Covid vaccines - thread banned users in First Post

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118541915#Comment_118541915

It's not my research as you well know. It is data published by Public Health Scotland and by the UK Health Security Agency.

Fighting Tao

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118541934#Comment_118541934

But you’re the only person to spot it. Obviously you are the guru. Let the world k ow. You are wasted on Boards with the knowledge you have.

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118541939#Comment_118541939

Here it is again if you want to have another look and see if you can spot it. In cases per 100k the unvaccinated are contracting covid at a lower rate than all other vaccination statuses. Fact.

Fighting Tao

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118541975#Comment_118541975

By the way, interpreting others studies is secondary research and a valid research method. So it is your research. I can’t wait to see you talking about it on Prime Time in your big exposé on what the world has missed.

Dohnjoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118541747#Comment_118541747

Indeed.

For the UK SHA, will see if the UK statistics authority can help

https://osr.statisticsauthority.gov.uk/communicating-data-is-more-than-just-presenting-the-numbers/

"Guidance on interpretation

The report is clear that a direct comparison of rates for vaccinated and unvaccinated is not appropriate. The report opens with the text:

“These raw data should not be used to estimate vaccine effectiveness as the data does not take into account inherent biases present such as differences in risk, behaviour and testing in the vaccinated and unvaccinated populations.”

This is a helpful health warning. By thinking about questions people may have and how they may try to use data, producers can pre-empt potential issues and provide explanation that will support appropriate interpretation. In the context of COVID-19 case rates some of the key questions might be:

• What are the data measuring? And is this what people want to know about? Many people want to know the risk of COVID-19 infection for those who are double vaccinated compared with those who have not had a vaccine. The data in UKHSA’s Table 5 do not do this. It does not show infection rates in the population. The table shows case rates i.e. the rate of COVID-19 positive tests in those who come forward for testing, something the government continues to ask people to do[1]. As a result, the data may have inherent biases.
• Are the two groups in question comparable? It is easy to see that there may be different behaviours in people who have had two vaccinations compared to those who have had none. One hypothesis is that those with two vaccinations are more likely to get tested, meaning the case rates will look relatively higher for this group compared to the unvaccinated group. There will also be different risks associated with each group, the vaccination programme prioritised vulnerable groups and frontline health and social care workers, so includes those who are more at risk of infection. We haven’t seen evidence to quantify the impact of these risks and behaviours, but it’s likely there will be an impact.
• Are there other sources of data which could be considered? There are increasingly other sources of information which demonstrate vaccines are highly effective. The UKHSA has done a significant amount of research and analysis into vaccines. This is outlined in the vaccine surveillance report, which sets out effectiveness against different outcomes (infection, symptomatic disease, hospitalisation and mortality). There is further information via UKHSA’s monitoring of the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccination In addition, the Office for National Statistics (ONS) has published an article on the impact of vaccination on testing positive as well as an article on deaths involving COVID-19 by vaccination status. All of these examples take into account characteristics of those in the sample and try to adjust for differences. As a result, they offer a better indication of vaccine effectiveness."

I won't copy the whole thing but it goes into further detail. Note how the denominator can significantly affect the data:

"As an example, for the 70 to 79 population, the NIMS figure is just 4% higher than the ONS mid-year estimates (5.02 million and 4.82 million respectively). These figures can then be used in combination with the data on total people vaccinated from NIMS to estimate the total number of people not vaccinated. In doing this, the difference of nearly 200,000 in the total population estimates is applied entirely to the relatively small number of 70 to 79 year olds who are not vaccinated. It means the NIMS estimate for the unvaccinated population in the 70 to 79 age band is 363% higher than the estimate of those not vaccinated based on the ONS mid-year estimates. So, an estimate 4% higher at the 70 to 79 age band has led to an estimate 363% higher in the estimate of the unvaccinated population at that age band. This has a huge impact on the case rates for this group, and the conclusions drawn from the data."

This is why they publish warnings on the raw data. Lay-people can misinterpret it.

Someone could see that one cherry-picked figure is twice as high as another, and ignoring all the warnings, then decide to form an opinion that a vaccinated person is twice as likely to get Omicron as an unvaccinated person (which makes no sense). Or worse, already have that opinion and go seeking it in any data they can find which they perceive supports it.

whippet

how would the assumption that the unvaccinated population would have a significant proportion who wouldn’t bother getting a PCR test even if showing symptoms - ‘cos you know they prefer to rage against the machine and disregard science ?

@schmittel - BTW your last series of posts is a prime example of why people who are not qualified to interpret data shouldn’t post their opinions of the data as fact.

whippet

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118541583#Comment_118541583

@schmittel

Direct from the study - it more or less said looking at the statistical differences between vaccination status is more or less pointless to try and decipher. So - only a Facebook Scientist like yourself would use this data to prove any point

”The case rates in the vaccinated and unvaccinated populations are unadjusted crude rates that do not take into account underlying statistical biases in the data and there are likely to be systematic differences between these 2 population groups. For example:

• testing behaviour is likely to be different between people with different vaccination status, resulting in differences in the chances of being identified as a case

• many of those who were at the head of the queue for vaccination are those at higher risk from COVID-19 due to their age, their occupation, their family circumstances or because of underlying health

issues

• people who are fully vaccinated and people who are unvaccinated may behave differently, particularly with regard to social interactions and therefore may have differing levels of exposure to COVID-19

• people who have never been vaccinated are more likely to have caught COVID-19”

astrofool

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118541975#Comment_118541975

I think it's funny that you're doubling down here when the writers of the report pre-emptively trolled you on this.

But let's assume that what there is more cases among the vaccinated, explain how this could happen, how can somebody with antibodies be more likely to be infected than somebody without antibodies.

gar32

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118541939#Comment_118541939

Nope all people who know that the vaccine does not work well know. Thehighwire .com

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118542038#Comment_118542038

When I asked how you would interpret the data, I specifically meant how you interpret the data, rather than another link telling me I should ignore the data, nothing to see here. So I guess your position is the data is worthless and should be ignored, nothing to see here?

Nonetheless, thanks for the link, but I’ve read it before at the time of the initial furore over the stats, just as I had read the fact check articles you linked.

After reading it, I completely understood the differences between the NIMS and ONS data and the UKHsAs lengthy explanation of why they used NIMS seemed very sensible.

two things I didn’t understand were a) to illustrate their point the OSR published the unvaccinated rates using both NIMS and ONS but only the vaccinated rate for NIMS. For a meaningful comparison why not publish the vaccinated rate using ONS as well? And b) why did the OSR not object earlier to the case rates per 100k when they showed that in the majority of age groups the unvaccinated rates were higher?

Can you help me understand this?

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118542301#Comment_118542301

Its definitely possible because it has happened before and was specifically warned about as a potential danger of rushing vaccination development and subsequent wide scale vaccination roll out.

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118542706#Comment_118542706

Cool. Show this. Show this is due to safety concerns like you claimed.

Otherwise you are lying.

As I said if you can show where the EMA said they were doing that for that reason I would close my account.

Why aren't you showing the evidence you claim to have?

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118542401#Comment_118542401

You should read the conclusions of the people writing the studies and reports you are cherry picking from. They are the ones who are analyzing the data and are qualified to do so.

So far all of the reports you've posted have concluded that the vaccines are safe and effective.

Do you believe that the reports are wrong, yet still have accurate data?

sydthebeat

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118542743#Comment_118542743

Hahaha

You are the weakest link.... Goodbye

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118542743#Comment_118542743

Lol very cute. You're so passed off that all you can do now is bark out one word insults that you have admitted are false accusations.

But if I'm a shill all you have to do to make me go away is to prove your claim.

Show a statement from the EMA that backs up your claim and I will close my account.

It's that easy.

But we both know that you're not going to do this or admit why.

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118542729#Comment_118542729

And again there's that funny funny original joke where you intentionally misspell my name. Good job.

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118542038#Comment_118542038

I don't think it's for the benefit of lay people. It's to try and preempt conspiracy grifters and anti-vaxx nuts from misinterpreting the data and articles.

The theorists here aren't finding these things on their own, their being fed to then o their social media or choice by these scam artists.

I think the authors were a bit naive in thing that conspiracy theorist would actually read their report in full.

And as we've seen even still they will still reinvent reality around them to ignore what the report actually says.

Fighting Tao

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118542706#Comment_118542706

I already asked for you to show proof, if you are not telling more lies. Come on, where is it?

Fighting Tao

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118542729#Comment_118542729

Back to the childish name calling. It really is a weird fallback position you take when you have run out of lies to tell.

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118542782#Comment_118542782

OK. Where are you getting this from and where does it say that they are not renewing contracts because of this?

Fighting Tao

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118542782#Comment_118542782

Is your record player broken? It seems to be stuck on repeat. Covid also causes these issues. Reported back in 2020 if I recall correctly. The vaccines are still far safer than catching covid and so far the evidence points to less side affects than having covid.

Fighting Tao

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118542795#Comment_118542795

He is a compulsive liar. He made it up, but that may be giving him too much credit. Probably is regurgitating what he is spoon fed from grifters.

Fighting Tao

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118542821#Comment_118542821

Are you trying to deflect from your lies about the EMA?

The Gruffalo is a tougher read than you.

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118542821#Comment_118542821

Yet again you're the one coming here day in and day out telling lies and throwing toys out of the pram when people point out that you are telling lies.

You lot keep telling us that you should be free to tell each other lies and fairy stories without any meaning coming here to ruin your fantasies.

Also I thought your conspiracy was that we are all the same person who is getting paid for this?

Does your conspiracy theory/reality change depending on how pissy you are and how you want to insult us?

Fighting Tao

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118542860#Comment_118542860

In fairness to the poster. People do tend to forget what they have said when they are ranting and raving with froth flowing out their mouth. They only have a vague memory and have to try and fill in the blanks. However, it’s all recorded here and can be read to ensure that the made up story is consistent, but that takes effort and time away from the next rant.

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118542890#Comment_118542890

Sorry man still waiting for you to provide the statement from the EMA that shows that they are canceling contracts cause of safety concerns.

Don't try and deflect to a new topic because you can't back up your claims. Its a bit sad when you try to do that.

Don't waste your time trawling Twitter for new ideas. Stick with the topic at hand and use it to kick me off the site.

I mean unless there some reason you're not providing the quote?

Fighting Tao

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118542890#Comment_118542890

Yeah legions, redness that appears and goes away after. Transient is the word used. Imagine that. Absolutely lethal. Ban all vaccines because of it! It’s not a new story this study Frlm august last year even has pictures of the legions and it may help you understand how it is a non issue in reality when it comes to the vaccine safety:

https://eurjmedres.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40001-021-00557-z

But it’s deflection from you away from your LIES about the EMA.

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118542918#Comment_118542918

The only people who have claimed Reuters isn't reliable is you conspiracy theories.

You have not linked to anything from Reuters. Certainly not anything that backs up you claim about the EMA canceling contracts.

Stop deflecting and provide the link. Do this and I will close my account.

Why are you stalling?

Fighting Tao

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118542939#Comment_118542939

So you made up the whole EMA thing then…..right so. You should have started by saying that it was a work of fiction and you wouldn’t have gotten so stressed by being asked for evidence of what you tried to pass as a fact.

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118542939#Comment_118542939

You tell us. You made the claim.

If you can't provide a statement from the EMA, then how do you know that the contracts are cancelled due to safety concerns? Where did you get this information from and how do you know its actually true?