Obviously loss of effectiveness isn't the best thing in the world. I wouldn't really hesitate to get the booster personally.
I just find it really annoying that reporters can't be very clear about exactly WHAT level of effectiveness has waned. If it's not as good at stopping infection but it is still excellent (and I consider 93% excellent) at avoiding hospitalization, that's GOOD news.
Most reporters don't understand science and their eyes glaze over anytime numbers are involved, though, so I'm not surprised. Just annoyed.
Well, and the other issue is, the entire point is NOT to eliminate infections. It's to reduce the damage that COVID19 does to human beings. 93% effectiveness means that it IS significantly minimizing the damage done to humans.
As posted earlier on this thread (or the other one), estimates are that 75% of all flu cases are either asymptomatic or so mild they're never reported.
I think the public, and the mediots, and the government, have become confused on what the goal should be.
The goal should NOT be, to eradicate the virus, to eliminate infection entirely. That's unrealistic and actually it's completely impossible.
The goal SHOULD be, to reduce the effect of this virus on humans, to the point that it is no more dangerous or damaging, than other illnesses we see on a regular basis and accept as a base rate for continuing to live our lives normally-- like, for example, the flu.
How close to that level of tolerance/acceptance of damage, does the 93 % get us? That's the relevant question, when given this bit of data.