Relaxation of Restrictions, Part XII *Read OP For Mod Warnings*

You can call it what you want, but me posting here a couple of interesting studies is not misinformation. These are results of scientific work and are posted here with no intention to deceive anybody. I have mentioned these here as they are peer-reviewed research pieces published most recently and are to provide a more than adequate support to an argument I was making earlier, which was that protection from vaccines is short lived, infection provide strongest and longest immunity, and that vaccinating children makes no sense from medical perspective (I claimed that much earlier this year too). These are becoming facts to the scientific community at large but interestingly do not trickle through the media yet. Will they ever?

In fact there are some people here who purposely or not, time and time again, claim that the vaccine is as good as previous infection or that the people are getting re-infected as frequently following previous infection as those following vaccination. They are the ones spreading the misinformation. What they are saying is simply not true. The mRNA vaccines were supposed to work like that but sadly they don't. I provided independent evidence that supports my point of view. That is all.

Contrarian thinking gets often labeled 'misinformation' and contrarians are often called different names i.e. 'conspiracy theorist', and we have seen a lot of that here. It is nothing more than a defensive mechanism that is used to discredit and marginalise others with different point of view, so that the existing beliefs of the herd can prevail. The governments and the media have done that a lot recently too.

You clearly have no interest in critically looking into your choices in the context of a new information, and that is totally fine with me. But labeling a post 'misinformation' simply because it challenges your beliefs is not acceptable.

That and the fact that the population becomes more immune as more and more people gets natural immunity from being infected in the previous waves. We are on a good trajectory.

Just because you are not aware or reject new evidence does not mean that it does not exist, but sure bury head in the sand. It is better that way, right.

"Duration of mRNA vaccine protection against SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.1 and BA.2 subvariants in Qatar": https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.03.13.22272308v1.full.pdf

And "Duration of immune protection of SARS-CoV-2 natural infection against reinfection in Qatar": https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.07.06.22277306v1.full.pdf

These two most recent papers provide a very good evidence that challenges your very dated beliefs. The fact that mRNA vaccines wane quickly is a public knowledge at this stage anyway. RTE did not mention it yet? Then it surely isn't true. Good luck to you.

Man, you have to laugh...🤣

And don't forget mask mandates have been written into law so can be brought in any time. Of course it won't be used, just like the digital covid cert was only for 6 weeks so indoor hospitality could re-open.🙄

The government is to end public testing in the Autumn.

It follows advice from the new CMO.

Better late than never. What an incredible waste of money. Perhaps over a billion spent on testing.

Now you're contradicting yourself. As you've said, Omicron paved the way for the removal of restrictions. So why, according to you, will these same restrictions be reinstated when Omicron and it's many subvariants are going nowhere. Indeed one could argue that the subvariants are even less harmful than the original Omicron, which itself was less harmful than Delta. I just don't see the case for restrictions. But it won't stop some posters fantasizing about them on here..

Check your facts before spreading misinformation.

The paper on vaccines study has been submitted on 13th March and published since: Nature Communications doi: 10.1038/s41467-022-30895-3. The second paper was only submitted on 7th July and is awaiting the review. There is nothing unusual about that. Both come from the same group of people, same country. Moreover the latter only confirms what has been concluded by researchers in other countries already. I have provided the context for these papers the first time I mentioned and quoted from them in my post #33464 on 19/07/22 at 11:33 am.

You keep on advocating for the vaccines and discrediting all the facts and information that argue against them with all the bullsh1t at your disposal. I suggest that you provide a solid evidence to support your arguments rather than a constant nonsense. It does not stand up to any scrutiny.

I understand that, by your own admission, you are now on your 5th vaccine. Is it possible that you are totally biased and have gone that rabbit hole way too far to see the light any more? And no evidence will change that? As I said before, confirmation bias and sunk cost fallacy have no limits. You are a perfect example of that. Stay there if that is what you want in a hope to keep your reality intact, I could not care less. With all above considered, you have no credibility whatsoever imo. 

Well, for example as per post #33482 - vaccines are not much good for the kids and young folks. If anything quite the opposite. There is a strong argument that for that cohort risk vs benefit should be re-evaluated as there does not seem to be a medical justification to vaccinate children as such. Especially against omicron.

Is that all you take from this study? This is not much of a ground braking conclusion as Pfizer have told us all that months ago. Putting that into context i.e. efficacy over 2 month period from injection may make it sound far less impressive. But of course you know better and accuse me of being selective. Lol. We have been there before, you and I. Let's don't waste each other's time.

yes, i am the one who has done the first and you the second, and i only deal in reality and objectivity and only interpret everything correctly.

All I see on this thread is people who claim they're always right and just blather about it.

And people who post links to actual facts which can be discussed.

I'm always happy to have a discussion about actual data. It's how I went from being completely behind Holohan and co at the start, to realising their primary focus was on deflection and not being held responsible for anything, over actually giving a damn about public health.

...and if a committee (of peers) review doesn't find any serious flaws in the paper?

Peer review became a thing in 1944. It isn't essential to science, was unheard of for most of the golden ages of science (from about 1700 to about 1965), and is just a bureaucratic mechanism. A committee of scientists look at a paper to comb it for errors and then either it is vetoed or rubberstamped.

I see nothing wrong in discussing pre-reviewed papers. It doesn't indicate gullibility unless you think these particular scientists have form for producing work that doesn't stand up to scrutiny or deliberately conning people. Do you think that? Or is just that any paper that doesn't buttress faith in mRNA vaccines is automatically suspect?

By my own admission I'm contrarian and also skeptical when it comes to the extremes. I was skeptical when the media reported that there was a killer virus on the loose - a new bubonic plague that would kill more than hundred thousand people in Ireland alone and hundreds of millions more worldwide. I was skeptical also when the same media told us all the fairytale that there will be a new drug created in an incredibly short time that will make this virus go away. I was skeptical to hear that the great rollout of vaccines and lockdowns was the the only strategy for dealing with covid. Then the vaccines came and the claims for them have shrunk month after month. A year ago we were told they were safe and 95% effective, and would stop the virus transmission. Then it deteriorated as we were told that the vaccinated will still get the virus, and can pass it onto others, but they won't get very sick and go to hospital. That also turned out not to be true. And then came the the booster with a promise to protect from severe illness and death. That also did not happen to be true and triple vaccinated are dying from covid.

I believe that vaccine is a useful drug for specific cases. It should be used when protecting people who are most at risk and for whom the risk of getting the virus exceeds the risk associated with the vaccines. That is what they are good for and nothing else. I also think that a lot more could have been done with regard to anti-viral drugs and treatments that were proposed by many experts but quickly dismissed by the media who were only interested in pushing the vaccine narrative.

I'm very much against "No one is safe, until everybody is vaccinated' type of an approach to it. They are vaccinating 6 months old babies in US and in Canada the PM said that people have to take a jab every 9 months to enjoy life as a citizen of a free society. Australian government is coercing double vaccinated into taking the booster. With how much we know about covid these days, there is no justification for this whatsoever. Never before has anyone invented an experimental medicine without a long term safety record that all 7.5bn people on the planet were supposed to take it. Let's not forget that perfectly healthy people who on the initial promise of a vaccine to stop the transmission have only taken it to protect others have lost their lives or got severely injured - something that should also be acknowledged and considered.

It has been the worst public policy in modern times. Without a doubt.

Lastly, you have been constantly and without justification throwing labels at people. In your posts here (#33486/33488/33492) you have accused me of misquoting, spreading misinformation and trolling. I did not think that this discussion needed to get personal. I responded in a good faith and tried to keep the conversation focused on a merit. It is you who reduced it to a tit for tat. Now you are complaining about me implying that you get your knowledge from the RTE? What is wrong? You don't like this approach when it is directed at you? If so, one advice - don't do unto others what you don't want done unto you.