Covid vaccines - thread banned users in First Post

King Mob · 11-10-2022 10:38pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119731142#Comment_119731142

Yes. Here we go again. Your doing the same tactic with this study as you did with the last.

What you are still ignoring is that you were wrong about the previous study also.

You emailed the author of the study and they explained to you why the study didn't actually show negative effectiveness.

You refuse to acknowledge this. You refuse to explain how this time it's different.

You can't so you will dodge and ignore cause for some reason you believe that this is a good tactic for you.

I believe now you will once again selectively pretend I'm on ignore so you don't have to address these points.

hometruths · 11-10-2022 11:03pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119732429#Comment_119732429

I have never said I placed you on ignore, I simply choose to ignore most of your posts for the good of the thread.

So you and others said the last study I quoted did not find negative effectiveness because it did not explicitly say so in the study.

This time it is different because the study explicitly states a finding of negative effectiveness.

But are you prepared to acknowledge this study does show negative effectiveness?

Or are you claiming that VE of -24.9% is not negative?

King Mob · 11-10-2022 11:12pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119732523#Comment_119732523

You ignored my points because you can't address them. You ignored the points because you ended up disproving your own claim. You will do so again once addressing my points become too difficult for you.

First could you acknowledge that the author of the previous study explained to you why the study didn't actually show negative effectiveness in their reply to you?

Very hypocritical of you to demand I acknowledge something after you spent weeks hiding from this fact.

hometruths · 11-10-2022 11:31pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119732552#Comment_119732552

First could you acknowledge that the author of the previous study explained to you why the study didn't actually show negative effectiveness in their reply to you?

No he didn't explain that at all. As I posted at the time, I asked him specifically re the negative effectiveness after 18 weeks:

Those arguing against it are citing the seemingly apparent negative effectiveness after 18 weeks in graph B, Figure 1.

I wondered why no comment is made on the finding of negative effectiveness in your text? It seems odd not to address it and wondered if you clarify why not?

And far from explaining "why the study didn't actually show negative effectiveness" his reply made no mention of negative effectiveness, preferring to focus on severe disease:

Figure 1B indeed shows a decline over time of vaccine effectiveness against omicron infection in children. The data were sparse after 5 months, so there’s great uncertainty with the estimates after 5 months. It’s likely that high risk children were vaccinated first, which would cause underestimation of vaccine effectiveness at the end.

Figure 1E shows that vaccination confers greater protection against hospitalization than against infection, and as stated in the text, no children who were vaccinated died whereas 7 unvaccinated children died.

Thus, our work showed that vaccination was effective, especially against severe outcomes, although its effect against infection waned over time

His explanation merely said the effectiveness waned over time, and data after 5 months was uncertain. And as I pointed out in the thread at the time 5 months is almost 22 weeks. Yet the graph indicated negative effectiveness at 18 weeks.

You latched on to his reoly as a total and thorough explanation of why the study did not indicate negative effectiveness. I chose not to address this for the good of thread, and not to get into yet another pointless and endless argument along the lines of insufficient data is in fact entirely comprehensive, or mandatory vaccinations are not coercive.

And as long as you and others were arguing that you could not claim a study indicated negative effectiveness if the study did not explicitly state it, it was pointless to derail the thread discussing that point.

I was confident another study would pop up sooner or later that did explicitly state a finding of negative effectiveness.

And here we are. So given the authors do explicitly state a finding of negative VE, how are you planning to back up your claim that this study does not say the vaccines are negatively effective?

King Mob · 11-10-2022 11:46pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119732619#Comment_119732619

Lol he does explain it to you:

Figure 1B indeed shows a decline over time of vaccine effectiveness against omicron infection in children. The data were sparse after 5 months, so there’s great uncertainty with the estimates after 5 months. It’s likely that high risk children were vaccinated first, which would cause underestimation of vaccine effectiveness at the end.

Do you believe he's incorrect or lying when he says this?

Did you give him any follow up emails asking him to clarify and address the negative effectiveness directly?

Why do you believe that he did not confirm the appearance of negative effectiveness?

Also really funny that you're trying to argue that he didn't address it because he didn't specifically say the phrase.

And no man, you ignored points because you couldn't address them. No one is stupid enough to believe otherwise.

hometruths · 12-10-2022 12:04am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119732651#Comment_119732651

Do you believe he's incorrect or lying when he says this?

I am not claiming he's incorrect or lying about anything. I was simply pointing out the findings of the study. When he says It's likely that high risk children were vaccinated first, which would cause underestimation of vaccine effectiveness at the end he's offering a possible explanation for the findings. But the findings remain the findings.

Did you give him any follow up emails asking him to clarify and address the negative effectiveness directly?

No, I sent him an email in the first instance specifically asking him to clarify and address the negative effectiveness directly. He sent me a very courteous and prompt reply which I appreciated, but for whatever reason he chose not to address the specific question I asked. I was not going start badgering him for the sake of scoring irrelevant points here.

Why do you believe that he did not confirm the appearance of negative effectiveness?

As I said repeatedly at the time, I believe this is the more interesting discussion to be had on this forum. But it is kind of difficult trying discuss why a study author did not address a finding of negative effectiveness with posters who are saying there is no finding of negative effectiveness.

Also really funny that you're trying to argue that he didn't address it because he didn't specifically say the phrase.

Don't worry I get the humour in that, just as I see the humour in the fact you believe that he did address it despite making no mention of it!

If you wish to discuss in good faith the study showing negative effectiveness I posted earlier today, then great, I'll engage in good faith and we can attempt to have reasonable debate.

But if you're intent on rehashing the argument about whether the previous study showed negative effectiveness, then I'll go back to ignoring you. It doesn't make a lot of difference to me either way.

King Mob · 12-10-2022 12:23am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119732707#Comment_119732707

Lol as predicted you're trying to run away again.

The author of the study told you that the effectiveness of the vaccine were underestimated. This firstly explains why they did not conclude that the vaccines were negatively effective in the actual conclusions of the study. Your interpretations of their graph is not "their findings." They state their findings in the conclusions of the study. That's what that section is for.

Secondly it confirms that the numbers are estimates only, not actual measurements.

At the time we repeatedly told you (and you repeatedly ignored) that there could be any number of statistical quirks for why the graph could show negative numbers without the vaccine actually having negative effectiveness. The author of the study confirmed this is the case for you. You of course chose to ignore this.

You also can't explain why he wouldn't address the negative effectiveness as you believe he didnt.

You believe it's because of a giant global conspiracy but don't wish to directly state this because you understand that it undermines your facade of being reasonable.

But as you say you're simply going to ignore these points because you can't address them. You will do the same thing if we try to address your latest Twitter find. This is because you're simply doing the same tactic of taking a part of the study out of context to claim it says something it doesn't.

By all means ignore away. My points remain unaddressed and unanswered. Everyone can see this and everyone aside from devout antivaxxers understand why.

If anyone thinks that this tactic of his is actually helping him, please speak up. I'd love to hear how.

Big Bag of Chips · 12-10-2022 7:21am

@hometruths and @King Mob enough. We are not going to trawl through another 100 posts of you two arguing over a graph. As per the charter,

Trying to spend 100 odd posts convincing 1 or 2 specific users that your views are more valid than theirs is what causes the most issues. You have to accept that not all people are willing to alter their beliefs to suit you - and they have the freedom to hold those beliefs.

If you can't convince the other after 2 or 3 over and back arguments then it's time to agree to disagree and move on.

King Mob · 12-10-2022 8:00am

OK then.

So since discussing the graph and what the studies and their authors actually say isn't going to get anywhere, let's move onto the topic that hometruths claimed "there was a discussion about."

In both the previous studies hometruths has alluded to a reason for why the supposed negative effectiveness is not directly stated in the actual text or conclusions. And in his reply he alluded to the notion that the author who responded to him was being evasive about the topic.

I'm very curious as to what this reason is and for him to actually lay out the conspiracy he believes is happening there.

sydthebeat · 12-10-2022 8:10am

Also, there is no definition anywhere to describe what "negative effectiveness" means in the context of a vaccine, especially as the authors of these studies do not claim it exists

Perhaps this could be clarified ?

hometruths · 12-10-2022 8:31am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119733068#Comment_119733068

This has also been addressed before. It's a relative measure of vaccine effectiveness. For example comparing vaccinated vs unvaccinated a finding of negative effectiveness means there is less protection from the vaccine compared to not being vaccinated at all. i.e the vaccinated are more likely to get infected than the unvaccinated.

And the authors of this study do explicitly state a finding of negative effectiveness. Just one example - 3 doses of mRNA-1273 (Moderna) is found to have a VE of -24.9% against variant BA.2 after 150 days.

King Mob · 12-10-2022 8:55am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119733118#Comment_119733118

OK. Let's pretend that's actually the case.

Why are they reporting negative effectiveness while your other studies are seemingly unwilling to do so?

hometruths · 12-10-2022 9:00am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119733188#Comment_119733188

No need to pretend anything. Sure we can agree to disagree on another study that does not explicitly state a finding of negative effectiveness.

But in this case, it is an inarguable fact that this is what the study reports.

King Mob · 12-10-2022 9:12am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119733204#Comment_119733204

OK. If you say so. I'm not arguing that point.

So why does one study directly state it while another doesn't.

Why does the other study not state it?

Why did the author of the study avoid your question and give you a false explanation for it?

I can't think of any rational explanation beyond the one I've laid out.

Do you have an alternative at all?

hometruths · 12-10-2022 9:18am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119733243#Comment_119733243

Why does the other study not state it?

Why did the author of the study avoid your question and give you a false explanation for it?

We've both been given a mod warning to move on from this argument. I intend to heed the warning.

King Mob · 12-10-2022 9:22am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119733267#Comment_119733267

Yes which is what I'm trying to do.

I'm asking you to explain you belief in why the authors of the study would not state their findings directly.

For the sake of argument and foe the "good of the thread" I'm accepting that your interpreting of the studies are accurate. That's not a contention any more.

Tou said this was the issue you wanted to get into. So please go ahead.

sydthebeat · 12-10-2022 9:34am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119733118#Comment_119733118

i.e the vaccinated are more likely to get infected than the unvaccinated.

well that's just completely wrong, and already debuked:

https://www.factcheck.org/2022/06/scicheck-vaccinated-people-not-more-susceptible-to-covid-19-than-unvaccinated/

Richterman said it was “indisputable at this point” that vaccinated people are less likely to become infected than unvaccinated people. Other experts weren’t as definitive about that, but also thought it was likely to be true.

“I do think [vaccination] reduce[s] infection and there is some data out there to support this. I just don’t think we have enough data yet to be confident in this,” Matthew Fox, an epidemiologist at Boston University School of Public Health, told us in an email. “So, I’d like to see more before I’m sure.”

In any case, Fox said there’s no good evidence that vaccinated or boosted people would be at higher risk than the unvaccinated, as some have claimed.

“There is evidence in the sense that you can see some places where crude rates of infection in the unvaccinated are lower than in the vaccinated,” he said. But, he added, that “is unadjusted data, so you can’t rely on it.”

so hometruths has been sucked in by unadjusted, unreliable data in their quest to claim theres a global conspiracy regarding covid vaccines.

Big Bag of Chips · 12-10-2022 9:46am

@King Mob your very last warning on this thread. You have been warned before about repeatedly asking the same questions and asking someone to explain their belief. As per the charter, anyone is entitled to believe anything the like. They don't need to explain themselves to you or convince you. Equally you are entitled to not believe anything you want.

I will not address you again on this thread. Your persistent repeating of the same questions does nothing to promote discussion and indeed discourages others from posting and getting in the middle of an argument.

If someone hasn't agreed with you or changed their mind after 4 or 5 over and back posts move on. They're not going to agree with you no matter how much you persist. And they don't have to.

Big Bag of Chips · 12-10-2022 10:13am

@hometruths_real do not discuss moderation on thread. It is considered off topic.

If you have an issue with any post report it using the report function.

hometruths_real · 12-10-2022 10:23am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119733495#Comment_119733495

it has been reported before and nothing was done

@hometruths still posts their interpretation of 95% CI and presents it as fact unchastised, they even mentioned it before that they didn't understand it, and rightly so, the regression model used in clinical studies can take years to fully "get"... but they are blatently ignoring basic statistics and mathematics, even when pointed out to them..

conspiracy theories are one thing, blatantly lying is another (most likely through their lack of understanding to give the benefit of the doubt)

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

Warned for Breach of Charter and ignoring moderator instruction.

Big Bag of Chips · 12-10-2022 11:53am

@hometruths still posts their interpretation of 95% CI and presents it as fact unchastised,

On this point: I have mentioned before, this is the conspiracy theories forum. Posters are perfectly entitled to post their beliefs, their interpretation of something, their opinion. Other posters are entitled to disagree, point out inaccuracies, explain errors or misunderstanding etc.

But if anyone believes they are going to come into this thread and convince "the other side" then you are in the wrong thread and I respectfully ask that you do not continue to post if that is your intention. Discuss/disagree/point out differences if you wish. But if someone isn't getting your point, or doesn't agree, or continues to argue the opposite then move on. Circular arguments are tedious to read and just put other posters off joining the discussion.

hometruths · 12-10-2022 12:06pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119733334#Comment_119733334

A fact check of some totally separate claim based on totally separate data does not debunk the findings of the study I quoted, published 6 months later than your factcheck. That's ridiculous.

The study says (emphasis mine):

In analyses of 3-dose VE (versus unvaccinated) against infection with Omicron subvariants by time since vaccination, the 3-dose VE against BA.1 ranged from 85.8% (95% confidence interval [CI] 82.7%, 88.3%) in the 14-30 days after the third dose to 54.9% (95% CI 35.6%, 68.4%) >150 days after the third dose (Fig. 2, Supplementary Table 2a). VE for these two time intervals, respectively, was 61.0% (95% CI 27.6%, 79.0%) and -24.9% (95% CI -32.3%, -16.7%) for BA.2, excluding BA.2.12.1; 82.7% (95% CI 44.2%, 94.7%) and -26.8% (95% CI -34.6%, -18.0%) for BA.2.12.1; 72.6% (95% CI - 54.7%, 96.6%) and -16.4% (95% CI -35.8%, 8.2%) for BA.4; and 90.6% (95% CI 30.6%, 98.7%) and - 17.9% (95% CI -29.6%, -4.2%) for BA.5.

There is no dispute here that the study a) made findings of negative VE and b) states it explicitly.

It is also totally wrong to say that the above is based on unadjusted data. It explicitly says the the VE is "Adjusted for age, sex, race/ethnicity, month of specimen collection, history of SARS-CoV-2 infection, history of SARS-CoV-2 molecular test..."

As far the data being unreliable, why do you think this is so? What is about this study that makes you sceptical of the reliability?

hometruths_real · 12-10-2022 12:19pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119733901#Comment_119733901

there's a bit of a difference between beliefs and being mathematically incorrect..

they're basically saying 2+2=5 or the sky is yellow but from a statistical point of view....

and the mods not doing anything about it are showing they are happy to be complacent on the distribution of mis-information under "beliefs"

hometruths_real · 12-10-2022 12:20pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119733954#Comment_119733954

you don't understand 95% CI... so stop trying to make out that you do

Big Bag of Chips · 12-10-2022 12:26pm

@hometruths_real thread banned for repeatedly ignoring moderator instruction.

Do not post in this thread again

hometruths_real · 12-10-2022 12:27pm

how about no

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

Forum Banned for 1 week.

sydthebeat · 12-10-2022 1:04pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119733954#Comment_119733954

hummm

6 months after 10 June 2022 is 10th December 2022

are you a time traveller hometruths, or, as is much more likley, you have a tenuous grasp on the principles of mathematics

sydthebeat · 12-10-2022 1:07pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119733954#Comment_119733954

As far the data being unreliable, why do you think this is so? What is about this study that makes you sceptical of the reliability?

i dont have any questions as to the data presented in the study??

i certainly have questions as to your unique and solitary understanding of that data though. Thats the only thing thats explicit in your posts

hometruths · 12-10-2022 1:21pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119734226#Comment_119734226

You said I had "been sucked in by unadjusted, unreliable data" - so obviously I took that to mean you thought the data was unreliable.

You say my claim that these are findings of negative VE is unique and solitary, and that is explicit.

Presumably if it is explicitly obvious to you from this study that the VE against BA.2 after 150 days is not -24.9% as I have stated, and it is in fact something else, you'd be happy to correct my understanding and share what you understand it to be?

King Mob · 12-10-2022 1:35pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119734226#Comment_119734226

My personal belief is that the conspiracy theory seems to be that all of these conclusions aren't unique to hometruths and that all scientists involved actually did come to the same conclusions but are not allowed to say so directly because of some conspiracy between them. Hence we have these studies that supposedly have the stunning revelations, but then don't actually mention them at all in the conclusions, abstract or headline and why no legit media source or medical organisation is picking it up.

This is of course nonsense and impossible as it simply doesn't make any sense for why they'd go through all that trouble to force that cover up but not to simply excise the troublesome data or block the study entirely.

Covid vaccines - thread banned users in First Post

Comments