General public should wait to get a booster shot: Doctor

Dr. Michael Saag, University of Alabama at Birmingham Associate Dean for Global Health, says the public should 'be patient' while scientists study booster efficacy.

Video Transcript

- Welcome back to "Yahoo Finance Live." There has been a big fit and start when it comes to boosters. Of course, the Biden administration really pressing full steam ahead. And now reports of medical professionals jumping in to maybe push back a little bit when it comes to being so enthusiastic about getting everyone booster shots, and whether or not they're necessary when it comes to really trying to prevent what this whole thing was all about and reducing transmission and avoiding hospitalizations and, of course, death.

And for more on that, let me welcome back into the show one of the experts we love chatting with on the show. Dr. Michael Saag, University of Alabama at Birmingham Associate Dean for Global Health joins us here. And Dr. Saag, I mean, when we talked about boosters, of course there was no reason not to be all in when it comes to getting those out if you believed that this was going to really help in reducing transmission, and whether or not they're necessary. But what do you make of maybe some of the pushback now around some professionals saying they might not be all that necessary?

MICHAEL SAAG: Yeah, I think the operative word in your question there, Zach, is believe. So we're a little bit into a faith-based as opposed to evidence-based realm here. The reason for that is simple. We did all the things we had to do appropriately to get these vaccines tested, and lo and behold, they worked. And we got them out into people's arms very, very fast. That has saved hundreds of thousands of lives worldwide, and well over 140,000 lives in the United States just in the first five months.

What we couldn't do because there wasn't time was to look at the durability. We had to do-- we have to do that on the fly. That's just, by definition, it's the way things are. So we have to ask the public to be patient as we work through this. We just don't know how often a booster will be needed, or who it will be needed in, or how often. And that's really what we're watching unfold.

So of course, there's going to be debate, and there's going to be-- I wouldn't even call it controversy. I think it's just debate on finding the right thing to do. And I think it's pretty clear that, at least for the Pfizer vaccine, waiting for people-- for people who are over 65, and especially those who are immunocompromised, yes, they should get a booster. The rest of us should just wait a little bit, let the data sort itself out.

- Yeah, and I mean, that's the interesting thing here, too. I mean, when we look at the data, obviously it's still overwhelming when it comes to the safety and efficacy of vaccines for people who are still unvaccinated. So that's kind of out the door. That's one that we don't even need to talk about here. But when we're talking about boosters themselves, a new study looking at the efficacy of the Pfizer vaccine after the second dose did show a bit of a waning of efficacy, down from 88% effective to 47% effective six months after that second dose. So I mean, I guess that would seem to indicate that there is a need for booster shots. It's just kind of splitting hairs when you come into when exactly and for who.

MICHAEL SAAG: Well, yeah, we need to get in the weeds on that a little bit. You quoted the data accurately. And when you say efficacy, what you're talking about is prevention of a breakthrough infection. What's the other story in that study is that there were no deaths to speak of. There were-- that still was protective against hospitalization and death. And at the end of the day, that's what we want the vaccine to do. It'd be wonderful if it prevented infection 100%. There's no vaccine that we have that does that, especially look at flu. In an ordinary flu season, about half the people who have had a flu vaccine will get the flu, but the vaccine protects them against hospitalization and, to some degree, death. And so that's really what we're looking for.

So part of the debate that you referred to in the first question takes the data you just quoted into account, and then asks the question, what are we going to focus on here for efficacy? Is it breakthrough, prevention of that, or is it going to be prevention of hospitalization and death? And I think that's the controversy right now.

- Yeah, and I mean, I think that's important, too, to kind of reiterate there, when we talk about vaccines, what we're trying to do. And you know, it's weird because, at the beginning of all this, you had people kind of-- and I don't want to get into the politics of it but you had some people angry at others for calling it the flu. It's now kind of evolved to where the people who were on the other side are now calling it the flu, but only because we've moved into the area where we do have vaccines to manage all this. So it's kind of strange.

There is still, of course, though, still the outrage, I suppose we can call it, when it comes to, you know, the ideas of lockdown or returning to some of the more draconian measures. We saw Dr. Fauci kind of walk that back when it came to Christmas. I know I've talked to you-- crazy to think how long it's been-- last year, when we were talking about Thanksgiving and Christmas. This time around, what do you think that the messaging should be there? Because we saw the CDC pull a 180 and take down their guidance for the holidays, Fauci, as I said, kind of walking it back. What should people be thinking about when it comes to gathering again for a second holiday season in the pandemic?

MICHAEL SAAG: Well, you-- you also hit it on the head again, in terms of what's different this year than last year is that a lot of people have been vaccinated. And that's going to keep people relatively safe in terms of severe disease, and will prevent roughly half of the infections, conservatively. So my personal view is that I think we can think about gathering with small groups of family, especially if your-- people in your family have been vaccinated. The one thing, as you alluded to, the deaths that we're seeing right now, the hospitalizations, the ICUs is overwhelmingly among people who are not vaccinated. So if you're not vaccinated, you should be careful. It's still out there, and you can get infected. And once you get infected, the cascade starts, and you don't have control over where that disease takes you.

For people who are vaccinated and are up to speed, I think we can start to relax a little bit. But one thing we've learned in this whole epidemic is that we can't predict it very well. Why? Because it's new. We don't have any history to go on. We model based on other diseases, like you said flu, but it's not the flu. It's something else. And we're learning as we go, but we've only been-- only been-- a year and a half into it and that it feels like over a decade and a half because of the pain that it's caused, and the death and the destruction, but we only have a year and a half. So prognosticating is very difficult. As Yogi Berra said, predictions are difficult, especially if they involve the future.

- Yeah, always, but we always love having you on here to chat because it's data-driven, it's fact-driven, and it's always measured and true. Dr. Michael Saag, appreciate the time again, University of Alabama at Birmingham Associate Dean for Global Health. Come back soon.