Covid vaccines - thread banned users in First Post

sydthebeat

Spouted like a true holder of a Sesame Street medical degree. Well done you.

Norway and Denmark don't recommend COVID vaccines for under 18s unless severely compromised. The risk benefit isn't there. Vaccine induced myocarditis is a bigger risk than COVID for children, especially males. Plus most of them have been exposed multiple times already. A recent UCC study showed 95% of people tested had COVID antibodies (not vaccine induced, this test was specific to infection induced) but only half of them thought they ever had COVID. So injecting them with a vaccine based on a nearly 3 year old Wuhan strain seems pointless even if they are 100% safe.

I'm not against the COVID vaccine - I'm boosted myself, and generally pro vaccines in general - but for kids this one doesn't make sense.

Dohnjoe, it's a bit rich to be talking about fundamentalist beliefs when you clearly suffer from them yourself.

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119615820#Comment_119615820

It it's been shown repeatedly, often by conspiracy theorists posting studies they haven't read completely, that those vaccines still provide significant protection against serious illness and hospitalisation.

You guys have not at all shown anything to suggest that myocarditis is a bigger risk for anyone. That's a straight out fib.

You guys haven't shown anything at all to suggest that the risk benefit balance isn't favourable for vaccines and to do so.. you have to tell lies like the above.

Meanwhile we've hundreds of experts and doctors who disagree with your untrained assesment. Why would we listen to you over them? Why is their trained evaluation invalid while your untrained, biased and misinformed evaluation is valid?

Dohnjoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119615744#Comment_119615744

You claimed "all" health officials and scientists were strongly against masks, that's a straight up fib. We didn't magically know everything about the virus the moment it emerged, how it spread, how it worked, it was new, hence there wasn't an instant global consensus. These things take time to build, and as health professionals and virologists and scientists from all over the world came to understand the virus, the consensus became overwhelming, and replaced the initial speculation, masks could reduce the spread.

No national health body independently came to your conclusion. There's a reason for that.

Masks are as effective as a tinfoil hat against COVID.

If the tinfoil was covering your mouth, considering how the virus spreads, then it could be slightly more effective across a population than absolutely nothing.

If you want to believe this stuff, fine, if you want to believe that you, someone on an internet conspiracy forum, knows more than medical science on this issue, that's also fine.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119615849#Comment_119615849

I didn't claim that at all? WTF? I even cited Sweden several times. All the platformed health officials were. The likes of Luke O Neill was, and the reprehensible ISAG zero COVID cult.

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119615866#Comment_119615866

Lol "platformed health officials"?

These woke PC terms are getting out of hand.

Dohnjoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119615866#Comment_119615866

"all the health officials and scientists were strongly against masks at the start of the pandemic"

Not true. Some were for, some didn't know, some thought masks wouldn't work.

hometruths_real

the Cystic Fibrosis ward in St Vincents has been using masks for all staff, visitors and patients during heightened flu seasons for decades (or severely poorly patients).... there was also a mask mandate during 2018 flu season for the whole hospital for nearly a month....they must have been in on it

sydthebeat

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119615820#Comment_119615820

Norway and Denmark don't recommend COVID vaccines for under 18s unless severely compromised....

........ since omicron

they did recommend it for the previous variants

you seem to have conveniently left that part out.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119616296#Comment_119616296

This is a case of science evolving.

Here's a sensible non political review of COVID vaccines : https://sensiblemed.substack.com/p/why-we-question-the-safety-of-covid

Robert M Kaplan is an Emeritus Distinguished Professor at the UCLA Fielding School of Public Health and an Adjunct Professor of Medicine at Stanford University's Clinical Excellence Research Center, He is an elected member of the National Academy of Medicine.

Sander Greenland is Emeritus Professor of Epidemiology and Statistics at UCLA, and Fellow of the American Statistical Association.

sydthebeat

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119616586#Comment_119616586

This is a case of science evolving.

and absolutely no one is refuting that.

and that link above is not to a review of the vaccine, its an op-ed piece.

Its based on some seriously questionable research protocols. on one hand they claim to have produced a study based on publicly available pfizer and moderna studies, yet on the other hand call for pfizer and the FDA to release all individual level data:

The individual level data that could confirm or refute our analysis have not been made public

so they clearly admit themselves they did analysis, and came to conclusion based on limited and inadequate data

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119615866#Comment_119615866

Sweden recommended masks on public transport during the pandemic.

The Public Health Agency of Sweden emphasises the importance of using face masks when many people travel together.

https://www.government.se/articles/2022/01/stricter-infection-control-measures-to-be-introduced-on-12-january-2022/

hometruths_real

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119617380#Comment_119617380

BUT BUT BUT the scientists !!!

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119615978#Comment_119615978

And there was a lot of mis-information from China who tried to present covid as spread by fomite transmission rather than person to person as they feared travel restrictions. This led to undue emphasis on the risks of possibly picking up something from touching a mask rather than - what turned out to be far more typical - respiratory spread.

That misinformation took a while to be overcome.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119617606#Comment_119617606

And yet to this day, we still believe the Chinese when they say, with no evidence, that COVID DEFINITELY didn't escape from the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119616696#Comment_119616696

It was only limited and inadequate because Pfizer and Moderna wouldn't release the complete dataset they needed .... and the data they DID have was all pointing in one direction ... 🙄 Strawman ...

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119615978#Comment_119615978

You know what I mean. All the platformed public health officials and scientists. I don't believe scientists are a monolithic block religion like some seem to. Strawman ...

A couple of the prolific posters on here who are of the opinion Ireland's COVID response and vaccines cannot be questioned under any circumstances have their accounts on private, wonder why that is? Kinzen?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119617380#Comment_119617380

They never mandated them though, and most people didn't wear them. Imperial College predicted 510,000 deaths in the UK, or about 0.75% without mitigations, which in a Swedish context would equate to 77600 deaths. The actual number was just over 20,000. The UK were 206000. So you could reasonably argue that the UK mitigations caused MORE people to die than not having any as in Sweden.

Sweden are the perfect control group - they should have been a massive outlier if mitigations were effective. The fact they weren't shows they were largely ineffective, and may have even been negative, by storing up huge spikes over short periods of time. This isn't even taking in account the collapse of other healthcare like screening programmes, which we will have to live with (or more accurately die with) for years to come.

The same reason I watched Israel with interest, as one of the first countries to get near full vaccinations. They clearly worked against serious illness and death. No stupid arguments made there about their "peer countries" Syria and Lebanon or whatever.

This stuff is basic ... the burden of proof is to disprove the null hypothesis, i.e. mitigations do little or nothing. Sweden supports the null hypothesis, and Israel doesn't.

Dohnjoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119618408#Comment_119618408

No I don't know what you mean. What are "platformed scientists"? I've literally never heard that phrase in my life.

As our understanding of the virus evolved, so did the measures. Initially there was confusion over masks, that gave way to consensus. It's not a strawman, it directly addresses your original point.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119618533#Comment_119618533

The consensus was nothing to do with science. It was political. That's the point.

And "Platformed scientists and PH officials" were the ones constantly in the media. The likes of Luke O'Neill, Tony Holohan, and the Neuroscience Assistant Professor Tomas Ryan.

Here's Luke O'Neill explaining how masks are unnecessary unless you are infected, and don't work anyway because COVID can get in through the membranes of your eyes - factually correct BTW ....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7_P2RmrA6U

Dohnjoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119618541#Comment_119618541

Your clip is from Feb 2020, early in the pandemic, when there was conflicting advice on masks. As our understanding of the virus grew, then mask guidelines became increasingly clear and uniform. Certain early advice and guidelines became outdated.

You can indeed contract Covid via eyes, because it's a mucous membrane, but not exclusively of course. Since Covid travels on droplets and aerosols, exhaled and inhaled, the key transmission is via that method. Masks reduce the amount of those droplets we exhale, therefore reduce the chance of spreading the virus. Keyword: reduce (not stop)

Some health bodies initially didn't recommend wearing a mask unless someone was infected, that was later changed that due to asymptomatic cases.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119618501#Comment_119618501

Shifting the goalposts - again.

Sweden recommended masks. They wouldn't do that if they agreed with your assertion they were pointless for a respiratory virus. So your argument is holed below the waterline.

Sweden paused healthcare screenings during the pandemic. You don't even have your basic facts correct.

The worse case scenarios were what shifted people's behaviour in Sweden and elsewhere to make significant voluntary changes in behaviour - as can be seen from economic activity, transport activity, working from home etc. Sweden had travel restrictions indirectly given how much travel was shutdown elsewhere. And Sweden's neighbours buttressed it. Supposing if the rest of Europe followed Sweden's approach it would scale up to the same level of results is without foundation. England tried it, and had to abandon it as their hospitals filled up. They only went into lockdown reluctantly. So we have a natural experiment of history on how Sweden's approach scales - and it doesn't.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119618877#Comment_119618877

That's some serious motivated reasoning there. Start with the outcome you want and make the facts fit. All you need is one black swan to prove not all swans are white - but you would argue that black was actually a dark shade of white. The tobacco industry used to employ people like you.

And if masks actually worked, why didn't they work?

This is a waste of time. I've seen more reason and honesty in Westboro Baptist Church protests.

hometruths

After commendably refusing to vaccinate any more children the Danes continue to be the outliers on common sense with their latest guidance, ruling out any more vaccinations for those under 50:

Why are people aged under 50 not to be re-vaccinated?

The purpose of the vaccination programme is to prevent severe illness, hospitalisation and death. Therefore, people at the highest risk of becoming severely ill will be offered booster vaccination. The purpose of vaccination is not to prevent infection with covid-19, and people aged under 50 are therefore currently not being offered booster vaccination.

People aged under 50 are generally not at particularly higher risk of becoming severely ill from covid-19. In addition, younger people aged under 50 are well protected against becoming severely ill from covid-19, as a very large number of them have already been vaccinated and have previously been infected with covid-19, and there is consequently good immunity among this part of the population.

So according to the Danes the purpose of vaccination is not to prevent infection. Hopefully this admission will become more commonplace, and who knows eventually some of the vaccine fanatics in here may eventually come to realise it too.

https://www.sst.dk/en/english/corona-eng/vaccination-against-covid-19

hometruths_real

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119619537#Comment_119619537

#1 on the "preventing infection" page..... get vaccinated

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119619537#Comment_119619537

Hometruths, are you trying to change the subject because your email plan backfired?

Have you no comment at all about how the author of the study you posted and the graph you kept copy pasted explained to you why there wasn't negative effectiveness?

Are you hoping people are going to forget this after a few posts?

,

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119618885#Comment_119618885

You claimed a few posts back that children were at a higher risk of myocarditis than from covid.

This was a straight out lie.

This is in addition to the many many lies, half truths and general misinformation coming from your fellow anti-vaxxers. Most recently claims that there was a link between vaccines and reduced fertility and that vaccines were negatively effective based on studies that said no such thing.

So is it the case for you that it's acceptable for antivaxxers to be dishonest cause their cause is noble?

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119618425#Comment_119618425

Who is arguing this and what has this to do with who's profiles are on private?

Why would it matter if their profiles are on private?

You seem to be implying that there is some sinister reason behind this but lack the confidence and conviction to actually make the accusation directly.

Also what's "kinzen"?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119619660#Comment_119619660

But the vaccines don't prevent infection, or even significantly slow it. They mitigate serious illness and death. Are we still really arguing they do, despite mountains of evidence to the contrary?