Covid vaccines - thread banned users in First Post

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119407725#Comment_119407725

"Vaccine effectiveness" is not negative at 9 months.

Show us the line in the report which states this.

It is directly contradicted by the contents of the report:

Protection against severe disease was 89 per cent after one month and 64 per cent from four months an onwards during the rest of the maximum follow-up of nine months. 

How can the vaccine be causing immune functions to reduce if they have superior durable protection against severe covid?

You are spreading medical misinformation.

I have already pointed out that the long term results could be confounded by the fact that under 60s who received the vaccine 8 months back from October 2021 were likely those in the highest risk groups such as Health care workers, and they received Astra Zeneca, the least effective/long lasting of the vaccines used in Sweden versus mRNA based Pfizer and Moderna. I have pointed this out to you 6 times, you have offered no reply except to say it is waffle and deflection. When it is obvious you are engaged in this.

You also repeatedly ignore, or somehow place zero value on the months of protection against infection the vaccines provide and the durable protection versus severe covid. This is not waffle. This is central to discrediting your claim re: better to be unvaccinated.

And this is from the authors of the report. They would hardly be saying this if they thought this study showed any indication that it was better to be unvaccinated or their findings showed anything of concern with the vaccines. Your claim is false, and unsupported by evidence.

"The bad news is that the protection against infection seems to be diminished by seven months after the second dose of vaccine," says Peter Nordström, professor of geriatric medicine at Umeå University. "The good news, however, is that the protection against a severe infection that leads to hospitalization or death seems to be better maintained. Vaccination is therefore very wise and important."

"The results underscore and support the decision to offer a third dose," says Marcel Ballin, doctoral student in geriatric medicine at Umeå University and co-author of the study. 

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/02/220207100117.htm

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119407886#Comment_119407886

"Vaccine effectiveness" is not negative at 9 months.

Show us the line in the report which states this.

It states it in the graph which was published with the report. It is a graphical representation of the results of the study.

It is directly contradicted by the contents of the report:

Protection against severe disease was 89 per cent after one month and 64 per cent from four months an onwards during the rest of the maximum follow-up of nine months. 

You keep talking about protection against severe disease. The graph shows vaccine effectiveness against infection of any severity. You are not comparing like for like.

I'm asking you what vaccine effectiveness against infection of any severity at 9 months does the report show? Are you prepared to answer that?

You are spreading medical misinformation.

Spreading medical misinformation?! Nonsense. I am quoting a study published in the Lancet.

I have already pointed out that the long term results could be confounded by the fact that under 60s who received the vaccine 8 months back from October 2021 were likely those in the highest risk groups such as Health care workers, and they received Astra Zeneca, the least effective/long lasting of the vaccines used in Sweden versus mRNA based Pfizer and Moderna.

No doubt AstraZeneca wanes faster, but does the report say these results are skewed by AZ vaccines administered to under 60s health care workers. Or are you just assuming that is likely?

You also repeatedly ignore, or somehow place zero value on the months of protection against infection the vaccines provide and the durable protection versus severe covid. This is not waffle. This is central to discrediting your claim re: better to be unvaccinated.

I'm not ignoring it. But for the purposes of contradicting the claim that the graph shows negative effectiveness against infection of any severity at 8 months, it is of zero value.

And this is from the authors of the report. They would hardly be saying this if they thought this study showed any indication that it was better to be unvaccinated or their findings showed anything of concern with the vaccines. Your claim is false, and unsupported by evidence.

My claim is that the report shows negative effectiveness against infection of any severity from 8 months onwards. The evidence is Figure 2 from the report.

Fr0g

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119406987#Comment_119406987

So you didn't bother reading it.

It's very simple and he explains it very clearly. These are hospitalisation numbers. The data shows that the more vaccines you take the more likely you are to go to hospital with COVID.

When officials quote the unvaccinated numbers you have to be careful that they are not including 1,2 or three dosed or whatever they consider to be fully vaccinated + 2 weeks. That definition is a movable feast. I consider those that have never been vaccinated as unvaccinated. Officials do not.

jackboy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119408276#Comment_119408276

Statistics are tricky. When most of the population is vaccinated it is expected that most in hospital would be vaccinated, as there are so few left unvaccinated, especially the vulnerable.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119408017#Comment_119408017

The report doesn't state that ANYWHERE. You are misinterpreting the graph. If this was a major finding of the report, why is it not stated anywhere in the text?

This is what the text says:

From thereon, the waning became more pronounced, and from day 211 onwards there was no remaining detectable vaccine effectiveness (23% [–2 to 41]; p=0·07).

This image shows an expanded view of Table 2 - results of the Total Cohort Study, Vaccine Effectiveness (any vaccine):

Lancet - Total Cohort Study.png

The report lists possible limitations \ confounding factors. I have proposed healthcare workers vaccinated early with AZ as one possible instance.

Other than the observational design, the present study has some limitations to consider. Although we adjusted our analyses for several potential confounders, the possibility of residual and unmeasured confounding remains, including a higher risk of selection bias in unvaccinated individuals with longer follow-up time. 

Should we also consider possibilities such as that vaccinated individuals may also have been more likely to get themselves tested? Or work in such roles? Or have conditions which would make them more likely to seek vaccination, and be tested for hospital admissions or scans? And so mild or asymptomatic infections more likely to be detected?

I propose these because otherwise, there is a mystery in your case. How, medically, could a vaccine at +9 months somehow make someone be more susceptible biologically to be infected and yet have significant (64%) positive protection against severe covid?

How could such a thing be possible?

Why it this the conclusion of its author:

"Vaccination is therefore very wise and important."

You used the report to spread false, dangerous medical misinformation claims that it was better to be unvaccinated and that the results possibly indicated a weakening in the immune system from vaccines.

I have comprehensively established with reference to the report, its conclusions and direct quotes from its authors that this claim is false and not shared by the experts who conducted the study. As you have not refuted the counterpoints or restated the claims, I will treat them as withdrawn.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119408276#Comment_119408276

Yep, you said it, it is very simple. More than that, it is overly simplistic.

Any such figures that don't control for age, vulnerability, conditions are worthless.

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119408365#Comment_119408365

The report doesn't state that ANYWHERE. You are misinterpreting the graph.

The vertical axis is % Vaccine effectiveness ranging from -100 to 100 and the horizontal axis is Time from second dose in months ranging from zero to 9 months.

I am claiming that this graph, which is a graphical representation of the findings of the study, shows that from 8 months vaccine effectiveness is below zero.

You keep telling me I am misinterpreting the graph, but you seem unwilling or unable to offer the correct interpretation of the graph.

I will ask again - we have a graph which inarguably shows vaccine effectiveness from zero to 9 months.

What, according to this graph, is the vaccine effectiveness at 9 months?

If you are unable to answer that question, the only explanation is you are unable to interpret the graph, and thus not really in a position to be telling other people that they are misinterpreting it.

If you are able to answer the question, and are simply unwilling to, it also undermines your claim that I am misinterpreting the graph.

Big Bag of Chips

@astrofool backseat moderation is not allowed. You are aware of this. You have already been given an onthread warning about your posting style on this thread. Do not post in this thread again.

Big Bag of Chips

I'd really rather not lock the thread, as that just shuts down discussion. But I would ask all posters to reread the Forum Charter, and pay particular attention to this bit

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

• Respect the opinions of others.
• Trying to spend 100 odd posts convincing 1 or 2 specific users that your views are more valid than theirs is what causes the most issues. You have to accept that not all people are willing to alter their beliefs to suit you - and they have the freedom to hold those beliefs (short of soapboxing). Remember: many users read, but do not post, and may be interested in reading your opinions - so the opinion of 2 or 3 other prolific posters is rarely meaningful, and should neither be seen as a victory or a threat.

There should be a reasonable give-and-take in terms of how strongly someone expresses a belief in the truth (or falsity) of something, and how others react to it. The goal here is open-minded, open-ended conversation, not derision and ridicule of contributors for asking questions or questioning information.

Please remember that there are many forms of evidence. As well as cold hard facts, there is anecdotal evidence, circumstantial evidence, and any number of other things. Some people value these differently to others. Just because you don't find something to be convincing as evidence doesn't mean that it isn't evidence, nor that someone else can't find it convincing.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The repeated ad nauseum arguments of the past few weeks are tedious and boring. One side repeatedly asking the same questions, but not really wanting to hear the answers offered by the other side. The other side posting their belief/interpretation of data only to be questioned again and again on why they believe it. It adds nothing and indeed discourages any kind of discussion as the same handful of people just go round and round in a loop of repeating the same questions/explanations meaning others are slow to get involved in a discussion that has descended into over and back argument.

The thread has gone very far off course from it's original discussion. This happens in threads. Especially threads with almost 10000 replies. There is no problem with a thread moving in a different direction. But there is a problem with circular arguments. Continually asking a poster why they believe/think/accept something after the poster has repeatedly posted their belief/position is as disruptive to a thread as dumping links with no discussion.

If poster A has explained something a number of times, that is what they believe, what they think, what they interpret from data available to them. Asking poster A same question 25 more times isn't going to change that. So stop repeatedly asking

I point you again at

• Trying to spend 100 odd posts convincing 1 or 2 specific users that your views are more valid than theirs is what causes the most issues. You have to accept that not all people are willing to alter their beliefs to suit you - and they have the freedom to hold those beliefs (short of soapboxing). Remember: many users read, but do not post, and may be interested in reading your opinions - so the opinion of 2 or 3 other prolific posters is rarely meaningful, and should neither be seen as a victory or a threat.

It's tedious. Stop it.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119408527#Comment_119408527

I included Table 2, which is the data set representing:

Vaccine effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2 infection of any severity up to 9 months after full vaccination (>14 days after the second dose) by number of days after the second dose

I highlighted the line showing Total Cohort Study (any vaccine). The words 'any vaccine' is important.

This is the table which underlies the graph:

https://www.thelancet.com/action/showFullTableHTML?isHtml=true&tableId=tbl2&pii=S0140-6736%2822%2900089-7

You will note that there is only 1 single row in the entire table showing a negative figure, the last line for "ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 subcohort". That is the name of the Astrazeneca vaccine.

So nowhere does the report show that effectiveness for 'all vaccines' was negative after 9 months.

The graph has appended the findings for AZ onto the findings for all vaccines \ combination of vaccines. That is all.

I will further note that if you look at the data in the row, the data set is significantly smaller than the others.

• Number of individuals = 53060
• Vaccinated Number of events = 86
• Vaccinated Incidence per 100 000 person-days = 1.6
• Vaccinated Number of events = 26
• Vaccinated Incidence per 100 000 person-days = 1.4

So there were 86 cases in people vaccinated with AZ only 8 months later versus 26 for unvaccinated. 60 cases difference out of fifty thousand people! Which can easily be explained away with reference the study limitations e.g. to my above points on who the people vaccinated with AZ were in Sweden in early 2021.

By contrast these are the figures for the Total Cohort Study, Any Vaccine, over the entire study:

• Number of individuals = 1,685,948
• Vaccinated Number of events = 6,147
• Vaccinated Incidence per 100 000 person-days = 4.9
• Vaccinated Number of events = 21,771
• Vaccinated Incidence per 100 000 person-days = 31.6
• Difference in Events = 15,600

I suggest the scale of these figures accounts for the author's comment on the study:

"Vaccination is therefore very wise and important."

* In light of mod comments, this is my last attempt at clarifying the figures for you. But any further statements of fact about negative effectiveness, or that the report supports the position better to be unvaccinated / vaccines weaken immunity will be challenged

sydthebeat

The problem with this thread is there was never a conspiracy presented in the first place.

No one claimed the vaccines were 100% safe, though this is constantly suggested by the anti vax side.

The fact that the effectiveness of the vaccine wanes is nothing new either. See flu vaccines each flu season, or tetanus shots every ten years etc.

The anti vax side want so bad to find some kind of global conspiracy behind the vaccines and the pandemic, but none of them have the necessary to come out and admit that's their view, because it's so easily countered

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119408759#Comment_119408759

We’re clearly going around in circles, and given the mod comments, I think it is best if we agree to disagree, so I will leave it at that.

snowcat

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119408858#Comment_119408858

Its exactly the same on the other side. The extreme pro vaxxers believe that the vaccines are overwhelmingly safe for all age groups, that they should be given to everyone even not at risk groups. That there will not be any long term effects even though there is no way of determining this. That they substantially reduce transmission. That the cost of billions/trillions is worth it. Me personally am not an anti vaxxer in general and believe the only conspiracy is pharma greed which is nothing new in that business. The almost religious respect for the vaccines and pharma is more of a conspiracy to me.

Fighting Tao

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119410456#Comment_119410456

Scientists can be very certain that the vaccines are safe in the long term. Here is an easily accessible (understood) article on it. There is decades of experience and evidence to back it up. Yet again, read this thread as you seem forgetful to previous replies to your concern. Much has been provided that covers this.

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-60468900.amp

snowcat

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119410460#Comment_119410460

https://www.science.org/content/article/thousands-report-unusual-menstruation-patterns-after-covid-19-vaccination

Now I'm not a doctor but it does not take a doctor to work out that anything that disrupts the menstrual cycle even in the short term will also effect fertility. The impact in men would not be as obvious and we will see what happens with fertility rates long term.

sydthebeat

Aisprin effects menstrual cycles.

Stress effects menstrual cycles.

The COVID 19 virus itself effects menstrual cycles.

It's obvious you're not a doctor

snowcat

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119410489#Comment_119410489

Are you a doctor? Its good either way that you acknowledge the mRNA vax can effect menstrual cycle/fertility. I remember Luke O'Neill about a year and a half ago once stating there was no possible mechanism that the vaxx could effect menstrual cycles. Experts are not right all the time.

Fighting Tao

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119410497#Comment_119410497

What is it with anti-vaxxers asking me what I work at?

Menstrual cycles were covered only a few pages back. Is there really a need to try and reintroduce it? It seems premature that the circle has completed again.

snowcat

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119410499#Comment_119410499

Im only here occasionally so did not read it. I presume its the usual EPV rhetoric of,

1. Its not possible
2. Lots of other things could be causing it.
3. OK. It might be happening but the chances of it happening are tiny.
4. You would be worse off with Covid
5. So take the goddam drug.

Fighting Tao

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119410520#Comment_119410520

I’m not here to rehash pages of discussion for you. You can read back a couple of pages to catch up. It won’t take long.

Fr0g

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119408421#Comment_119408421

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119408296#Comment_119408296

The data shows, as I have said, that the more vaccines you take the more you are likely to end up in hospital with COVID. That has nothing to do with the proportion vaccinated or the demographic.

Biden has tested positive again after 4 jabs and a treatment of paxlovid. Now they're calling it "rebound covid". We have never eradicated an airborne respiratory virus. To think you can is simply human arrogance and hubris.

Clearly we don't have the technology to do it. The mRNA vaccines are not doing it. We have come a long way from "it will stop you getting it and spreading it".

Defend these useless vaccines all you want. We've been had.

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119410476#Comment_119410476

OK. Please show evidence for this claim.

Please show a study that concludes that the vaccines have negatively effected fertility.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119410693#Comment_119410693

Show us where the study controlled for age or risk.

Is the risk of hospitalisation the same if you have an 80 year old and 30 year old?

And is this study comparing unvaccinated 30 year olds with vaccinated 80 year olds.

Or vaccinated 80 yos and unvaccinated 80 yos.

Simple questions a simple study should be able to answer.

So if it isnt controlling for the likeliness of hospitalisation based on age not vaccination status. It cannot be used to support a claim that vaccination increases your chances of hospitalisation.

Show us the age breakdown and the other major drivers of admissions - then show us the likelihoods.

The vaccines are proven as per the Lancet study to significantly reduce risk of hospitalisation.

So to say they are useless is factually incorrect. If its merely your opinion state so but dont pretend this junk simplistic study supports it unless you also think an 80 year old is as likely as 30 to end up in hospital with covid. Do you?

Fr0g

https://www.normanfenton.com/post/how-wikipedia-defames-and-delegitimizes-anybody-raising-concerns-against-the-who-narrative-on-covid

A little insight into what happens to highly qualified scientists who question the WHO narrative on COVID and the oh so ordinary people who set themselves as arbiters of truth.

Fr0g

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119410844#Comment_119410844

It doesn't matter what the demographics are and repeating yourself is only going to force me to repeat myself. Regardless of age the more vaccines you take the more likely you are to end up in hospital. Much the same as abusing any drug will. 4th and subsequent treatments are not improving the situation for anyone

Fr0g

"unless you also think an 80 year old is as likely as 30 to end up in hospital with covid. Do you?"

Let me explain in even more simple terms to help you understand.

If a 30 year old takes 4 vaccines they are more likely to end up in hospital than a 30 year old who took none. Same for 80 year olds. The data is about the number of vaccines taken. The more you take the higher the the likelihood.

Does that help you at all?

Fighting Tao

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119410898#Comment_119410898

Where did you get that statement from? What is the source for what you allege is fact?

odyssey06

...

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119410898#Comment_119410898

Did you just make that up?

Because no such data is present in the link you provided.

https://metatron.substack.com/p/new-south-wales-australia-covid-update?utm_source=%2Fprofile%2F30382446-joel-smalley&utm_medium=reader2

sydthebeat

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119410898#Comment_119410898

Lol

another anti vaxxer not understanding what they are looking at

Click "age group raw" and compare the results.

😂😂

”up to”…. like the “up to 50% off” and you can only find 1 item on the clothes rack with that reduction. In up to 100% of the cases the vaccine begins to fade after 3 months.