Covid vaccines - thread banned users in First Post

hometruths · 23-05-2022 9:29am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119100931#Comment_119100931

We can't possibly explain it to you because you're not willing to accept any explanation that isn't an antivaxx one.

Nobody has offered any explanation, other than "you don't understand it".

It is amazing how many claim to understand these caveats, yet nobody seems willing to demonstrate that understanding.

King Mob · 23-05-2022 9:36am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119100991#Comment_119100991

We can't explain to flat earthers why the earth is round either man.

You keep inventing and twisting quotes and statements. You keep dodgingand avoiding questions. You keep claiming to not understand things.

How would it be possible to explain something to you?

However as you've admitted there's no actual evidence that the data is the result of the vaccines causing the increase. It's not a possibility. So even if we accept your disbelief about the explanation provided by the actual experts, it would just mean that explanation is wrong and there's still no indication of an issue with the vaccine.

And if someone was to bet on who's wrong, actual doctors and experts trained in statistics and virology and medicine or some untrained willfully ignorant very dishonest antivaxxer...

astrofool · 23-05-2022 9:38am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119100961#Comment_119100961

It's in the weekly UK reports (which it's clear now that you haven't actually read, as you would know this otherwise), this I will leave you to research yourself, I'm not sure if they still publish it in the latest reports (as at 99.8% it doesn't make sense to keep on reporting). edit: They published a more detailed report on 9th Feb, the number is between 98% and 99% when analysed directly.

I also don't think you understand what contradictory means anymore, you must exhaust yourself.

It's not contradictory because it can be one of many explanations for the numbers in an uncontrolled environment with voluntary reporting, hence the focus in the latest reports of actual outcomes .

Again, I'm not sure I can make it any clearer without getting super patronising again.

hometruths · 23-05-2022 10:10am

In the absence of any attempt for a credible explanation as to why the unvaccinated who are less likely to get tested because they are less health conscious than the vaccinated, are also more likely to have lower exposure to Covid than the vaccinated due to avoiding riskier social interactions, even though they are less health conscious, we can move on to the next caveat:

People who have never been vaccinated are more likely to have caught COVID-19 in the weeks or months before the period of the cases covered in the report. This gives them some natural immunity to the virus for a few months which may have contributed to a lower case rate in the past few weeks.

So the covid rate per 100k is higher in the vaccinated in this report, because the unvaccinated are more likely to have caught covid prior to these past few weeks?!

Presumably in those prior weeks they were for some reason abandoning this abundance of caution we're told about in this week that led them to avoid social interactions in the period covered in this report.

But hang on, the same caveats have applied every week for almost six months?!

So the rates in the unvaccinated are lower this week because they are more likely to have caught covid in previous weeks when they were simultaneously less likely to have caught covid because of lower exposure?

Seems legit.

King Mob · 23-05-2022 11:03am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119101161#Comment_119101161

Ok. If you say so man.

But the explanation for this can't be that the vaccines are causing it as you've admitted.

So what's your point?

hometruths · 23-05-2022 11:15am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119101410#Comment_119101410

But the explanation for this can't be that the vaccines are causing it as you've admitted.

No.

I said I don't know what is causing it, in the absence of any credible explanation I've no idea what is causing it.

It is possible that it is a form of Vaccine associated enhanced disease (VAED) - this was listed as a potential risk of the vaccines in every single regulatory approval report, and acknowledged that it could not be ruled in or out based on assumptions from modelled data, we'd have to wait and see if the real world data raised any red flags.

Now we have real world data showing that the case rates are consistently higher in the vaccinated vs the unvaccinated but we are told to ignore it in favour of assumptions based on modelled data.

King Mob · 23-05-2022 11:36am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119101458#Comment_119101458

But no it can't be that.

As you've admitted the reports made no mention of that being a possibility. And you've conceded that you cannot point to any other evidence beyond your personal untrained opinion of one set of data to indicate that might be a cause.

It's been months now since you found that data on whatever tweet you got it from.

So again we can exclude that as a possibility.

So again, what's your point?

hometruths · 23-05-2022 11:46am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119101545#Comment_119101545

As you've admitted the reports made no mention of that being a possibility. And you've conceded that you cannot point to any other evidence beyond your personal untrained opinion of one set of data to indicate that might be a cause.

The only reports I have seen mentioning that being a possibility were those published before the real world data was available - you are correct, the reports accompanying the now available real world data make no mention of it being a possibility. Equally they make no mention of it being an impossibility.

They just say you can't infer anything from the real world data because the rates in the unvaccinated are likely to be lower this week because they are more likely to have caught covid in previous weeks when they were simultaneously less likely to have caught covid because of lower exposure.

Given that you are certain we can exclude it as a possibility, perhaps you could show me the source for that? (assuming it's not just your personal untrained opinion you picked up from a tweet)

King Mob · 23-05-2022 11:59am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119101589#Comment_119101589

Simple. The report you keep clinging to does not mention it as a possibility.

If it was a possibility they would have mentioned it.

I don't understand why they wouldn't mention it if it was a possibility. Maybe you can explain that to me.

They also don't mention the conspiracy claims that there's secret microchips in the vaccines thay have been causing rashes of magnetism "as an impossibity".

Why didn't they mention that as an impossibility? Does the fact they don't mean that such a thing is suddenly possible or plausible?

Likewise there's been absolutely no concern raised about the possibility by anyone other than committed conspiracy cranks who are very very dishonest. If it's a possibility, why has it not come up anywhere else?

I asked you to show a source that directly states that this is a concern and you as always ignored that question and avoided it. This usually means you can't provide it and are too dishonest and cowardly to admit it.

If that's not the case please provide a source that directly states that the data is explained by the vaccines causing more infections and that it is a concern.

I suspect you will ignore this request also for the same reasons.

bad2thebone · 23-05-2022 12:04pm

I wonder what a chimpanzee adenovirus was doing in the astrazenica vaccine. Strange how people are getting the monkey pox.

23-05-2022 12:27pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119101678#Comment_119101678

https://www.health.gov.au/initiatives-and-programs/covid-19-vaccines/is-it-true/is-it-true-does-the-vaxzevria-astrazeneca-vaccine-contain-animal-dna#:~:text=The%20AstraZeneca%20vaccine%20uses%20a,it%20to%20grow%20in%20humans

Firstly only one vaccine has it. Secondly, it's impossible to grow in humans. So you just saw monkey and got excited more than anything...

Dohnjoe · 23-05-2022 12:28pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119101678#Comment_119101678

I believe the technical explanation is they put it in for a laugh to freak out conspiracy theorists.

"Chuck in some of that chimp virus, the only people who actually look at the ingredients lists anyway are conspiracy theorists, will totally freak them out"

whippet · 23-05-2022 12:31pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119101784#Comment_119101784

monkey see monkey do !!

I see loads of memes of Bill Gates and the MonkeyPox .. .. considering MP was first discovered in 1958 .. Bill was only 3 years old when he started plotting this ... incredible

sydthebeat · 23-05-2022 12:34pm

bad2thebone, horny for monkeys LOL

King Mob · 23-05-2022 12:35pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119101678#Comment_119101678

@hometruths do you share this belief?

King Mob · 23-05-2022 12:39pm

Also lol. We've hit page 200 and now the conspiracy theory has shifted entirely to a new virus that has not once been mentioned at all in the previous couple of thousands of posts.

I'm kinda starting to think that conspiracy theorists are just making this shite up as they go along and hear stuff in the mainstream media...

bad2thebone · 23-05-2022 12:40pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119101790#Comment_119101790

Well it's in there anyhow,I'm sure there's not a sieve invented that can avoid Cross contamination.

bad2thebone · 23-05-2022 12:42pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119101821#Comment_119101821

Nothing like a dream believer, ok don't get excited man, it's because I'm short... I know hey hey :)

bad2thebone · 23-05-2022 12:44pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119101803#Comment_119101803

Well himself and his buddies simulated a monkey pox outbreak not so long ago , so it'll give us lots to talk about.

hometruths · 23-05-2022 12:45pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119101829#Comment_119101829

No

hometruths · 23-05-2022 12:48pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119101647#Comment_119101647

They also don't mention the conspiracy claims that there's secret microchips in the vaccines thay have been causing rashes of magnetism "as an impossibity".

Why didn't they mention that as an impossibility? Does the fact they don't mean that such a thing is suddenly possible or plausible?

If you think this is a credible argument it's no wonder you believe that the rates in the unvaccinated are likely to be lower this week because they are more likely to have caught covid in previous weeks when they were simultaneously less likely to have caught covid because of lower exposure.

You should stick to debating the microchip gang, where you can hold your own by calling them names. You're out of your depth now, and it shows.

23-05-2022 12:53pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119101851#Comment_119101851

This one appears to have originated from Alex Jones.... Two major things mentioned in the article. Firstly, it's non replicating so it can't grow. Secondly, monkeypox is primarily carried by rodents. Not monkeys. So seeming like a pretty weak conspiracy with zero basis in reality. Please don't get annoyed and start insulting us now. 😂

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/brucelee/2022/05/22/alex-jones-unfounded-claims-that-monkeypox-outbreak-due-to-covid-19-vaccines/amp/

King Mob · 23-05-2022 12:55pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119101901#Comment_119101901

Lol it's your argument man. You claimed that because they didn't mention it as an impossibility it must mean it's a possibility.

I'm just highlighting how silly your argument is when you apply it to the conspiracy theories you don't subscribe to.

My argument is that the report does not mention it as a possibility or a concern. If it was a possibility or a concern they'd mention it in a report about the safety and effectiveness of the vaccines. I don't understand why they wouldn't. Can you explain why they wouldn't mention it?

The other part of my argument is me pointing out that you can't provide any reputable source that raises the possibility as an explanation for the data. You can't show any other indications beyond your personal conclusion about the data which doesn't agree with the reports or the authors conclusions.

So what exactly is the difference between your fanciful argument based nothing but your personal paranoia and bad2thebones?

I'm not seeing much of a separation there in terms of beliefs or tactics

bad2thebone · 23-05-2022 1:06pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119101926#Comment_119101926

I see you're a big fan of Alex Jones. Who would have thought it.

How come I've read about monkey pox coming from monkeys then.

astrofool · 23-05-2022 1:32pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119101161#Comment_119101161

It's all in the weekly reports, UK has them documented to a very in depth level.

If you disagree with the UK scientists, say so and present your hypothesis instead.

You are claiming vaccines don't work despite mountains of data to the contrary.

King Mob · 23-05-2022 1:36pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119102117#Comment_119102117

He won't just say that he believes all of those scientists are involved in a conspiracy. He knows that will tank his paper thin veneer of reasonablness.

But he's cornered since he can't claim to know better than them.

So fully expect a dodge and more ignoring. Possibly with a stroppy declaration that he's "done with the discussion cause he's proven his point" or some such.

hometruths · 23-05-2022 2:08pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119102117#Comment_119102117

As I have pointed out yes I do disagree agree with the scientists on the assumptions they include in the caveat. I understand that you think the assumptions are not contradictory and are in fact plausible. My hypothesis is that their assumptions are contradictory. I have repeated this a few times.

For example I think it is contradictory that the unvaccinated are less likely to get tested because they are less health conscious yet more likely to reduced exposure to Covid because they actively avoid social interactions.

Similiarly I think it is contradictory to suggest that the rates in the unvaccinated are lower this week because they are more likely to have caught covid in previous weeks when they were simultaneously less likely to have caught covid because of lower exposure.

I find these assumptions implausible, and given that nobody has provided a plausible explanation, I think using these assumptions as part of vaccine effectiveness analysis is likely to be garbage in, garbage out.

King Mob · 23-05-2022 2:15pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119102406#Comment_119102406

Ok. Why are these scientists wrong while you are right?

Are you just better at their job at them, or are they lying?

whippet · 23-05-2022 2:24pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119102463#Comment_119102463

In fairness he did say

I think it is contradictory

and

Similiarly I think it is contradictory to suggest that

Which is just his opinion - based on .. nothing more than his opinion. So it is not being claimed by anyone else. Thankfully we have scientists and actual experts making the decisions .. not people who have hunches and gut feelings about stuff rather than data.

King Mob · 23-05-2022 2:29pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119102520#Comment_119102520

But still if it actually is contradictory, then it wouldn't make sense for scientists to support it.

And since he won't accept that he might just be wrong because of ignorance and bias, it must be that the scientists are wrong.

So I'm curious what he thinks is happening. Are the scientists claiming something wrong because they're too dumb to see it, while he, some rando on the internet with zero expertise did?

Or is he claiming that they are deliberately lying?

Covid vaccines - thread banned users in First Post

Comments