Covid vaccines - thread banned users in First Post
Comments
-
-
@hometruths the problem is, you don't engage in good faith... you were paraphrasing and partially referencing scientific papers earlier in the thread to match what you believed, when countered you just ignored it...
if you don't want to change what you believe, fine... but whinging about it when it's countered and you counter back with the same argument with no further evidence is just a bit pathetic
3 -
Are you talking about the partial quote from the vaccine failure definition? I acknowledged that immediately, said fair enough, and corrected the point I was making to reflect the full quote.
If it is not that, what are referring to?
0 -
It's basically the same thing they're all doing. Buzz just doesn't bother with trying to disguise it.
1 -
The argument is that if your concerns about the vaccine possibly increasing the chances of infection, then you should be easily able to point to other sources of information that support that idea.
My argument is that the real world data - I referenced the UK data - is showing a clear and consistent trend of higher case rates in the vaccinated vs the unvaccinated. I have said that I do not know why this is the case, but I have argued that the "comprehensive explanation" provided is not plausible.
Thus it remains a possibility that it is the vaccine itself that is making the vaccinated more susceptible to infection. I have stated clearly that I am only that is a possibility, others have said it is an impossibility. I disagree.
You should be able to point to ther data sets from other countries that indicate a similar anomaly is happening.
Very few countries publish the data to the same level of detail that UK do, enabling a direct comparison in rates between vaccinated and unvaccinated. There have been studies from both the Canada and Denmark showing the same thing, but the results from both were again explained by behavioural differences and biases between the vaccinated and unvaccinated. Again the explanations were catch all - there may be biases that could effect the results, but no actual identification of what the biases were.
You should be able to point to doctors, experts and medical organisations that share your concern and say so directly.
At time of emergency use approval the regulators identified this as a possible risk, flagging up the fact that it could only be identified after large numbers of doses were administered and real world data could be compared. So they definitely had the concerns before they saw the real world data.
You at the least should be able to point to where the people who produced the reports you're clinging to said that they share your concerns.
I'm not clinging to any reports. If I am clinging to anything it is the comprehensive explanation the UKHSA produced to explain why the rates are so much higher in the vaccinated vs the unvaccinated. Of course there is no evidence from that report that they share this view, they say there is nothing to see here.
They say the rates in the unvaccinated are likely to be lower this week because they are more likely to have caught covid in previous weeks when they were simultaneously less likely to have caught covid because of lower exposure. They had lower exposure because they were more likely to avoid social interactions which carried a higher risk factor, despite the fact that they were less health conscious than the vaccinated. And these behavioural factors held true for a period of 6 months.
As this thread has shown there is no shortage of people who think this is credible explanation, but I am not one of them.
In addition you should be able to explain why those same pople would instead suggest an explanation that is false.
I have no idea, only pointless speculation. But that does not make the explanation any more credible.
You've not addressed or acknowledged these points.
So you've conceded them.
Incorrect.
You can't point to any other evidence to support your concern. You can't point out any experts that share your concern. You can't explain why the experts would lie and give a false explanation for the data.
So why aren't you able to do this?
Is it because there's some sort of secret effort to suppress this information perhaps?
Perhaps. In the absence of any credible explanation, that is certainly possible. The UK have suppressed the information rather than more comprehensively address the concerns.
0 -
Advertisement
-
acknowledged it, and still trying to push the argument... among other arguments, which have had valid counter arguments which you just ignore, wait a day or two, then bring up again...
"I posted all these links that got countered so I'm just going to keep referring to them" wah wah wah...
we get it
3 -
I always thought a lot of anti-vaxxers had the odd screw loose. Buzzer has proven my hunch in his post above. Jaysus.
0 -
Lol a pretty round about way for not answering any of the questions.
Very few countries publish the data to the same level of detail that UK do, enabling a direct comparison in rates between vaccinated and unvaccinated.
So you can't point to any other evidence.
At time of emergency use approval the regulators identified this as a possible risk, flagging up the fact that it could only be identified after large numbers of doses were administered and real world data could be compared. So they definitely had the concerns before they saw the real world data.
So you can't point to any NOW who believe that the data your concerned about is an indication of this.
Of course there is no evidence from that report that they share this view, they say there is nothing to see here.
So you can't point to any quote where they say they share your concerns.
I have no idea, only pointless speculation. But that does not make the explanation any more credible.
So no, you can't provide any explanation for why they would lie. So therefore, they aren't lying.
Incorrect.
And yet, your roundabout post here does seem to concede all of the points...
Perhaps. In the absence of any credible explanation, that is certainly possible. The UK have suppressed the information rather than more comprehensively address the concerns.
lol but "not a conspiracy theorist" right?
However, that's not a possible or credible explanation. It doesn't make sense to me, so therefore, it can't be an explanation.
0 -
acknowledged it, and still trying to push the argument..
The argument still stands. According to the definition of vaccine failure every symptomatic case of Covid is a case of vaccine failure. Fact.
among other arguments, which have had valid counter arguments which you just ignore, wait a day or two, then bring up again...
The central point of the argument that I am repeating is that this is not a credible and comprehensive explanation of why cases in the the vaccinated are higher than the unvaccinated - https://ukhsa.blog.gov.uk/2021/11/02/transparency-and-data-ukhsas-vaccines-report/
If we look at the numbers of cases in vaccinated compared to unvaccinated people, the rate of cases in the vaccinated people appears higher for many age groups. This is because there are key differences in the characteristics and behaviour of individuals who are vaccinated compared to those who are unvaccinated. The rates therefore reflect this population's behaviour and exposure to COVID-19, not how well the vaccines work. We also know that, as infection rates have been high over the summer, many people were previously infected, and this has had an impact on the rate of infection in recent weeks.
Several important factors can affect the rates of diagnosed COVID-19 cases and this may result in a lower rate in unvaccinated than in vaccinated people. For example:
People who are fully vaccinated may be more health conscious and therefore more likely to get tested for COVID-19 and so more likely to be identified as a case (based on the data provided by the NHS Test and Trace).
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 in the weeks or months before the period of the cases covered in the report. This gives them some natural immunity to the virus for a few months which may have contributed to a lower case rate in the past few weeks.
Nobody has made a valid counter argument to this. Are you able to do so?
In fairness astrofool made an attempt, but quickly moved on once he realised it was doing more harm than good. Everybody else just ignores it, waits a day or two and says things like "This has been explained to you before", "You don't understand", "You're ignoring the counterarguments" etc etc
Are you able to present a valid counter argument to the above?
0 -
So you can't point to any other evidence.
You've just totally ignored that I pointed evidence from Canada and Denmark, as well as UK
Total population of these three countries in excess of 100 million.
0 -
Advertisement
-
But first, could you actually explain why they're trying to push a false explanation?
If you believe that they are just straight lying, we can't explain it to you.
If you believe that you, an untrained rando antivaxxer is somehow just smarter than them, we can't really explain it to you either.
0 -
Yes, you said that the evidence was explained by the people who produced that evidence. Why would that evidence then support your claims?
Do those people say that the evidence they produced indicates that the vaccines are the cause?
0 -
it was explained earlier... you chose to ignore it... your argument clings on the point that vaccines have the same affects to all variants, which you agreed isn't the case...
you have agreed that the vaccine has pretty much eradicated the original strain is was designed for and that it's well known and publicised they are not as effective against other variants...
you are still making out its on emergency legislation where its not (we explained the nuances in the EMA system also, where the yearly flu jab features also on the increased monitoring list, along with numerous cancer and heart treatments)
but yet, here we are.... again.
1 -
If you believe that you, an untrained rando antivaxxer is somehow just smarter than them, we can't really explain it to you either.
Simply saying You don't have to understand why it is correct, you just have to accept it is correct, because they're smarter than you is not a valid counter argument.
It's just another way of saying "I'm right, you're wrong, but I can't explain why" - it's nonsense.
0 -
I specifically asked you if you could provide a valid counter argument to this:
The central point of the argument that I am repeating is that this is not a credible and comprehensive explanation of why cases in the the vaccinated are higher than the unvaccinated - https://ukhsa.blog.gov.uk/2021/11/02/transparency-and-data-ukhsas-vaccines-report/
And I mentioned that previously the responses from other posters was: "This has been explained to you before", "You don't understand", "You're ignoring the counterarguments" etc etc
And what do you reply?!
it was explained earlier... you chose to ignore it...
Given that it is so simple to understand, it is odd that nobody can either explain this again or link to the previous explanation.
0 -
in the link you just added, it has a comprehensive explanation.... people in this thread have added studies supporting one or more of the theories mentioned.... which you have ignored and brushed off as people taking government explanations" hook line and sinker"...
as much as you want to throw people off with this approach, trying to re-run/ bog down responses, continually referring to already addressed arguments, because the general concensus (and scientific fact) disagrees with your viewpoint so you're choosing to ignore and regurgitate a few days later... it doesn't work...
2 -
But the alternative explanation that somehow you, without training or any knowledge and with no access to the data they used to compile the report, somehow knows better than the trained experts who did have the data, is not possible.
If you are suggesting this impossibility, then how could we explain anything to you rationally?
As we see with your fellow anti-vaxxers, there's a great number of things they refuse to understand as well.
And notice how once again, you're ignoring the questions and points I made to you.
Do you think that if you ignore points and questions, that somehow is a valid counter argument?
0 -
there's also the huge irony of linking a governmental link to suppprt their argument, yet cherry picking the parts from said link to support their argument while blatently ignoring the parts which counter their argument.... all the while preaching about people taking government standpoint "hook link and sinker"
like I said earlier...texas sharpshooter fallacy
.
2 -
cherry picking the parts from said link to support their argument while blatently ignoring the parts which counter their argument
which bits have I blatantly ignored?
0 -
Well for one, the majority of the questions put to you over the last few pages.
0 -
Advertisement
-
Note how each anti-vaxxer in this thread has a different take. No two are the same. That in itself is a big tell.
A bit like a whole bunch of people adamantly claiming that e.g. Mount Everest isn't 8,849 metres tall, but each one of those people claiming it's a wildly different height. None of them having any issue with their counterparts..
1 -
most of it by the sounds of things
0 -
"No one can make to understand something that I refuse to understand" - literally every conspiracy theorist, denier and anti-whatever on this forum
3 -
Very interesting paper in the BMJ entitled The unintended consequences of COVID-19 vaccine policy: why mandates, passports and restrictions may cause more harm than good - I recommend reading the whole thing, but most people probably won't bother as it is very long.
Some bits I found interesting:
We argue that current COVID-19 vaccine policies should be re-evaluated in light of the negative consequences that we outline. Leveraging empowering strategies based on trust and public consultation, and improving healthcare services and infrastructure, represent a more sustainable approach to optimising COVID-19 vaccination programmes and, more broadly, the health and well-being of the public.
The publicly communicated rationale for implementing such policies has shifted over time. Early messaging around COVID-19 vaccination as a public health response measure focused on protecting the most vulnerable. This quickly shifted to vaccination thresholds to reach herd immunity and ‘end the pandemic’ and ‘get back to normal’ once sufficient vaccine supply was available. In late summer of 2021, this pivoted again to a universal vaccination recommendation to reduce hospital/intensive care unit (ICU) burden in Europe and North America, to address the ‘pandemic of the unvaccinated’.
Since early reports of post-vaccination transmission in mid-2021, it has become clear that vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals, once infected, transmit to others at similar rates.16 Vaccine effectiveness may also be lower in younger age groups. While higher rates of hospitalisation and COVID-19-associated morbidity and mortality can indeed be observed among the unvaccinated across all age groups, broad-stroke passport and mandate policies do not seem to recognise the extreme risk differential across populations (benefits are greatest in older adults), are often justified on the basis of reducing transmission and, in many countries, ignore the protective role of prior infection.
There are also worrying signs that current vaccine policies, rather than being science-based, are being driven by sociopolitical attitudes that reinforce segregation, stigmatisation and polarisation, further eroding the social contract in many countries.
A third experiment found that selective mandates increased reactance when herd immunity targets were not clearly explained —which most governments failed to communicate adequately and convincingly as they shifted their rationale from herd immunity to hospital/ICU admission metrics.
The public interpretation of these policies has occurred within the context of the rapidly changing pandemic. Oftentimes, public announcements and media coverage have oversimplified, struggled to communicate potential adverse events (including a potentially higher risk in the convalescent) and overstated vaccine efficacy on transmission. Significant public concerns about safety signals and pharmacovigilance have been furthered by the lack of full transparency in COVID-19 clinical trial data as well as shifting data on adverse effects, such as blood-clotting events, myocarditis and altered menstrual periods
Cognitive dissonance may have been compounded by the changing rationale provided for vaccine mandate policies, which originally focused on achieving herd immunity to stop viral transmission and included public messaging that vaccinated people could not get or spread COVID-19. Policies often lacked clear communication, justification and transparency, contributing to persistent ambiguities and public concerns about their rationale and proportionality
When mandate rules are perceived to lack a strong scientific basis, the likelihood for public scrutiny and long-term damage to trust in scientific institutions and regulatory bodies is much higher. A good example is the lack of recognition of infection-derived immunity in employer-based vaccine mandates and passports in North America, including most universities and colleges. Despite clear evidence that infection-derived immunity provides significant protection from severe disease on par with vaccination, prior infection status has consistently been underplayed. Many individuals with post-infection immunity have been suspended or fired from their jobs (or pushed to leave) or been unable to travel or participate in society while transmission continued among vaccinated individuals in the workplace
Since 2021, public and political discourse has normalised stigma against people who remain unvaccinated, often woven into the tone and framing of media articles. Political leaders singled out the unvaccinated, blaming them for: the continuation of the pandemic; stress on hospital capacity; the emergence of new variants; driving transmission to vaccinated individuals; and the necessity of ongoing lockdowns, masks, school closures and other restrictive measures (see table 2). Political rhetoric descended into moralising, scapegoating, and blaming using pejorative terms and actively promoting stigma and discrimination as tools to increase vaccination. This became socially acceptable among pro-vaccine groups, the media and the public at large, who viewed full vaccination as a moral obligation and part of the social contract
There is rarely a discussion of who and why people remain unvaccinated. Vaccine policy appears to have driven social attitudes towards an us/them dynamic rather than adaptive strategies for different communities and risk groups.
Unvaccinated or partially vaccinated individuals often have concerns that are based in some form of evidence (eg, prior COVID-19 infection, data on age-based risk, historical/current trust issues with public health and governments, including structural racism), personal experiences (eg, direct or indirect experience of adverse drug reactions or iatrogenic injuries, unrelated trauma, issues with access to care to address adverse events, etc) and concerns about the democratic process (eg, belief that governments have abused their power by invoking a constant state of emergency, eschewing public consultation and over-relying on pharmaceutical company-produced data) that may prevent or delay vaccination. Inflammatory rhetoric runs against the pre-pandemic societal consensus that health behaviours (including those linked to known risk factors for severe COVID-19, for example, smoking and obesity) do not impact the way medical, cultural or legal institutions treat individuals seeking care.
Trust is one of the most important predictors of vaccine acceptance globally68 69 including confidence in COVID-19 vaccines.63 70 71 Data show that being transparent about negative vaccine information increases trust and Petersen et al72 found that when health authorities are not transparent, it can increase receptivity to alternate explanations.
Vaccine passports risk enshrining discrimination based on perceived health status into law, undermining many rights of healthy individuals: indeed, unvaccinated but previously infected people may generally be at less risk of infection (and severe outcomes) than doubly vaccinated but infection-naïve individuals.
Some medical freedom and anti-vaccination groups have made increasingly false and inflammatory claims, and business owners and employees requiring QR codes for entry have been targeted for abuse, in some cases. In turn, pro-vaccine advocates have equated anti-mandate social groups as ‘anti-vaxxers’ and even domestic terrorists, calling for government agencies and social media companies to strengthen censorship laws. Echo chambers have skewed the reasonableness of risk assessment of some pro-mandate individuals, who now fear that unvaccinated people are ‘unsafe’—physically but also culturally—despite the scientific evidence. Political polarisation and radicalisation—both anti-mandate and pro-mandate—will increase if punitive vaccine policies continue.
The pandemic has created immense strain on health systems, contributing to disruptions in global immunisation programmes and burnout in healthcare and social care workers that risk worsening clinical outcomes for all patients. These trends may be exaggerated by the current policy push towards mandatory COVID-19 vaccination of healthcare/social care workers and firing of unvaccinated staff.
Current vaccine policies may erode core principles of public health ethics. As some of those supporting mandates recognise, and contrary to the media portrayal that ‘the unvaccinated are entirely free to decline’, many COVID-19 vaccine policies clearly limit choice and the normal operation of informed consent. This has placed medical professionals in an awkward position, blurring the lines between voluntary and involuntary vaccination.
According to public health ethics, the principle of proportionality requires that the benefits of a public health intervention must be expected to outweigh the liberty restrictions and associated burdens. It would violate the proportionality principle to impose significant liberty restrictions (and/or harms) in exchange for trivial public health benefits, particularly when other options are available. Evidence shows that the efficacy of current COVID-19 vaccines on reducing transmission is limited and temporary, likely lower in younger age groups targeted for vaccine mandates and passports and that prior infection provides, roughly speaking, comparable benefit. The effectiveness of vaccine mandates in reducing transmission is likely to be smaller than many might have expected or have hoped for, and decrease over time. These issues have been widely discussed in the public arena, raising the idea that many current vaccine policies are no longer being guided by the best science but are rather being used to punish individuals who remain unvaccinated and to shape public opinion and compliance.
In September 2021, an FDA advisory committee voted 16–2 against boosting healthy young adults in the USA but was over-ridden by the White House and CDC, leading to the resignation of two top FDA vaccine experts.
These practices do not reinforce confidence that authorities are being transparent or applying optimal standards for regulatory safety, efficacy and quality for these novel vaccines—standards which should arguably be more stringent given the legal precedent for mandates and passports.
Vaccination policies can be an important tool in the promotion of the right to health, but they need to be proportionate and designed to achieve a clearly defined goal. Some of those supporting current restrictions based on vaccination status seem to accept too easily that these measures are indeed proportionate; that they are not more restrictive than necessary; that they are effective in preventing transmission and protecting the healthcare system from collapse; and that there are no options available other than punitive mandates, passports and segregated restrictions. As illustrated above, we believe that current vaccine policies have failed on these fronts and are no longer fit for purpose.
If current policies are to continue, public health-associated bureaucracies and society will have to increase coercion to address current and future resistance and, in the process, come to leverage strategies more consistent with policing than public health. We may also see political forces double down and use people who have chosen not to get vaccinated as a collective, psychological and political tool to scapegoat and reinforce a false notion of safety among vaccinated people as they yearn to resume social and economic life.
Improving data transparency, media independence and broad public debate and scrutiny about COVID-19 vaccine policies will also be essential to maintain population trust, help people better understand the risks and benefits of the continued use of current vaccines, and to inform research on improvements and future policies
0 -
The enormous quote above is more likely debated in the main Covid discussion, since it doesn't belong here. It's a policy discussion paper and has the amusing line:
Data availability statement
There are no data in this work.
0 -
It certainly belongs here, covering many points that have been raised on this thread. For example the authors state that "Significant public concerns about safety signals and pharmacovigilance have been furthered by the lack of full transparency in COVID-19 clinical trial data as well as shifting data on adverse effects, such as blood-clotting events, myocarditis and altered menstrual periods"
0 -
Lol. Maybe stick to the points and topics you've already brought up before deflecting to new ones?
Does this article at all bring up your concerns that the vaccines might be increasing the chances of infection?
Does this article at all bring up the idea you've suggested that governments are engaging in a cover up and that doctors are lying about the data they publish?
Does this article at all have anything to do with the actual safety of the vaccines?
Or is it just something you've copy pasted to pretend you position has an air of legitimacy?
Cause right not, not seeing all that much difference between you copy pasting and buzzer copy pasting.
0 -
Still no data though. It's an opinion piece. Did they measure 'significant public concern' and report the numbers? And this remains the vaccine safety thread, though it feels like that horse has long left the barn. The vaccines are safe. Rehashing old twitter memes is just that - a rehash, looking for attention. Complaining (like you do) that vaccines that targeted the original strain and were effective against all the subsequent variants, to varying degrees, implying that they shouldn't have been approved in the first place, is fatuous. You anti-vaxxers just can't get over the fact that the vaccines were a giant success and y'all were proved and continue to be proven wrong.
I'd recommend you get a life, if such is possible.
1 -
Apart from the fact that the earlier discussion this morning petered out because every answer was a deflection, this paper is very relevant to the main point I raised in this thread a couple of weeks ago, and from which all other points stemmed from.
The objection I made was the narrative shifting from vaccines used to prevent infection to the narrative of vaccines used to reduce severe diseases and death. This paper says: "most governments failed to communicate adequately and convincingly as they shifted their rationale from herd immunity to hospital/ICU admission metrics"
0 -
Advertisement
-
Did they measure 'significant public concern' and report the numbers?
They referenced two other papers on the subject.
And in any case, they're academics, experts in their field, smarter than you so what qualifies you to say they are wrong?
This morning KingMob told me I just had to accept the statements of smart people, that were not scientific facts, on the grounds they were smarter than me.
I don't see how this paper is any different, though perhaps King Mob will explain?
0
