Will you take an approved COVID-19 vaccine?

floorpie

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117759587#Comment_117759587

Go on what?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117759594#Comment_117759594

Are you saying that the content of my post is crazy? Would you like to explain why?

astrofool

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117759574#Comment_117759574

I'll ask again, as you seem to be veering towards conspiracy theories now and might be better off in another forum, but let's see if you give an answer this time (3rd time asking):

"So, as I said, lay out your cards, are the studies faulty and are you implying that vaccines don't work?"

floorpie

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117759747#Comment_117759747

Please explain what's conspiracy theory-esque about the claim I make in the post you quote?

dePeatrick

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117759090#Comment_117759090

Not much point if you don’t get it…

astrofool

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117759777#Comment_117759777

You could try answering some questions first, I mean, in between throwing around misinformation like confetti.

floorpie

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117760023#Comment_117760023

I am posting no misinformation in this thread.

I said that there was 1 death attributed to COVID-19 in the Moderna trial, and zero deaths in the Pfizer trial, over 2 years, amongst 30k and 35k participants. You say that this claim is verging on conspiracy theory, and is misinformation. Why is it verging on a conspiracy theory and why is it misinformation? Am I reading the results incorrectly?

Shark7

Yes

Shark7

Yes

Wolf359f

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117760060#Comment_117760060

over 2 years? has covid even been around for 2 years?????

Sounds like misinformation for sure.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117760060#Comment_117760060

I am posting no misinformation in this thread.

You have made the following false statement to me and others repeatedly based on your misreading of a paper.

Moderna's data shows it doesn't prevent infection.

Not only is that misinformation but it's one of the more dangerous types of misinformation you can post as you are suggesting that one of the primary benefits of taking a vaccine doesn't exist and you don't have any evidence to back that up.

LuckyLloyd

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117759964#Comment_117759964

Okay so - leaving aside the nonsense in the above post - we are at 91%+ of the adult population who have taken the vaccine. So what percentage of that figure are reallly anti vaxx iyo?

floorpie

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117760331#Comment_117760331

I've gone through this with YOU already. Moderna and Pfizer simply did not assess infection properly. That's why everybody is now "surprised" that vaccines are not stopping infection. No...the science didn't change...the virus didn't change, they just did not assess it, full stop.

The only trial that did properly assess infection is AstraZeneca via weekly PCR on the entire cohort, and they showed an extremely marginal effect in their main trial. They even reported no effect on Delta in a trial in South Africa, which is brave and unusual in science in my experience.

You bleating on about evidence when you can't even read the most basic of evidence is tiresome.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117760160#Comment_117760160

It's a 2 year trial with interim updates. They don't say the exact start date but according to press release it's at least 500 days of 759 scheduled.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117760571#Comment_117760571

Yes, so there is no study that shows that "Moderna's data shows it doesn't prevent infection" as you have claimed, is there? The only study that you have linked to in fact shows the opposite of what you claim, doesn't it?

floorpie

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117760585#Comment_117760585

I've linked to all trials, I don't know what one you're talking about. Do you mean the adolescent trial of Moderna that showed a mean effectiveness of 39%, 95% confidence interval of 0-60%, after 2 doses?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117760591#Comment_117760591

Yes. And what was the lower bound for effectiveness after 1 dose?

PuddingBreath

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117760284#Comment_117760284

no, being coerced isn't "their choice and I am sure they wayed up the pros and cons."

i can pull up peer reviewed studies showing what i'm saying is true about getting coofy off surfaces and masks having little effect but lets just say you're myopic and i am too, tell Dr Ciara Kelly that too because i heard her saying the same on the radio. maybe write a letter to newstalk and get her fired. or i could post a link of what (mad) Dr Fauci in the USA said at the beginning of all this about masks then changed his mind. Dr Rand Paul got censored off youtube for saying the same this week, quoting peer reviewed studies, buuuuuuuut never mind THOSE scientists and doctors ? their work is "so much BS" ?

what has flu got to do with covid ? or is flu covid ? changing goalposts there friend, do you realise that the people who got "saved " from flu last year could build up like a blocked dam, or other diseases and these diseases/viruses could come back with avengeance ? there's an outbreak of interseasonal respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) in parts of the USA at the moment probably because it's been artifically depressed for the last year and a half. i say this is a big experiment that is doomed to fail, you'll disagree. are we to lock people up for another few years to make it a handy job on the HSE come winter ? and for forever more after that ? or should the vulnerable do more to protect themselves in the winter? should government policy not encourage people to be healthier ? or just jab and lockdown, rinse and repeat ? jabbed people are spreading it among themselves having been told the jab was their way out of it, that's BS. if you're jabbing people then stop testing them or else test them but tell them the truth that their jab isn't their way out of this back to freedom.

i'm off to lick toilet seats, get coofed up and die, good luck with the dictatorship, i'm sure it'll work out well for ye all like all other dictatorships.

floorpie

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117760594#Comment_117760594

After 1 dose is only relevant until the 2nd dose, unless you propose only giving people 1 dose. Effectiveness was higher after 1 dose vs 2 doses, because the time between 1st and 2nd dose was 28 days, and the time between 2nd dose and collation of this data was a mean of 83 days. As such you could expect effectiveness in preventing infection to continue to drop, with later snapshots (which they're collecting).

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117760618#Comment_117760618

Are you saying that if the effectiveness after 1 dose is >0% that you can conclude that the effectiveness after 2 does must be 0% if the CI for 2 doses allows that? How does that work? How have you concluded that the effectiveness of the vaccine after 2 doses must be 0%?

What paper have you used to come to the conclusion that "Moderna's data shows it doesn't prevent infection"? Because it's not this paper.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117760571#Comment_117760571

Ah it was the peer review process which was wrong and the entire scientific community went along with it for "reasons"

Man, it takes a special level of zealotry to continue to post, ignoring multiple requests for verifiable complimentary data, and skipping right past people proving your position is fundamentally flawed.

I can't believe that anyone actually gave you degrees in any life science

floorpie

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117760643#Comment_117760643

I've peer reviewed enough papers to know that it is now a garbage process that is ruining science, but no that's not my critique, in this case the issue is the choice of methodology which does not assess acute infection adequately. For a good methodology, see the AstraZeneca trial.

I'm not skipping anyone? What data do you want?

floorpie

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117760641#Comment_117760641

I'm not concluding or guessing anything. I'm repeating what they report. I didn't say that the effectiveness must be zero, I said that the data does not show that it prevents infection. It shows a mean effectiveness in preventing infection of 39%, with a 95% CI of zero to 60% (within 80 days of 2nd dose)

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117760664#Comment_117760664

I have quoted word for word what you stated before which was

Moderna's data shows it doesn't prevent infection

You are aware that that the statement that you just made in the above comment, namely

Moderna's data does not show that it prevents infection

is a completely different statement, right?

With the first statement you are implying that the Moderna vaccine does not do something, which cannot be concluded, as you have not provided a study that shows that, including this study.

The second statement merely suggests that studies have not ruled this out this is a possibility, which is a completely different statement.

So again I ask how you have concluded the first statement that I quoted from you, as the evidence for that conclusion is not in this paper.

floorpie

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117760707#Comment_117760707

It's the same statement statistically speaking. This is why they do not claim to prevent infection in the paper, they only claim to prevent symptoms arising from infection (which it does successfully do). If their assessment showed it prevented infection they would state it. It's possible that it does, but it is vanishingly unlikely.

I can be more precise if you like. The null hypothesis is that the lower bound on the confidence interval 57 days after 2nd dose is <70%. There is insufficient statistical evidence to reject the null hypothesis. The vaccine does not meet its immunogenicity objective.

Verbatim from protocol: "The study would be considered as meeting the immunogenicity objective if the 95% confidence interval (CI) of percentage of participants on mRNA-1273 rules out 70% (lower bound of the 95% CI > 70%)."

I could be wrong, but I believe I'm reading it correctly and am open to correction.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117760744#Comment_117760744

They are most certainly not the same statement statistically speaking. The paper even states that the immunogenicity objective was met.

If you were able to conclude from that data that the Moderna vaccine doesn't prevent infection then they would state it. They would highlight it in the abstract and the conclusion as it would be a very big deal and the most important thing to conclude from the paper. But it is not stated because, not only can it not be concluded, the data does not even indicate that it's true.

floorpie

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117760841#Comment_117760841

1) They are the same statement statistically speaking

2) No...it's common in science to refer very little to failures, especially not in an abstract. It is typical to essentially have the wool pulled over ones eyes, and to require the reader to inspect findings carefully to notice failures.

If you want proof of this in this paper: read the paragraph in the paper under Results titled "efficacy", paying particular attention to the mean values and confidence intervals, then cross reference this against the statistical methods to assess efficacy in the protocol ("efficacy assessments"), paying attention the the null hypotheses. Then after that, go back to the paper and notice that the make no claim to prevent infection.

Again I could be wrong but I believe I'm reading it correctly, if I'm wrong please point out exactly where to read and I'll read it.

astrofool

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117760913#Comment_117760913

Look, you're again spreading dangerous misinformation, but I would suggest that the better place for it is the vaccine megathread or, more likely, the conspiracy theories forum.

You are continuing to post bunkum, there are peer reviewed studies published that show you are wrong, you have been linked to these numerous times yet you don't list them, challenge them and continue to post lies.

I will ask this one more time:

Do the COVID vaccines work?

A simple yes/no at this stage will suffice, no hiding behind guff and ranting.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117760913#Comment_117760913

1) They are not the same statement statistically speaking. If you perform a study on the effectiveness on wearing seatbelts in terms of preventing deaths in serious accidents, and, due to limited data, such a study shows a 39% effectiveness with a 95% CI of 0% to 60%, you can correctly state that "the data does not show that seatbelts reduce deaths". However, not only is the separate statement of "the data shows that seatbelts do not reduce deaths" very misleading, there is nothing about the results that indicates that it's true.

2) It most certainly is common. Both the abstract and conclusion of my PhD thesis highlighted nothing but failures and that the theory that I suggested to explain a phenomenon was in fact not the correct theory and that it should be ruled out. Researchers have no qualms about highlighting failures, especially if that failure is of great significance.

I have read the relevant section of the efficacy section of the results and I have also read their relevant comment in the discussion section for that section.

A relatively limited number of asymptomatic infections resulted in a negative lower boundary of the 95% confidence interval for efficacy starting 14 days after a second mRNA-1273 injection; however, the number of asymptomatic cases after the first injection was higher, with a vaccine efficacy of 59.5% (95% CI, 28.4 to 77.3). 

You have also stated

The vaccine does not meet its immunogenicity objective.

whereas the paper states the opposite. So you are now also disagreeing with the authors, are you not?

patobrien12

Maybe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117761008#Comment_117761008

I'd upvote this twice, if I could