Covid vaccines - thread banned users in First Post

hometruths · 29-07-2022 11:07am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119402668#Comment_119402668

Re the exchange with odyssey I posted this:

Vaccine effectiveness is negative after 8 months according to this study in the Lancet:

Figure 2 Vaccine effectiveness (any vaccine) against SARS-CoV-2 infection of any severity in 842 974 vaccinated individuals matched to an equal number of unvaccinated individuals for up to 9 months of follow-up

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-67362200089-7/fulltext

That graph literally shows negative vaccine effectiveness against infection of any severity from 8 months onwards.

Odyssey took exception to this and started arguing about effects from day 181 onwards etc, but nothing he said contradicted the point that the graph shows negative efficacy from 8 months onward. He was just waving around the usual arguments about misrepresenting the data etc.

So after restating my point a few times, I just ignored his post as per the forum charter: If you see posts that fall below the level of "counter-argument" (DH4) on this chart, do not respond

hometruths · 29-07-2022 11:24am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119402668#Comment_119402668

This literally means more data needed to get an accurate number but that the protective effect is in place, i.e. proven

So if you agree that more data was needed to get an accurate estimate presumably you agree that the data on severity they had available was not extremely comprehensive?

Big Bag of Chips · 29-07-2022 1:34pm

@astrofool, please do not question or comment on moderator instruction on thread. If you have any problems with a post or poster report it. Also other posters are irrelevant to my warning to you.

Please post only according to the forum charter or do not post in the thread again.

odyssey06 · 29-07-2022 2:12pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119402785#Comment_119402785

Hold on a second here. For starters, it was a report you introduced to support your claim you were better off not getting vaccinated.

I pointed out nowhere does the report state anything to support that conclusion. Its conclusion is support for boosters.

To your specific claim that I only talked about figures from Day 181 onwards. This is false.

In post #9594 I directly quoted a line from the report which directly contradicted your original claim and your new false new claim in post 9836.

Protection against severe COVID-19 was better maintained for up to 9 months of follow-up, although some waning became evident after more than 4 months.

I repeatedly pointed out that you were ignoring the complexities in the report, of types of vaccines (mRNA versus AZ), how healthcare workers could have distorted some of the findings and the difference between protection against infection & severe covid.

You offered no comeback to the points raised in this post. Again note that I mention 9 months.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119382948#Comment_119382948

Fr0g · 29-07-2022 2:36pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119397844#Comment_119397844

He said what he said you have not proven that it was taken out of context

Here he is doubling down saying he would impose

"much, much more stringent restrictions"

https://reason.com/2022/07/25/anthony-fauci-interview-covid-restrictions-masks/

and of course the inevitable admittance that the cloth masks that most people were required to wear indoors throughout the pandemic do not substantially prevent the transmission of COVID-19.

But if course if I said that I would be considered a conspiracy theorist.

So why were they mandated?

odyssey06 · 29-07-2022 2:44pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119403793#Comment_119403793

It was taken out of context. The video cut him off mid sentence.

This video is nothing more than a deliberate attempt to deceive.

This is the full transcript already posted on this thread.

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

King Mob · 29-07-2022 2:53pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119402785#Comment_119402785

But again you are relying on your personal untrained and biased interpretation of that graph. You are not representing the actual conclusions and statements of the paper.

The paper does not mention negative effectiveness in its text or conclusions.

This isn't the first time you've made this misrepresentation either.

hometruths · 29-07-2022 3:01pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119403648#Comment_119403648

Hold on a second here. For starters, it was a report you introduced to support your claim you were better off not getting vaccinated.

I pointed out nowhere does the report state anything to support that conclusion. Its conclusion is support for boosters.

This is total nonsense. I did not introduce the report to support the claim that you were better off not getting vaccinated.

I introduced the report to in post 9588 to highlight the graph showing "Vaccine effectiveness (any vaccine) against SARS-CoV-2 infection of any severity in 842 974 vaccinated individuals matched to an equal number of unvaccinated individuals for up to 9 months of follow-up"

You replied to the post with the graph in post 9590:

Did you read the entire article?

Waning was slightly slower for mRNA-1273, with a vaccine effectiveness of 96% (94 to 97; p<0·001) at 15–30 days and 59% (18 to 79; p=0·012) from day 181 onwards...

For the outcome of severe COVID-19, vaccine effectiveness waned from 89% (82 to 93; p<0·001) at 15–30 days to 64% (44 to 77; p<0·001) from day 121 onwards...

The results strengthen the evidence-based rationale for administration of a third vaccine dose as a booster.

In response to that specifically I made the point about being better off not getting vaccinated in post 9591:

Well yes, if double vaccination is providing negative effectiveness after 8 months it will undoubtedly strengthen the argument for a booster if you're double vaccinated!

But it also strengthens the argument for not getting vaccinated in the first place.

That graph is indicating that after 8 months the vaccinated have less protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection than the unvaccinated - thus it clearly strengthens the argument for not getting vaccinated in the first place.

I introduced this claim specifically in response to your post. I did not introduce the report as support of this claim.

In reply you said "No. The article directly contradicts your claims and nowhere does it state support for your claim."

A couple of times I restated my specific claim that the graph titled Vaccine effectiveness (any vaccine) against SARS-CoV-2 infection of any severity in 842 974 vaccinated individuals matched to an equal number of unvaccinated individuals for up to 9 months of follow-up, showed negative effectiveness after 8 months in case you had misunderstood in good faith. But you just deflected and waffled, so I ignored your posts for the reasons stated above.

astrofool · 29-07-2022 3:23pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119403947#Comment_119403947

You are specifically ignoring data and using quotes on severity (even if you ended up misunderstanding the quotes anyway) and then ignoring quotes and trying to use data elsewhere (where you misunderstand what the data means), you have caught yourself in a bind again and will need to climb down on one area.

It's almost as if you have your own made up conclusion and are ignoring everything that doesn't support it, no matter how overwhelming it may be.

hometruths · 29-07-2022 3:31pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119404060#Comment_119404060

Vaccine effectiveness is negative after 8 months according to this study in the Lancet:

Figure 2 Vaccine effectiveness (any vaccine) against SARS-CoV-2 infection of any severity in 842 974 vaccinated individuals matched to an equal number of unvaccinated individuals for up to 9 months of follow-up

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-67362200089-7/fulltext

This graph shows negative vaccine effectiveness (any vaccine) against SARS-CoV-2 infection of any severity in 842 974 vaccinated individuals matched to an equal number of unvaccinated individuals after 8 months.

If I am wrong about that by all means correct me and tell me what it shows.

But please don't start the "You are misunderstanding/misrepresenting the data, but I cannot explain how" routine on this as well.

29-07-2022 4:06pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119404085#Comment_119404085

If I am wrong about that by all means correct me and tell me what it shows.

You have been shown that you are wrong and been told what it shows about 12 times at this stage. There are currently four posts on this page, half of which are yours. Both of the other two, 50% of all posts on this page alone, have done this. You are unwilling to accept your mistake. What more do you want from people?

You're (deliberately, I'd wager) misinterpreting the graph. You've been shown that this is the case and given the reasoning behind it. You're just ignoring everything else and keep reposting the graph and saying what you think it means. It's a move straight out of the Cheeful S playbook.

I'll tell you what......quote the part of the study (without reposting the graph again, I want proper, unambiguous text quotes, not a graph that you're putting your own spin on) and show us where in the study it says that "vaccine effectiveness is negative after 8 months". Again, forget about the graph, something nice and definitive that proves your claim.

29-07-2022 4:09pm

Also, for anyone keeping score, we are back to the the paradox that the anti-vaxxers have been touting for a year now.

"Covid is harmless - nothing more than a flu

The vaccines are also useless

The best way to boost your immune system to prevent catching covid is to....eh....catch covid

Don't take the vaccines, catch covid instead and that'll help you from catching it again, but don't forget it's harmless"

King Mob · 29-07-2022 4:10pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119404085#Comment_119404085

But we have explained how you are misrepresenting the data.

You are claiming the study concludes things it doesn't.

The study does not mention "negative efficacy".

That's something you are concluding.

And yes you also claimed that the study supports the notion that you are better off not getting vaccinated. Another thing the study does not actually say.

You've done this before with another study. And as with that you will not explain why the study didn't mention this shocking revelation of negative efficacy.

patnor1011 · 29-07-2022 4:22pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119404230#Comment_119404230

None of current covid "vaccines" will prevent you from catching covid. That is simple fact.

*thanks for kind reminder

odyssey06 · 29-07-2022 4:25pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119404309#Comment_119404309

This statement is false and directly contradicted by the Lancet Study and Qatar study cited on the thread.

Lancet Study from 2021:

For the outcome SARS-CoV-2 infection of any severity, the vaccine effectiveness of BNT162b2 waned progressively over time, from 92% (95% CI 92 to 93; p<0·001) at 15–30 days, to 47% (39 to 55; p<0·001) at 121–180 days, and to 23% (−2 to 41; p=0·07) from day 211 onwards.

Qatar Study v Omicron:

The effectiveness of three doses of BNT162b2 and no previous infection was 52.2% (95% CI, 48.1 to 55.9)

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2203965

King Mob · 29-07-2022 5:24pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119404309#Comment_119404309

So you are arguing that the vaccines are therefore useless?

Also I notice you've given up the scare quotes. Have you given up the notion that the vaccines aren't vaccines?

hometruths · 29-07-2022 5:29pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119404216#Comment_119404216

Figure 2 Vaccine effectiveness (any vaccine) against SARS-CoV-2 infection of any severity in 842 974 vaccinated individuals matched to an equal number of unvaccinated individuals for up to 9 months of follow-up

The vertical axis is % Vaccine effectiveness ranging from -100 to 100 and the horizontal axis is Time from second dose in months ranging from zero to 9 months.

I am claiming that this graph, which is a graphical representation of the findings of the study, shows that from 8 months vaccine effectiveness is negative.

You say:

You have been shown that you are wrong and been told what it shows about 12 times at this stage.

But nobody has addressed the claim of what the graph is showing.

Are you, or any of the other posters, who are so certain I am misinterpreting/misunderstanding/misrepresenting the graph actually prepared to state what vaccine effectiveness is shown at 9 months on this graph?

29-07-2022 10:35pm

Asked not to show the graph, shows the fuckin graph anyway. Are you okay in the head?

King Mob · 30-07-2022 12:30am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119404609#Comment_119404609

So you are unable to provide any text or quote from the study that specifically says or concludes that the negative efficacy actually occurs.

And you are again unable to explain why this stunning revelation is not at all commented on.

King Mob · 30-07-2022 1:00am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119405848#Comment_119405848

That's all he has. He's done this before with another study.

He keeps pointing to the graph and declaring that it proves his point.

He ignores the fact that the study doesn't actually mention or comment on it. He won't explain why that is. He ignores all of the context around the graph. He won't explain why no one seems to think that's the important part of the study.

Same thing here.

He's also ignoring the conclusion of the study states that people should just get boosters.

This is most likely because he's only being shown the graph in tweets from the grifters.

Big Bag of Chips · 30-07-2022 8:12am

@[Deleted User] do not post in this thread again.

Fr0g · 30-07-2022 9:51am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119403846#Comment_119403846

And the second video? Where he said he recommended to the president to lock down? Which one is the lie?

Fr0g · 30-07-2022 9:54am

NSW data:

37 times more likely to be hospitalised with COVID if you are vaccinated than if you are not.

https://metatron.substack.com/p/new-south-wales-australia-covid-update?utm_source=%2Fprofile%2F30382446-joel-smalley&utm_medium=reader2

King Mob · 30-07-2022 10:36am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119406844#Comment_119406844

So before anyone looks this up. What did you do to confirm this claim is true and accurately reports the facts?

Why should we trust that this time it's different from the last time you link dumped something without checking it or even reading it?

30-07-2022 10:45am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119406828#Comment_119406828

You didn't understand the quote. His emphasis is it wasn't a personal decision, it was a decision made by the CDC as a group. He made that pretty clear...

The Nal · 30-07-2022 10:46am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119406844#Comment_119406844

A dump and run from a random blog. Can you explain this in your own words please?

astrofool · 30-07-2022 1:07pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119404609#Comment_119404609

The claim was addressed by the authors of the graph in the study it was part of (similar to your scottish data cul-de-sac), as was pointed out by everyone else multiple times.

How is this a safety issue? What is the conspiracy behind it?

The vaccine megathread is available to talk about efficacy if you don't think it's a conspiracy:

Vaccine Megathread No 2 *Ages 12 to 69 can register now* - Read OP before posting - Page 289 — boards.ie - Now Ye're Talkin'

I would note that your alter-ego, phishnet, is banned from a few threads on there.

hometruths · 30-07-2022 2:20pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119407482#Comment_119407482

The claim was addressed by the authors of the graph in the study it was part of (similar to your scottish data cul-de-sac), as was pointed out by everyone else multiple times.

Nope, the fact that the graph shows negative vaccine effectiveness has not been addressed by the authors. All they have to say on the subject is that:

from day 211 onwards there was no remaining detectable vaccine effectiveness

i,e vaccines offer no protection after about 7 months. They do not address the fact that their results show negative effectiveness from 8 months onwards. They publish the graph, but they make no comment on it.

How is this a safety issue? What is the conspiracy behind it?

Clearly if the vaccine is causing immune function of vaccinated individuals to be lower than that of unvaccinated individuals it is a safety issue.

Is it a conspiracy? For sure the more interesting discussion here is why do the authors of the study not comment on it, but unfortunately we cannot have that discussion as long as we're arguing over whether or not the results show negative effectiveness.

It's just the same thing again as your approach with the efficacy against severity data. The more interesting discussion is why there is total revisionism on the primary function the vaccines were approved for - to prevent symptomatic infection -, but we can't have that discussion as long as we are bogged down in your argument that there is no revisionism because the insufficient data was in fact extremely comprehensive.

I would note that your alter-ego, phishnet, is banned from a few threads on there.

If you think I am phishnet the correct course of action is to report me and if the mods agree with you, no doubt they will take action. Repeatedly accusing me of being phishnet on the thread simply to try and discredit my posts is against the charter.

King Mob · 30-07-2022 2:26pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119407725#Comment_119407725

So you're admitting that the paper doesn't actually say anything about the supposed negative efficacy.

I assume again you're going to not be able to explain why they wouldn't comment on it?

And since the authors of the article did not say that the vaccine causes negative efficacy, why are you claiming the paper concludes this?

odyssey06 · 30-07-2022 3:06pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119406828#Comment_119406828

The second video is irrelevent. The first one has been edited to fool people.

The transcript has been posted on the thread which explains his words. His full sentence, not the video which stops mid-sentence in an utterly dishonest attempt to take a quote out of context.

The video is the lie.

Covid vaccines - thread banned users in First Post

Comments