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

Covid vaccines - thread banned users in First Post

Options
18687899192419

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Symptoms is equal likelihood after 6 months, as proven by UKHSA

    And in those 6 months? Are they the same?


    Most resistant to future variants? People with natural immunity. Natural immunity based on the entire virus (as opposed to just S1 epitope) has a far greater diversity of antibodies and memory B cells, meaning such people are better equipped to deal with variants with a greater antigenic drift.

    Cool. Got evidence for this?

    Have you evidence that this outweighs the risks that this brings from the increase in the chances of infection, transmission, illness and death?


    Do you know anything about vaccines? Influenza vaccines are different every single year. They target different lineages and subvariations thereof. Totally different scenario to taking the same vaccine ad infinitum in an attempt to stave off negative efficacy.

    Yes. And? Why wouldn't they be doing this with the covid vaccines?


    lol are you trying to disprove the concept of negative efficacy based on the UKHSA not commenting on it in a weekly roundup of covid stats?

    Nope. That's a strawman on your part.

    Why did they graph their data with a negative axis going right down to -60? Negative efficacy is a very real concept, trying to argue it doesnt exist is head in the sand stuff.

    Because they probably know it was a statistically anomaly and not an indication that this was actually happening.

    If it was, then they would comment on it.

    Why do you believe they did not comment on it?


    Also, could you maybe explain what point it is you're trying to make?

    That people shouldn't get the vaccines cause they stop working after 6 months?



  • Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Lol. Insults rather than answering simple questions.

    Pretty typical.


    Honestly dude, what do you tell yourself when you do that? Do you think it's helping you or convincing people?

    Do you think you're fooling people or...?



  • Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Ok. So what's the real reason they've dropped the requirment?

    Why are you afraid of telling us?

    Is it because you don't have any special knowledge and you don't actually know?

    Or because your answer is very silly and extreme and you still want to pretend to have a reasonable point to make?



  • Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Oooh ok. So then it's just makey uppy pretend times so you boys can feel like big boy investigators.

    That's cute.



  • Registered Users Posts: 13,535 ✭✭✭✭Igotadose


    So, you're just pulling the long finger or whatever? This is amusement and a pastime for you, but actually facts or investigations or information are just for laughs?


    It's good to know you actually don't care about the truth, just doing it for the yuks.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Ok. So there's no conspiracy. You just know better because you've read a lot of twitter. That's nice.



  • Registered Users Posts: 6,485 ✭✭✭Fighting Tao


    Troll just trolling again. Be a good boy and grow up.



  • Registered Users Posts: 506 ✭✭✭Maewyn Succat


    Is that the conspiracy? Are we back to this whole thing was created to sell vaccines?

    Can you promise without knowing anything about my health or risk category that I will be ok if I don't take the booster and contract covid19?



  • Registered Users Posts: 506 ✭✭✭Maewyn Succat


    This is the thing...I don't know best and have no superior knowledge but I listen to the people who have the knowledge and experience to try to come up with the best advice instead of believing I'm some sort of Dunning Kruger protege because I've seen a few YouTube videos or Twitter posts that sound convincing.



  • Registered Users Posts: 13,535 ✭✭✭✭Igotadose


    Still, you haven't pointed out any conspiracy here. Is someone keeping something secret that only you know about? Yes, Omicron is more transmissible. Thank you, unvaccinated, for that. Now, it may be that additional boosters are pointless against Omicron. Fortunately, the vaccines are keeping the far deadlier initial, Kent (Alpha) and Delta variants from causing too much havoc. Vaccinated people contracting Omicron - are they clogging hospitals and ICUs?


    I still think you're just doing this for laughs, but feel free to convince me you're onto something here.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Yes, so you claim.

    If it's not twitter it's bitchute or parler or facebook. Or just some crackpot who yells at you from the street. You'll believe whoever.



  • Registered Users Posts: 506 ✭✭✭Maewyn Succat


    Maybe take a step back and look at the bigger picture. You may have a point that the vaccine is not as effective in providing protection against omicron but can you show me proof that even though omicron is the dominant variant that delta has completely disappeared?

    Are you now in favour variant specific boosters?



  • Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Conspiracy theorists are so desperate to pretend to know something they're just arguing any ol shite now.

    They don't even know what they're trying to say any more.



  • Registered Users Posts: 6,485 ✭✭✭Fighting Tao


    Omicron emerged in November 2021, less than 8 weeks ago.



  • Registered Users Posts: 13,535 ✭✭✭✭Igotadose


    Again, so no conspiracy. Maybe your concerns about the booster should be brought up on the main Covid thread? But there's no conspiracy here - boosters have benefits. HTH.



  • Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    But the science shows that you should.

    What happened to following the science?



  • Registered Users Posts: 7,057 ✭✭✭timmyntc


    No, they are not the same within 6 months. But the only way to keep it that way is to get continuous boosters every 6 months ad infinitum.

    Is that really the mark of a "safe and effective" vaccine? - *Comparisons to influenza are not valid as influenza vaccines are changed every year.

    I never said that the vaccines are actually negatively efficacious, only that the data recorded it that way. Infact I hoped (and still hope) its not the case - if it was just a statistical aberration, why would the UKHSA not address it and comment on it? The lack of a statement from them proves nothing either way, yet you act like its some kind of gotcha, lol



  • Registered Users Posts: 16,679 ✭✭✭✭astrofool


    Effectiveness against severe disease remains strong well past 6 months, even for Omicron (89% from memory).

    Effectiveness against mild disease and transmission does wane after about 6 months but has come back to very high levels after a booster shot, this should allow us to reduce the frequency to annual for the majority and possibly bi-annual for the elderly and vulnerable. Effective treatments may reduce this frequency further but I would bet on at least annual boosters in the future. Waning is dictated more by the immune system than the vaccine with viral infection also seeing similar waning effects, viral infection has also shown to be much less effective against variant reinfection vs. vaccines.

    I would say that's the mark of a "safe and effective" vaccine.



  • Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    So then vaccinated people do not have the same chances as unvaccinated.


    And yes, that is a mark of a safe and effective vaccine. Are flu vaccines not safe or effective cause they also have to be updated and received continuously.

    I don;t understand what your objection is to the idea that they will also similarly update the covid vaccines as necessary. No one is claiming or suggesting that they won't do this, or that they only plan on giving the same vaccine forever.

    Are you now also claiming that the covid vaccines are not safe? If so, what dangers are you concerned about?


    But that isn't what the data recorded. It's something you are inferring based of your interpretation of the error bars in the graph.

    If that was what the data recorded, then the writers of that paper would address it. You cannot provide any rational reason why they wouldn't address that the vaccines they are studying for effectiveness suddenly made people 40% more likely to catch the virus.

    What you are suggesting is that they found this, knew about it, put it into the graph and then... just forgot to mention it? Didn't think it was important? They're part of cover up?

    That doesn't make sense.

    What does make sense is that you are incorrectly inferring something from a study you are misrepresenting.

    Can you provide any alternative explanation for this discrepancy?



  • Registered Users Posts: 7,057 ✭✭✭timmyntc


    But that isn't what the data recorded. It's something you are inferring based of your interpretation of the error bars in the graph.

    Can you read this graph for me, and tell me what it says? Specifically, for Dose 2 at week 25+.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob




  • Registered Users Posts: 6,485 ✭✭✭Fighting Tao


    If you are as pleasant off the internet as you are on it then you must be black and blue from the amount of times you’d have received a dig from people you talk to.



  • Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Ok. So what's the conspiracy then?

    Why are doctors and medical organisations pushing for boosters if they aren't needed according to your expert medical opinion?



  • Registered Users Posts: 6,485 ✭✭✭Fighting Tao


    I’m showing that my tolerance levels are high by not saying more. A little self control goes a long way, and you could learn from practicing it.



  • Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Ok. So you're not claiming that all of the doctors and medical organisations are being paid to lie then.

    That's a very silly conspiracy theory.


    Have you concidered that maybe the reason is that doctors and medical experts know more than you?



  • Registered Users Posts: 7,057 ✭✭✭timmyntc


    Maybe they're afraid of the end of the world!

    That supposition has about as much validity as yours that they didnt mention it because it didnt exist - despite being plain to see in their own published data! You're really grasping now to try and dismiss it lol



  • Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Again you're misrepresenting my position.

    Please explain why they did not mention the idea that the vaccine they are studying for efficacy was showing negative efficacy?

    I can't think of any explanation that makes any sense other than the one I gave. Can you?

    If you can't, please just say that you can't.


    My supposition is that you are overstating and misrepresenting what the paper actually says.


    Edit: For context I found this quote where an author from the danish report explains why their study also seemed to show a negative efficacy:


    The specific point being cited online to suggest the vaccines are harmful concerns the study’s finding that, after 90 days, the vaccine effectiveness against infection with omicron was calculated to be below zero — which would suggest in theory that it increases chances of contracting the virus.


    However, the study explains that “the negative estimates in the final period arguably suggest different behaviour and/or exposure patterns in the vaccinated and unvaccinated cohorts causing underestimation” of vaccine effectiveness.

    Hansen said there are a “number of reasons” why the estimate might be negative, noting that biases are “quite common” in calculating effectiveness with observational studies. In other words, other factors are causing the vaccine to appear less effective.


    The underestimates could be the product of vaccinated individuals being tested more frequently, therefore resulting in a higher incidence rate, he said. Also, behavioral differences, such as vaccinated individuals engaging in more activities that could lead to exposure, could be at play, he said.


    Natalie Dean, an assistant professor of biostatistics at Emory University whose research includes methods for evaluating vaccine efficacy, said in an email that while the vaccines are less effective against infection with omicron, there is no real-world evidence that scientists are aware of that would explain the vaccines’ effectiveness actually being below zero.


    Instead, she agreed that the negative results in the study were “highly likely to be due to bias in the data.”

    The story is also covered here:


    Post edited by King Mob on


  • Registered Users Posts: 16,679 ✭✭✭✭astrofool


    You're not, the vaccines are far far far safer than a virus and work well across different variants (thus far anyway). Getting a virus to get immunity for that virus is one of the dumbest actions a person can take.



  • Registered Users Posts: 16,679 ✭✭✭✭astrofool


    You want me to highlight the stupidity of this sentence even more?

     but for the average healthy Adult, you are better of getting the omicron variant and obtain natural immunity



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    But the science says that people in general should get the booster as it significantly deceases infection, transmission and illness.

    But you are then also saying that science is lying cause all the doctors who disagree with you are all involved in a big giant conspiracy you can't actually show or explain.

    So you're not really following science at all.

    You're just following whatever twitter is teilling you.



Advertisement