Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Will you take an approved COVID-19 vaccine?

1717274767786

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 23 22meehoovereinenschaft22


    No, I won't be and indeed don't need to. I'm healthy and young and have a magnificently strong set of lungs.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]



    Considering that I was studying vaccines and virology, in my early 20s? No.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Are we nearly 2 years into this and still have people thinking this absolute stupidity?


    It says a lot about people who still cannot understand the most simple concept of two thing being different



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    ....


    Site edit function is crap



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


      It's straight out of the antivax playbook. Take a (sensationalist) headline and twist.

    1. People with vaccine who happen to become infected can have the same nasal viral load? Yes 
    2. Are you much less likely to become infected in the first place? Very much true

    The antivax morons only peddle the first section   



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 36,394 ✭✭✭✭LuckyLloyd


    As of three days ago, 91% of Irish people aged over 16 had registered for the vaccine. The debate is over. Society has conclusively rejected the anti vaxx position. No - one cares what 9% of the population (and diminishing every day) thinks about anything.

    And remember that 9% included people who would take the vaccine but cannot because of health reasons.

    The volume of anti - vaxx arguments on this forum are completely unrepresentative of their prevalence within our society.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,487 ✭✭✭floorpie


    Where are you getting the information re: number 2? Neither the Moderna or Pfizer trials published their information on immunogenicity and asymptomatic infection, and both did NOT assess acute infection of sars-cov-2 per se, so how do you know they reduce infection?



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01410-w



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,487 ✭✭✭floorpie


    Based on longitudinal data collected after vaccination programs were already performed, ok. This paper shows an overall efficacy of 51%-61% to prevent infection (RRR), doesn't include Moderna (Moderna's data shows it doesn't prevent infection), is pre Delta, doesn't have enough data to assess Kent variant, data is taken during lockdowns, and the sample is open to significant response bias (i.e. People who are motivated to allow a PCR on their entire household aged 2 and above ).

    This paper shows marginal protection against an old virus for just two vaccines, you can't infer from it that all vaccines prevent infection, or that any prevent infection now.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,683 ✭✭✭✭tom1ie


    do you not want to reduce transmission by taking the vaccine though?



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,487 ✭✭✭floorpie


    It is unknown that vaccines prevent transmission. Initial studies for AZ show that it is ineffective against Delta.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,509 ✭✭✭✭Flinty997


    Its less effective against the transmission of Delta. Its effective against all the other things that Delta can give you. We've yet to see what happens with boosters.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,683 ✭✭✭✭tom1ie




  • Registered Users Posts: 1,487 ✭✭✭floorpie


    This lists one paper that examines transmission and the data has the same problem that I've repeated in the thread. It assesses people on the basis of symptoms (people who elected to attend for a PCR and were positive), NOT on the basis of infection. As such, it is impossible to infer from this data that transmission is reduced as they don't assess asymptomatic carriers. Every trial had this same issue.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    But the study done in the paper you were discussing with me was also done before Delta became dominant. So if you're dismissing this paper because of that, you should also be dismissing the paper you were referencing.

    Also, if your statement of "Moderna's data shows it doesn't prevent infection" is from the paper we were discussing, then that is incorrect as you cannot conclude that from that paper as I pointed out yesterday.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Delta is more infectious but our growth patterns so absolutely nothing like the spike infections they had previously. Breakthrough infections are weaker and shorter due to vaccination (which is the aim of the vaccines).

    Those breakthrough viral loads are the same but not accompanied by coughing aerosolising, and also rapid drop in load within 7 days

    As we massively relax restrictions we are seeing a spike in infections of vaccinated people (of course, most people are at this stage) but our rate of increase does not match previous unvaccinated rates



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,473 ✭✭✭✭cj maxx


    The a valid point, and one I'd never thought of. Still compared to covid and especially 'long covid ' I'd still trust the vaccine.



  • Registered Users Posts: 7,923 ✭✭✭growleaves


    Stop lying, she never said that. Try reading the thread if you're confused.

    This has been the worst thread I've ever seen. All discussion has been malformed by people talking about how intelligent they are and throwing around accusations of stupidity, without even comprehending what's been said.

    Good luck if you operate with this level of self-awareness in real life. Guaranteed people are rolling their eyes at you constantly even if they don't do it to your face.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,509 ✭✭✭✭Flinty997



    If the % of the vaccinated who turn up for treatment is lower than the percentage of the un-vaccinated you can infer an reduced transmission in the vaccinated. Obviously thats not wholly accurate.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,827 ✭✭✭✭astrofool


    Why do people keep peddling this? When I last posted the link there was 8, now there is 10 studies that vaccines reduce transmission (and this is from back in May, I'm sure there are updates since then):


    This is in addition to the trial data on efficacy and effectiveness and the real world studies of efficacy and effectivness (~89% for Delta in the UK for example).

    Are you implying that vaccines don't work? Lay your cards out here as I think you're extrapolating what you want the results of the studies to say rather than what they actually do say.



  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,166 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    In the heel of the hunt, one clear and undeniable thing has emerged regardless of trials, studies and the minutiae of same that people seem hellbent in arguing over; vaccination has significantly reduced hospitalisations and deaths in the vaccinated. Even as cases go up. Yes you will have hospitalisations and deaths in the vaccinated, simply because no medical intervention works for everybody for all sorts of reasons, but the hospitalisations and deaths in the unvaccinated are higher. Again significantly.

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,487 ✭✭✭floorpie


    Don't send me Twitter posts please, only papers. People in this thread keep posting papers for which they've only read the abstract and doesn't show what they think it shows, so a Twitter post for which i can't read the papers is particularly useless.

    I'm Definitely not extrapolating from studies but rather interpreting exactly what they show. I'm not implying that they do or don't work, I'm saying what the studies describe, which is that they do prevent symptoms but do not prevent infection adequately, and that this was not assessed in trial.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,827 ✭✭✭✭astrofool


    The papers are listed in the twitter, but in the interest of leading a horse to water:

    PowerPoint Presentation (ucsf.edu)

    and I did notice the dodging of all the other questions.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]




  • Registered Users Posts: 1,487 ✭✭✭floorpie


    Yes they prevent symptoms, I'm not arguing any different. The trials didn't have the power to say they prevent death, but this is likely. Their ability to prevent infection is not minutiae, The methodology of the trials are not minutiae. Especially since so many people in this thread, and experts, evidently misinterpret all of this.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,827 ✭✭✭✭astrofool


    It's becoming abundantly clear that you don't know how medical trials are run and that you don't know how to read their conclusions and that pointing this out repeatedly in a civil manner, with studies and proof linked, will be fruitless.

    However, it would be interesting for you to prove me wrong. Read a peer reviewed study, read a conclusion and show us why the study reached the conclusion it did and not the conclusions you keep reaching for.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,487 ✭✭✭floorpie


    I'm just describing exactly what the studies and trials find. I'm not reaching for any conclusion. You clearly are if you get your information from Twitter posts.

    Please explain what I don't understand about the trials, if it's abundantly clear.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,827 ✭✭✭✭astrofool


    I get my information from studies, I will use twitter posts if they collate multiple studies to prevent the likes of yourself running and hiding away from the peer reviewed information that runs counter to the misinformation you are now continually posting.

    You are reaching opposite conclusions from the people who ran the studies, you seem to have an agenda, I'm wondering what it is. I'm also seeing you avoiding all questions that might seek that agenda and you are perpetuating misinformation at the same time.

    So, as I said, lay out your cards, are the studies faulty and are you implying that vaccines don't work? Once we know what you are actually arguing, a discussion can be had, until that time, you are just spreading FUD.



  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,166 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    The trials did "have the power" to say they reduce death rates(and hospitalisations), the hard data backed this up and real world observations are backing this up. Case rates going up because we're more open now than we have been in 18 months, yet hospitalisations and deaths are going down by comparisons with similar upward swings in the past. Your own statement backs this up. If vaccines help prevent symptoms compared to those not vaccinated, by any logic they will also reduce deaths. Ergo vaccines have been successful and have saved lives. That's what it boils down to.

    That's what it has boiled down to for me personally. I have an inbuilt reticence to bow to social pressure, especially on appeal to authority and those who lazily surrender such authority to someone else. If the clear and basic fact and a fact now pretty undeniable that vaccines have been successful in reducing serious illness and deaths hadn't panned out as it has I quite simply wouldn't have gone for a vaccine and the fcuks I would have given at the pearl clutching of others would be minimal if not zero. However the clear as day real world results of the vaccines convinced me it was more than worthwhile.

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 23 22meehoovereinenschaft22


    It's not really something I'd thought about in coming to my personal choice.

    I haven't seen any reliable, non-propagandistic reporting about whether vaccines reduce rates of transmission.

    Plus, I'm not going to be guilt-tripped into getting something that could render me a gibbering, mute wreck for the rest of my days for the hypothetical good of someone else.



Advertisement