NACI now suggests Canadians consider a COVID-!( booster every 90 days
Postmedia, CTV.
Now V&C1 likes MSM.
Just pictures though.
No science.
But in fact we went over this last year, when it was news. I guess she figures it's time to bring it up again, the way she repeats all her other bullshit.
She misrepresents the information, as usual. She wants you to believe it's a recommendation for every Canadian, when - in fact, and it says so right in the article - “A shorter interval of at least three months may be warranted in the context of heightened epidemiological risk as well as operational considerations for the efficient deployment of the COVID-19 vaccination program”.
So the suggestion is for some vulnerable people, and the "efficient deployment" part had to do with the bi-valent shot that was just becoming available at the time, suggesting that some people would benefit from an early booster given its heightened success against Omicron.
So she won't link to the [article](https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Postmedia%22+%22NACI+now+suggests+Canadians+consider+a+COVID-!(+booster+every+90+days) of course. Then you could read it yourself. And she couldn't find the NACI doc for you either, even if she tried.
"Not enough data to support multiple annual COVID-19 boosters, U.S. CDC advisers say"
"The COVID-19 working group of the CDC's Advisory Committee For Immunization Practices (ACIP) supported an annual booster campaign, likely in the fall, especially for populations considered at high risk, Dr. Sara Oliver, a CDC official who heads the group, said during a meeting of the agency's outside advisers. ... In the spring of 2022, the CDC recommended immunocompromised and people over age 50 receive an additional shot if they had received their first booster at least four months earlier."
See? She leaves out the part about the comment referencing a particular segment of the population, probably so you'll think it applies to everyone. Again she refuses to link to the article so you could read it and come to your own conclusions.
Plus tweets from a bunch of people you've never heard of.
Classic misinformation folks. The kind of stuff The Internet Research Agency spreads.
Don't get your medical advice from anonymous people on social media.
NACI now suggests Canadians consider a COVID-!( booster every 90 days
Postmedia, CTV.
Now V&C1 likes MSM.
Just pictures though.
No science.
But in fact we went over this last year, when it was news. I guess she figures it's time to bring it up again, the way she repeats all her other bullshit.
She misrepresents the information, as usual. She wants you to believe it's a recommendation for every Canadian, when - in fact, and it says so right in the article - “A shorter interval of at least three months may be warranted in the context of heightened epidemiological risk as well as operational considerations for the efficient deployment of the COVID-19 vaccination program”.
So the suggestion is for some vulneable people, and the "efficient deployment" part had to do with the bi-valent shot that was just becoming available at the time, suggesting that some people would benefit from an early booster given its heightened success against Omicron.
So she won't link to the [article](https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Postmedia%22+%22NACI+now+suggests+Canadians+consider+a+COVID-!(+booster+every+90+days) of course. Then you could read it yourself. And she couldn't find the NACI doc for you either, even if she tried.
"Not enough data to support multiple annual COVID-19 boosters, U.S. CDC advisers say"
"The COVID-19 working group of the CDC's Advisory Committee For Immunization Practices (ACIP) supported an annual booster campaign, likely in the fall, especially for populations considered at high risk, Dr. Sara Oliver, a CDC official who heads the group, said during a meeting of the agency's outside advisers. ... In the spring of 2022, the CDC recommended immunocompromised and people over age 50 receive an additional shot if they had received their first booster at least four months earlier."
See? She leaves out the part about the comment referencing a particular segment of the population, probably so you'll think it applies to everyone. Again she refuses to link to the article so you could read it and come to your own conclusions.
Plus tweets from a bunch of people you've never heard of.
Classic misinformation folks. The kind of stuff The Internet Research Agency spreads.
Don't get your medical advice from anonymous people on social media.