In other industries they call this "sales": getting rid of current perishable stock before buying fresh one. It's there, we might as well use it.
Honestly this theory seems like absolute crazy talk. Especially when perfectly reasonable explanations exist like the fact that immunity from vaccines wanes over time.
When given option 1 (crazy, complicated, far fetched, zero evidence) and option 2 (simple, makes sense, lots of independent scientific parties agreeing), and you pick options 2... ???? I'm confused about how you pick #1.
(I haven’t studied whether it’s happened in the case of Pfizer boosters.)
It wouldn't shock me at all to find out examples of pharma companies including Pfizer acting that way, but in this particular case of Covid vaccines there is evidence and plenty of reason to believe that it's not the case and you don't have any counter evidence, so no it's not a reasonable opinion it's just a conspiracy theory.
New variant comes out, CDC is pressed to propose a solution. Pharma companies come in and say "here's a study we did ourselves showing that our own product provides some improvement." CDC recommends pharma product for lack of any better ideas.
You can reasonably imagine getting this result whether or not the booster actually provides more than a marginal improvement.
You start off with a small group of "vaccines cause autism" crackpots, and they're irrelevant. Because vaccines still cause R < 1 if 90+% of people get them even if some single digit percentage of crackpots refuse.
But the crackpots are really loud and refuse to be defeated by science or logic. So some genius decides that what we need to own the refuseniks are vaccine mandates.
From a human psychology perspective, this was an incredibly bad idea. Because now you've gone from fighting seven lizardmen crackpots to fighting millions of regular people who don't believe in non-consensual medical treatment and can point to a long list of historical precedent for why that's a bad idea.
They literally changed the dictionary definition of "anti-vaxxer" to include people who oppose vaccine mandates:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anti-vaxxer
So now that you've put millions of people on "the other side," they are, by human nature, going to follow confirmation bias into being more likely to believe anything that helps "their side." So now large numbers of people start to believe that vaccines are dangerous and people should be afraid of getting them and they're less effective than claimed and they're only getting pushed by greedy pharma companies to make money, because that's what helps "their side" so they're more inclined to believe that it's true.
Conversely, the other side dismisses the possibility that any of those things are true for the same reason, even if some of them might be.
Yes.
Because if you're not using logic to take your current position then it'll be impossible to use logic to convince you otherwise and nobody should waste their time.
I am amazed to see people discuss what are essentially the marketing claims of a corrupt industry as if they had scientific validity.
Substitute the word “immunity” with “blockchain” or “Artificial Intelligence” and maybe more people would see through it.
Timeliness matters a lot when you have doubling times measured in days, even 2-3 months and it could be too late.
Finally, it reduces people's natural hesitancy about side effects of the "new vaccine".
Hmm, still nothing.
Just because someone says X - and you agree - doesn't make it legitimate. Blind confirmation bias is not going to help us.