Yeah, that was the other politically charged topic I was referring to in that quote that fuggled picked up.
The juxtaposition with stable flu vax recs across countries and citing the environment factors that are part of the consideration are reasonable points. But everyone is working with the same evidence wrt COVID boosting. Our approach has largely been to take that evidence and spit out one size fits all recs. I'd call that reductive, and I certainly would not call it strongly evidence based. What we are talking about here is ongoing adjustment and refining of COVID booster recs. Sweden, UK and Australia, as examples, all recently tightened up their booster recs to focus on high-risk individuals. You don't hear the absolutely political wailing and gnashing of teeth about it like we get here when people start talking about tightening up the recs. I am open to the argument that most Americans are too stupid to digest risk-based recommendations, so we just tell everyone they need to do something. But don't act surprised if that approach ends up undermining the credibility of the messenger. But tell me more about misleading others intentionally, lol.