Can you elaborate on these "political reasons"? I've heard other people say this, too, but I can't follow the reasoning. What is the government's ulterior end result of "booster for everybody" besides increased public health?
The only conspiracy I can at least follow along is the one where government is funneling money to their buddies at evil BigPharma, however there are plenty of easier ways to do this than a nation-wide vaccination campaign.
All the restrictions that were imposed in my country hit everybody equally. Which doesn't make sense from the risk reward perspective. For people in age group 0-30 the risk of death is close to zero. For age group 80+ is more than 15%. Orders of magnitude difference. The government tried to do a lock down for 65+, but there was a huge backlash (why they can go out but I cannot?), so the ordinance only said it's a recommendation for 65+ to stay indoors. Only thing they did is "Hours for Seniors". Only 65+ can go to shops in morning hours - 10-12 am, even though it was illegal.
There is a strong argument that boosters are pointless for young people (or even bad due to small myocarditis risk for young males), but politicians are scared of making mandatory vaccinations for 50+ only.
(Based on an interview with a well known sociologist)
The only conspiracy I can at least follow along is the one where government is funneling money to their buddies at evil BigPharma, however there are plenty of easier ways to do this than a nation-wide vaccination campaign.