Covid vaccines - thread banned users in First Post

Yup. They know it too. That's why they get so wound up and hostile to anyone who shatters the illusion for them.

Some also like to try and keep the illusion going by pretending the reason people ate laughing at then is that the government is personally out to stop them from spreading their super special secret information.

It's all just play acting. It's not even delusional. It's just sad role-playing.

Some folks would be better off getting into DnD.

Phishy misunderstands the government's direction. The PCR test is required if you're unvaccinated. Now, I don't know how you get on a plane if you're unvaccinated these days, maybe you can, but if you're unvaccinated you still need a PCR test.

The link absolutely does show that - Danish data shows that omicron %s more or less mirror population composition (% unvax, % vax, %boosted), which would be the case in a 0 efficacy scenario.

UKHSA data shows that up to 6 months after 2nd dose efficacy against symptomatic disease drops to 0, with a very large confidence interval in some cases.

And yes negative efficacy absolutely is a real thing, it would mean the virus enhances the disease or your susceptibility to it, which hopefully is not the case as it would be absolutely disastrous.

No, the Government has certainly let itself the opportunity to reinstate. Their reasoning is, Omicron is mild if you're vaccinated, Ireland is very vaccinated, and the omicron cases in the vaccinated are mild.

We can argue whether that's true, I believe it is. Plus the reality is, you can't get on a flight without a vaccine and a PCR test, too, so the risk is small.

Remember that Omicron arose in a majority unvaccinated population (South Africa) and this makes even more sense.

So, removing a test requirement increases "control?" Seems like it weakens it? So, the government wants the virus to mutate here is that your point?

Lol.

If they impose restrictions it's evidence that there's a conspiracy to control the world.

If they remove restrictions it's evidence that there's a conspiracy to control the world.

If they do nothing, it's evidence that there's a conspiracy to control the world.

Just in case it couldnt be any clearer.

AZ has negative efficacy after 6 months, though one would hope its just a data issue and not reality, as such would be a colossal balls up, and certainly poor safety from the vaccines.

Pfizer drops to just above 0, ~10% at 6 months

Moderna drops to possible 10%, but with a massive confidence interval (the dotted line), meaning the true value could be anywhere in that range, incl well into the negative. Again, hopefully not.

But if I asked you what you believed, you'd dodge and not answer.

Your fellow conspiracy theorists have been claiming that covid is not dangerous and that the numbers are being inflated.

Are you saying that's not true?

Ok. So you're admiting that you jsut made that figure up.

Since boosters were available.

Again to remind you your original claim was:

But what you're claiming now is that meant: "People who have had only two vaccines might be just as likely to catch omicron as unvaccinated people after 6 months."

This actually is moving the goalposts I'm afraid. Especially given what your claim was originally replying to.

Do you agree with the reports findings about the efficacy of the vaccines after boosters as well as their findings about the efficacy of it against transmission and severe disease? If so, then dohnjoe's point about encouraging people to get fully vaccinated stands.

And if the data recorded Negative efficacy, why is it not at all discussed in the actual report? Why does it not bring up concerns that the vaccines might somehow be causing more infections?

Why can't you point to any other sources and documents that mention it in the context of covid or any other vaccine?

How do you believe that the vaccines might be causing this?

"Safe and effective" was a lie, is a lie, and will always be a lie.

They are masters of data manipulation.

Your blind faith in "science" will be your demise.

Most fully vaccinated people would be 6months+ their 2nd dose if they hadnt received a booster - only for them taking another shot (and another, and another no doubt) they would have 0 or negative efficacy against symptomatic disease. The point still stands, "fully vaccinated" as the term is actually defined (not by you) are ultimately just as likely to contract (and therefore spread) virus as the unvaccinated. Possibly moreso if natural immunity were taken into account - but we don't have sufficient data to quantify this effect.

We've already seen from UKHSA data that efficacy trends to 0 (or possibly negative for AZ and Moderna), the only reason we dont know if the boosters do that is because they havent been administered for long enough to observe it.

So what is the plan? Endless boosters every 6-3months for the rest of your natural life? Because right now that looks like the only way the vaccines could possibly be said to stop transmission.

As to how vaccines can cause negative efficacy, there are a variety of methods. Some vaccines can affect Th1 or Th2 mediated responses to a pathogen (upregulating one, downregulating others). Original antigenic sin is another more likely answer - seeing as all vaccines are based on Wild-Type SARS-CoV-2, and currently the omicron variant is quite far removed from that, its possible that antibodies for the former are mostly ineffective against the latter, OAS dictates that previously used antibodies are preferentially produced for all similar future infections - so most antibodies a vaccinated individual would produce would be very similar to those they produced first time around against the vaccine, despite the current infection (omicron) being quite different.

In the case of Dengue, antibody-dependent-enhancement (ADE) was the cause of negative efficacy (and much higher mortality), simple summary here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dengvaxia_controversy

Here is a nice review of OAS in the past, including for past vaccinations against RSV. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772613421000068

And how does that disprove my point (or the UKHSA data) on efficacy versus symptomatic disease, not hospitalisation.