Covid vaccines - thread banned users in First Post

27-07-2022 10:43pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119396846#Comment_119396846

The meaning drastically changes when you include the full quote. He's emphasing it was a CDC recommendation rather than some personal decision. Had you even seen the full quote? Did you make any effort to track it down?

"Well, you know, again, first of all, I didn’t recommend locking anything down. You’re asking me questions, you're talking about the CDC, the public health agency that uses their epidemiologists and their science-based approach to make recommendations. Clearly, whenever you close schools, there all collateral effects that are negative. I have always been well-aware of that and I have always felt — and go back and look at my statements — that we need to do everything we can to keep the schools open and safe. And by safe means, if you need to wear masks in that wear masks, get better ventilation, surround the children with people who are vaccinated, if a vaccine is available, to help protect the children. Again, I have been on the record of saying that. Always try, to the best of your ability, to keep the children in school, but in a safe environment. Locally, a decision is often made when there is so much infection to close the school, but I would always see that as a last resort, and I have always felt that way."

astrofool · 27-07-2022 10:48pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119396398#Comment_119396398

And you promised to accept the irrefutable evidence and not get pedantic, can't even keep your own promises among all the other lies you're trying to spin around you while repeatedly proving yourself wrong 🤪

As Fighting Tao said, you misunderstood the secondary endpoint and built everything on top of it only to watch it all fall down, and you are completely ignoring the completely proven Moderna results, as I expected you to.

But I will say, the whole process did separate out if you were someone with genuine vaccine concern vs. an out and out anti-vaxxer, your non-acceptance of multiple pieces of irrefutable evidence has, incidentally, proven that, irrefutably.

odyssey06 · 27-07-2022 10:48pm

Yep as expected they put together a pack of lies by editing Faucis interview. Dead giveaway that the clip ended abruptly before he finished his sentence.

But enough to fool those who lap up that stuff.

Big Bag of Chips · 27-07-2022 10:55pm

@drunkmonkey has been thread banned. Please do not reply to their posts as they do not have the right to reply.

@bad2thebone do not mention the word "squeal" again. You have been asked multiple times to post mature discussion. This will be your final onthread warning.

odyssey06 · 27-07-2022 11:01pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119396846#Comment_119396846

The full transcript as expected shows up the video to be a hack edit and your claim has been entirely discredited and without merit. The rest of your post is of the same quality seeing as you havent refuted with evidence the studies in Lancet or Qatar proving vaccine effectiveness v severe covid and symptomatic infection. In response you just have badly edited youtube videos - edited to deceive.

King Mob · 27-07-2022 11:10pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119396953#Comment_119396953

How many times on this thread has the source of a conspiracy theory claim been something like this?

A partial sentence, an out of context quote, edited video. But then, the claim is debunked by simply reading the rest of the original source.

We keep getting told to "do our own research". Yet it doesn't look like any conspiracy theorists are actually reading more than 120 characters at a time.

It's either that, or they are reading and seeing these things in full and then still decide to try and use the out of context stuff to defend their beliefs.

hometruths · 27-07-2022 11:13pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119396895#Comment_119396895

It’s not irrefutable evidence that the data on severity was extremely comprehensive and proven in massive trials, quite the opposite. It’s evidence that there were encouraging signs of an effect on severity, but nobody has ever denied that. It is preliminary evidence because the data Is insufficient rather than proven because the data was extremely comprehensive.

And you have repeatedly said I am wrong because I have misunderstood the secondary endpoint, yet not once have you offered even your own understanding of the secondary endpoint to contradict me, never mind link to any evidence that contradicts me. Neither has FightingTao.

King Mob · 27-07-2022 11:16pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119397003#Comment_119397003

It’s evidence that there were encouraging signs of an effect on severity, but nobody has ever denied that.

Lol. This thread is full of conspiracy theorists claiming the vaccines were useless. Bizarre you're trying to claim this didn't happen.

Fr0g · 28-07-2022 12:09am

https://rumble.com/v1dory3-receipts-fauci-lies-about-his-record-on-lockdown-recommendations.html

FAUCI IN OCTOBER 2020: "I recommended to the president that we shut the country down."

bad2thebone · 28-07-2022 12:36am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119397202#Comment_119397202

He's off the same assembly line as the rest of them. Lie's, lie's and more lies.

It's quite clear he said it. The mouse in the haggard knows this.

But there's a handful here who need to tweak their hearing aids or else they're just plain thick and stupid.

-------------------------------------------

You have been asked multiple times to not resort to petty name calling. Do not post in this thread again.

robinph · 28-07-2022 1:20am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119397303#Comment_119397303

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119396871#Comment_119396871

Just incase you missed the post a short while ago where the full quote was given for you and clearly shows that Faucci wasn't saying what you claim.

Will probably now stick their fingers in their ears, mutter LA LA LA NOT LISTENING to themselves and claim that the have everyone on ignore. Maybe @Fr0g will see someone quoting it and then quote it back for @bad2thebone to see as well.

--------------------------------------

@robinph There have been numerous moderator instructions to stop petty sniping at posters. Discuss the topic or do not post.

astrofool · 28-07-2022 8:02am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119397003#Comment_119397003

The data irrefutably showed impact on severity, you posted the data yourself, there was no right minded person looking at those results that would think impact on severity was unproven, any scientist or medical professional claiming so with such clear data between the groups in some of the largest trials in medical history would be laughed at and no one would take them seriously ever again.

As has also happened here.

Your argument was built on sand. But as said, I don't think anyone expected you to concede even when proving yourself wrong in meticulous detail, but it has completely outed you as an extremist anti-vaxxer and thus future posts will be seen in this light, it means you can skip the JAQ'ing phase in the future.

28-07-2022 8:36am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119397202#Comment_119397202

Scroll back a few posts and you can read the full quote which has an entirely different meaning.

Igotadose · 28-07-2022 9:01am

I've asked this before - should we just relabel this thread as anti-vaxx and go back to the old days? 328 pages, still nothing wrt vaccine safety that holds up to the least amount of scrutiny. It's just an attempt at an anti-vaxx echo chamber. And the anti-vaxxer's goal really seems to get banned, no more, no less. Probably off sharing a good old fashioned glass of whine about it right now.

odyssey06 · 28-07-2022 9:32am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119397202#Comment_119397202

Some advice to avoid being fooled by internet hoaxes relating to covid.

If your evidence is a video which cuts a speaker off mid sentence, then the video has probably been edited to pick a quote out of context in a deliberate attempt to deceive.

patnor1011 · 28-07-2022 1:56pm

Seems that the more "vaccine" you take the longer you remain contagious after contracting SARS-CoV-2

https://thenationalpulse.com/2022/07/22/unvaccinated-people-remain-contagious-with-covid-19-for-shorter-period-of-time/

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2202092

Igotadose · 28-07-2022 2:10pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119399140#Comment_119399140

That's not what the 2d link says. The first link is some from some UK Breitbart flack that begs you for support in being banned by the evil social media whatevers. So, that's worth skipping.

Also, the second link points out it's a small study (99 people) and they're just stating some very preliminary observations - it's a letter to the editor not a published paper.

hometruths · 28-07-2022 2:12pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119397585#Comment_119397585

The data irrefutably showed impact on severity, you posted the data yourself, there was no right minded person looking at those results that would think impact on severity was unproven, any scientist or medical professional claiming so with such clear data between the groups in some of the largest trials in medical history would be laughed at and no one would take them seriously ever again.

Really?! Such clear data?! Any scientist or medical professional?!

An impact of severity yes, but inconclusive rather than proven. Your irrefutable evidence of proven efficacy against severe disease by extremely comprehensive data included the HSELibrary statement on Pfizers trials that "Nine of the 10 severe cases that occurred during the study were in the placebo group."

But this data is for first dose only. Did you miss the bit at the bottom of that section in which the HSE said (emphasis added):

Although these data suggest some efficacy of a single vaccine dose, the actual magnitude and duration of protection from a single dose are unknown because most participants in the trial and the observational studies received the second dose three weeks after the first.

Unknown. i.e unproven. Or do you know better than the HSE, laughing at them and not taking them seriously ever again?

And whilst you claim that "no right minded person looking at those results that would think impact on severity was unproven", even the authors of the study you are relying on are not claiming it was proven (emphasis added).

The study was not designed to assess the efficacy of a single-dose regimen. Nevertheless, in the interval between the first and second doses, the observed vaccine efficacy against Covid-19 was 52%, and in the first 7 days after dose 2, it was 91%, reaching full efficacy against disease with onset at least 7 days after dose 2. Of the 10 cases of severe Covid-19 that were observed after the first dose, only 1 occurred in the vaccine group. This finding is consistent with overall high efficacy against all Covid-19 cases. The severe case split provides preliminary evidence of vaccine-mediated protection against severe disease, alleviating many of the theoretical concerns over vaccine-mediated disease enhancement.

It is preliminary evidence. i.e unproven. Or do you know better than those who conducted the clinical trials, laughing at them and not taking them seriously ever again?

All of the above that you are claiming as irrefutable evidence does nothing to contradict the regulators claims that (emphasis added):

Based on the available limited data, no reliable conclusion on the efficacy of the vaccine against severe COVID-19 can be drawn from 7 days after the second dose (secondary endpoint).

Limited data. No reliable conclusion. i.e unproven. Or do you know better than the EMA regulators as well, laughing at them and not taking them seriously ever again?

odyssey06 · 28-07-2022 2:15pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119399140#Comment_119399140

Published "in a letter to the editor" in a medical journal is not the same as a peer reviewed study being published now is it?

So where's the review?

And look at this:

The characteristics of the participants were similar in the two variant groups except that more participants with omicron infection had received a booster vaccine than had those with delta infection (35% vs. 3%).

Our results should be interpreted within the context of a small sample size, which limits precision, and the possibility of residual confounding in comparisons according to variant, vaccination status, and the time period of infection.

So how much of the shedding is due to Omicron v Delta?

No attempt made to control for age or immuno status of the people in the study.

we did not find large differences in the median duration of viral shedding among participants who were unvaccinated, those who were vaccinated but not boosted, and those who were vaccinated and boosted.

So tiny sample size, confounding factors, and no large differences detected.

astrofool · 28-07-2022 3:07pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119399242#Comment_119399242

Amazing how you go from being puzzled to throwing out quotes (and everyone now knows how easy itbis to spot this, allowing you to calculate CFR yourseld, even if you can manage CI yet), it's a fairly snivelling existence along with the obvious pedantry.

However, as said, the impact was proven, the data showed it clearly (hence you being wrong with the lucky scenario, you can admit it now), the magnitude was still TBD but was already in the high ranges of efficacy as proven in the data that you posted for everyone to see, what was the Moderna efficacy range again? Dare to repeat it for everyone to see?

Unfortunately, as much as you might try, you can't be a pedant with the data you posted yourself being irrefutably proven wrong.

King Mob · 28-07-2022 3:35pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119399140#Comment_119399140

Again, with the scare quotes.

And again, you're link dumping stuff you either didn't bother to read or look into, or you did look into it, realised it doesn't really support your believes, but are pretending it does anyway.

Why?

The Nal · 28-07-2022 3:36pm

I love when people post articles they haven't read. Happens a lot with the conspiraloons.

hometruths · 28-07-2022 5:56pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119399605#Comment_119399605

However, as said, the impact was proven, the data showed it clearly (hence you being wrong with the lucky scenario, you can admit it now), the magnitude was still TBD but was already in the high ranges of efficacy as proven in the data that you posted for everyone to see, what was the Moderna efficacy range again? Dare to repeat it for everyone to see?

Sure the data on efficacy estimates is there for all to see, and interpret. You seem to be very keen on the Moderna data, claiming that the efficacy against severity was proven, but the regulators disagree with you. Their specific comments on severity:

Moderna

From the experience with other vaccines it is expected that prevention of severe COVID-19 will be achieved by preventing COVID-19 overall.

The case-driven readout and high VE translates into limited case numbers at present and resulting limited precision for estimating VE in several substrata including elderly, people with comorbidities and efficacy against severe COVID-19.

The above comment was made in the section titled "Uncertainties and limitations about favourable effects" which suggests the regulators thought that there were uncertainties and limitations regarding the effect on severity. Not proven with extremely comprehensive data.

As you're aware, it was Tal Zaks, chief medical officer at Moderna, in an article in the BMJ, October 2020, who unambiguously explained that the data on severity was extremely uncomprehensive and thus not proven:

But Tal Zaks, chief medical officer at Moderna, told The BMJ that the company’s trial lacks adequate statistical power to assess those outcomes. “The trial is precluded from judging [hospital admissions], based on what is a reasonable size and duration to serve the public good here,” he said.

Hospital admissions and deaths from covid-19 are simply too uncommon in the population being studied for an effective vaccine to demonstrate statistically significant differences in a trial of 30 000 people. The same is true of its ability to save lives or prevent transmission: the trials are not designed to find out.

This is really peak Emperor's new clothes stuff; I've provided you with quote after quote from regulators, scientists, governments and even vaccine manufacturers that directly contradict your claims about extremely comprehensive data and proven efficacy against severity, and your response is:

no right minded person looking at those results that would think impact on severity was unproven, any scientist or medical professional claiming so with such clear data between the groups in some of the largest trials in medical history would be laughed at and no one would take them seriously ever again

That's why I say you must be trolling at this stage. It's madness.

astrofool · 28-07-2022 6:30pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119400324#Comment_119400324

They literally say limited precision (which I have said as well, numerous times) but none of them say that efficacy severity wasn't proven.

And the data that you posted has it proven irrefutably.

It's madness that you can't see that. Even with all the pedantry, you posted in excruciatingly painful detail, in multiple steps to stop you spinning out, all the data that proves your position is completely wrong.

And your response is more pedantry and spinning.

Which is exactly what I predicted you would do (after numerous other times pointing you at data to find to prove your latest musing wrong). You've become a puppet on strings shouting at the puppeteer.

But, as I said, the whole point of the exercise was to show everyone that you would post irrefutable evidence and then out you as an extreme anti-vaxxer for trying to spin away from the evidence that you yourself posted. So now everyone knows you are an extreme anti-vaxxer and answer your posts, pedanticness and outright lies accordingly. Any future JAQ'ing will be answered with you doing the work to prove it yourself (wrong no doubt).

And you could have saved yourself all of it by saying it was just your opinion.

hometruths · 28-07-2022 6:52pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119400433#Comment_119400433

It's the opinion of the regulators.

You say it is proven. By extremely comprehensive data.

They say it is uncertain. Due to limited data.

There for all to see.

King Mob · 28-07-2022 10:58pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119400498#Comment_119400498

Nope. That's you paraphrasing to try and spin your way out of the corner you put yourself in.

Everyone can indeed see what's going on.

Lol also you're at it again.

Why did you only use a partial quote from that BMJ article? What did the next paragraph say and why did you not post it?

astrofool · 28-07-2022 11:33pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119400498#Comment_119400498

I'm puzzled, what was the Moderna efficacy and confidence interval against severe disease from the massive trials again? ;) I think it was 100% with a 0% CI, but I might be wrong, maybe you can prove it was different because I can't remember where the data was or use internet search to find it anymore.

Big Bag of Chips · 29-07-2022 6:42am

I can't remember where the data was or use internet search to find it anymore.

@astrofool less of the smart arse comments. There have been plenty of onthread warnings and a number of threadbans.

hometruths · 29-07-2022 9:54am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119401758#Comment_119401758

100% with 0% CI?!! Are you sure you understand CIs quite as well as you claim?

I can remember where the data is. It is in the EMA approval report that I have linked numerous times. Not difficult to prove it was different:

Regarding severe COVID-19, 30 cases were reported for placebo and no cases for the vaccine arm. Vaccine efficacy against severe COVID-19 was thus estimated to be 100% (95% CI 87.0%, NE). One severe COVID-19 case in the vaccine group was reported as SAE but was not adjudicated at the time of the data snapshot. Given the low numbers of severe cases, further follow up data are needed to consolidate the observed protective effect against severe COVID-19. Based on limited case narratives there were 9 hospitalisations among those cases (of which 2 ICU admitted of which one fatal). The majority of the severe cases were adjudicated as such based on SpO2 below the defining threshold of 93% for varying duration. Whereas reassuring for efficacy across varying disease severity, the cases overall seem mostly mild, which is a limitation of the dataset.

Reassuring. But not proven. Because of limitations of the data.

So, in the opinion of the EMA, the efficacy against severe disease was not proven with extremely comprehensive data.

Quite the opposite.

https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/assessment-report/spikevax-previously-covid-19-vaccine-moderna-epar-public-assessment-report_en.pdf

astrofool · 29-07-2022 10:44am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119402444#Comment_119402444

100% (95% CI 87.0%, NE) is proven to work.

The mod also picked up the satire as intended, but thanks for proving yourself wrong again.

further follow up data are needed to consolidate the observed protective effect against severe COVID-19

This literally means more data needed to get an accurate number but that the protective effect is in place, i.e. proven (hence the approvals and everybody being happy with the efficacy of the vaccines as proven from the massive trials).

@Big Bag of Chips , hometruths has been playing the "I'm puzzled" game for a long time, see the exchange with Odyssey a few days back or their expectation that other posters disprove a negative, I would expect future posts to be called out accordingly (even if they don't understand satire).

Covid vaccines - thread banned users in First Post

Comments