Will you be taking a booster?

The vast majority of people don't get flu jabs and there's likely to be a level of complacency and to some extent indifference about boosters. There are already anecdotal reports of it taking longer to persuade people to get another jab, hair appointments getting in the way says the CMO. We are not going to get anywhere near 93% on boosters, especially with far younger healthier people who statistically at least at risk from COVID. An overall booster total of over 70% will be good. It should be high in older and more at risk groups but it would not be surprising at all to find it at 50% or under for some younger cohorts.

People think in different ways, this is just one way to look at things.

Well I'm not concerned about covid myself, so thats not a factor for me.

And the vaccine doesn't prevent transmission, so I still have to avoid people anyway.

And if the two jabs I have aren't working then what is the point of a 3rd?

And do I have any respect for the NPHET government or engagement with what they are doing? Absolutely not.

2+2 = Shove your booster.

Got the booster a few weeks ago. WiFi has not improved. Getting a Covid test today as a close contact. Hopefully the booster has worked.

This isn't really a matter of "different ways to look at things". It's objectively true that vaccination confers a measure of protection on people who are, for whatever reason, not themselves vaccinated; that's how herd immunity works. Whether the individual being vaccinated knows or cares about this doesn't change the objective fact.

Someone who approaches the question of whether to be vaccinated purely in terms of the benefits it confers on them is implicitly saying that they do not care about, or do not accept responsibility for, the consequences their choice may have for other people. That is, as you say, one way to look at things, but I'm sure we can agree that it's not a particularly admirable way. It's pretty selfish.

If the question becomes whether the government should encourage or require people to be vaccinated, then obviously the government is primarily concerned with the benefits of vaccination for the community at large. So they should definitely be taking account both of the protection conferred on the person who is vaccinated, and on the protection conferred on everyone around them. It would be bizarre to suggest otherwise.

tl;dr: vaccinated are much less likely to transmit.

Long read: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/09/the-vaccinated-arent-just-as-likely-to-spread-covid/620161/

"I'm not worried..." bollocks. Go read any of the death-from-covid sites out there, would you want that? Versus taking a vaccine? If you're not worried, your heads in the sand (or worse, you're a lying anti-vaxxer)

Feel free to present your mystery data. I've shared some (and the Atlantic article linked to some excellent NYC data.) So, what's the cost of Covid illness to an under 45? What is the likelihood of under-45 spreading it unboosted versus boosted?

Booster programs just started, FYI, so data might be hard to come by. But there's plenty of data on how bad it is to die from Covid.

Basically, your point seems to be "I can't be bothered since I was double jabbed and I'm under 45." Is that right? And you're advocating the same for others under 45, even though you have no data, pro or con?

In the US, depending on the severity, it's pretty scary. In Ireland I'm sure it's very expensive but good luck pulling data from the walking failure that is the HSE.

Yes, I'll take it. Not due one for a few months Id say though. One issue Ill have to ask my GP is if I can get a different one because I was so sick after the second, I really dont want to go through that again.