Covid vaccines - thread banned users in First Post

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.

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

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

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.

"Vaccine effectiveness" is not negative at 9 months.

Show us the line in the report which states this.

It is directly contradicted by the contents of the report:

Protection against severe disease was 89 per cent after one month and 64 per cent from four months an onwards during the rest of the maximum follow-up of nine months. 

How can the vaccine be causing immune functions to reduce if they have superior durable protection against severe covid?

You are spreading medical misinformation.

I have already pointed out that the long term results could be confounded by the fact that under 60s who received the vaccine 8 months back from October 2021 were likely those in the highest risk groups such as Health care workers, and they received Astra Zeneca, the least effective/long lasting of the vaccines used in Sweden versus mRNA based Pfizer and Moderna. I have pointed this out to you 6 times, you have offered no reply except to say it is waffle and deflection. When it is obvious you are engaged in this.

You also repeatedly ignore, or somehow place zero value on the months of protection against infection the vaccines provide and the durable protection versus severe covid. This is not waffle. This is central to discrediting your claim re: better to be unvaccinated.

And this is from the authors of the report. They would hardly be saying this if they thought this study showed any indication that it was better to be unvaccinated or their findings showed anything of concern with the vaccines. Your claim is false, and unsupported by evidence.

"The bad news is that the protection against infection seems to be diminished by seven months after the second dose of vaccine," says Peter Nordström, professor of geriatric medicine at Umeå University. "The good news, however, is that the protection against a severe infection that leads to hospitalization or death seems to be better maintained. Vaccination is therefore very wise and important."

"The results underscore and support the decision to offer a third dose," says Marcel Ballin, doctoral student in geriatric medicine at Umeå University and co-author of the study. 

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/02/220207100117.htm

So you didn't bother reading it.

It's very simple and he explains it very clearly. These are hospitalisation numbers. The data shows that the more vaccines you take the more likely you are to go to hospital with COVID.

When officials quote the unvaccinated numbers you have to be careful that they are not including 1,2 or three dosed or whatever they consider to be fully vaccinated + 2 weeks. That definition is a movable feast. I consider those that have never been vaccinated as unvaccinated. Officials do not.

The report doesn't state that ANYWHERE. You are misinterpreting the graph. If this was a major finding of the report, why is it not stated anywhere in the text?

This is what the text says:

From thereon, the waning became more pronounced, and from day 211 onwards there was no remaining detectable vaccine effectiveness (23% [–2 to 41]; p=0·07).

This image shows an expanded view of Table 2 - results of the Total Cohort Study, Vaccine Effectiveness (any vaccine):

The report lists possible limitations \ confounding factors. I have proposed healthcare workers vaccinated early with AZ as one possible instance.

Other than the observational design, the present study has some limitations to consider. Although we adjusted our analyses for several potential confounders, the possibility of residual and unmeasured confounding remains, including a higher risk of selection bias in unvaccinated individuals with longer follow-up time. 

Should we also consider possibilities such as that vaccinated individuals may also have been more likely to get themselves tested? Or work in such roles? Or have conditions which would make them more likely to seek vaccination, and be tested for hospital admissions or scans? And so mild or asymptomatic infections more likely to be detected?

I propose these because otherwise, there is a mystery in your case. How, medically, could a vaccine at +9 months somehow make someone be more susceptible biologically to be infected and yet have significant (64%) positive protection against severe covid?

How could such a thing be possible?

Why it this the conclusion of its author:

"Vaccination is therefore very wise and important."

You used the report to spread false, dangerous medical misinformation claims that it was better to be unvaccinated and that the results possibly indicated a weakening in the immune system from vaccines.

I have comprehensively established with reference to the report, its conclusions and direct quotes from its authors that this claim is false and not shared by the experts who conducted the study. As you have not refuted the counterpoints or restated the claims, I will treat them as withdrawn.