Is that based on solid medical expertise? given that I am in the highly vulnerable group and my consultant was telling me even before my 2nd jab that I would be likely to need a booster jab later in the year.
There does appear to be two extremes of views, on one side those who fear that we should stay in lockdown until it's 100% safe and those who fear that any announcement is to keep us in lockdown forever.
As such some will, as soon as there's an announcement that there's the possibility of needing a booster that some will say "see we need more lockdowns" whilst others will say "oh no there's going to be more lockdowns".
I would like to hope that we don't need more lockdowns as more of us are protected from the first double jab and this protection would be increased further by a booster program, this reducing further the need for restrictions continuing.
This is based on the fact that whilst the easing of restrictions has been paused, there's now fairly few calling for them to be increased.
That's against a backdrop of the number of cases over a 7 day period doubling in the last 12 days having doubled from 12 days before that, yet the numbers being admitted to hospital going up by just under 20% in the same time period.
However even then the number of deaths is generally falling (there's been a small rise in the number of deaths in a 7 day period from a low point a few days before the latest data but that's still lower than a week before that).
With current values of around 100 in a 7 day period. In fact of the 6 days where there's been fewer than 150 deaths over a 7 day period 5 are the latest 5 days and the other was last August. likewise of the 14 days with less than 200 deaths in a 7 day period half are the latest 7 days and the other half were last summer (both consecutive days).
However last summer there were 5,000 cases/week, now there's 100,000 cases/week.
As such the evidence for needing tighter restrictions just isn't there