interesting how much of a double standard there is in the media when it comes to promoting booster shots before the effects of doing so are adequately studied, but then pre-maturely shutting down other potential treatments (ivermectin, fluvoxamine, hcq), when there isn’t really a consensus for either thing.

Shooting from the hip seems to be fine as long as it has the effect of administering more vaccine doses, but everything else is to be ridiculed and held to much stricter standards of scientific proof.