Covid vaccines - thread banned users in First Post

odyssey06 · 24-10-2022 11:58am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119786224#Comment_119786224

We need to keep in mind though that the deaths \ severe cases are a function of the number of cases it causes, and Omicron is apparently more infectious than other strains.

It is a numbers game, and it is not just deaths people are concerned about but severe cases / hospitalisations and long covid.

hometruths · 24-10-2022 12:35pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119786351#Comment_119786351

You keep referring to the disappearance of these anti-vax arguments? What is so telling about this in your opinion?

hometruths · 24-10-2022 12:37pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119786448#Comment_119786448

Sure it's a numbers game. And Omicron being more infectious but less severe was a total blessing. It was the sheer volume of Omicron generated natural immunity that generated that moved us from pandemic to endemic.

odyssey06 · 24-10-2022 1:14pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119786598#Comment_119786598

We already had this discussion. It wasn't Omicron alone. Without vaccines it would have been Hong Kong writ large.

I will repost this to save any need for further replies:

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119741444/#Comment_119741444

hometruths · 24-10-2022 1:40pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119786746#Comment_119786746

Again, this is just rose tinted glasses.

HK suffered from Omicron more than others because they had very little natural immunity having had very few cases of covid full stop before they were hit with Omicron. It was not because of low vaccination rates.

This is HK cases since start of pandemic:

odyssey06 · 24-10-2022 1:54pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119786865#Comment_119786865

They didn't have protection, either from previous waves or vaccines.

If they'd been hit hard in previous waves, they would have had the deaths to go with it then.

Had they had higher vaccination rates in their vulnerable groups, they would have been significantly spared the deaths that hit them with Omicron.

To state "it was not because of low vaccination rates" is a false statement made without foundation.

The thread has abundant evidence of the protection provided by vaccines against severe covid, some of it from articles posted by you, and which you did not dispute. Are you disputing it now?

hometruths · 24-10-2022 2:06pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119786962#Comment_119786962

The thread has abundant evidence of the protection provided by vaccines against severe covid, some of it from articles posted by you, and which you did not dispute. Are you disputing it now?

No. I have never disputed that the vaccines provide protection against severe Covid and death.

What I am disputing is the notion you keep repeating that HK is evidence of the fact vaccines saved us from a horrific Omicron impact. It's nonsense.

King Mob · 24-10-2022 2:13pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119787046#Comment_119787046

Weird that you've been backing up and supporting the fellows who were claiming that and that you not once called them out on that and their other false claims.

Dohnjoe · 24-10-2022 2:15pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119786594#Comment_119786594

It demonstrates how much it was all BS.

Dohnjoe · 24-10-2022 2:26pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119787101#Comment_119787101

Each anti-vax poster has their own individual take on vaccines. Which is of course mental on it's own, but on top of that they don't challenge other anti-vax stances, no matter how extreme or contradictory. It's like they all know they are part of a group that attacks vaccines and must stick together. We see precisely the same behaviour among flat-earthers, 9/11 truthers, etc.

It's the equivalent of some layperson having their own unique take on history, attacking the consensus of real historians. Only agreeing with anyone else who attacks that history, even if their views are completely different.

hometruths · 24-10-2022 2:28pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119787118#Comment_119787118

I would agree with that.

But it also demonstrates Kulldorff's point on covid vaccine fanatics:

These vaccine fanatics who insisted that everybody should be vaccinated, including those who already have immunity from having recovered from Covid, I think they have destroyed the confidence in vaccines in general, to an extent that a small group of pre-Covid, so-called anti-vaxxers had never succeeded.

https://unherd.com/thepost/martin-kulldorff-lessons/

Dohnjoe · 24-10-2022 3:01pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119787230#Comment_119787230

Doesn't demonstrate his personal opinion at all. Just because you've found one expert out of thousands whose views you can associate with doesn't unfortunately make them infallible. He's an anti-masker and quite controversial, I wouldn't be surprised if he is putting his (strong) libertarian views before his work.

Despite many, many warnings, a lot of people were optimistic that vaccines would magically stop Covid in it's tracks. Likewise, a lot of people thought that Ukraine would fall within a week of Russia's attack. These things didn't happen. It doesn't mean we were "hoodwinked" or something nefarious happened.

hometruths · 24-10-2022 3:14pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119787470#Comment_119787470

Leaving aside the opinions of those who you view as controversial, common sense explains why anti-vaxx arguments along the lines of it doesn't prevent infection, it doesn't prevent transmission, it only prevents severe disease and death so why mandate vaccines for people who are at very low risk of severe disease or death have drowned out the more fringe stuff pre covid vaccines.

Or equally when vaccine fanatics are arguing you need to be vaccinated because there is no such thing as natural immunity, common sense explains why that has become more of an anti-vaxx talking point than pre covid.

Dohnjoe · 24-10-2022 3:34pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119787534#Comment_119787534

The scientific community views that guy as controversial. The whole Great Barrington Debate thing is dodgy as hell, and was (of course) latched onto by anti-vaxxers and conspiracy theorists.

hometruths · 24-10-2022 3:39pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119787607#Comment_119787607

Is there a particular part of the Great Barrington thing you personally think is dodgy?

i.e did you think it was madness when you first read it, or had you already dismissed it before you read it because "the scientific community views that guy as controversial"?

Dohnjoe · 24-10-2022 3:48pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119787630#Comment_119787630

It's already been in threads on this forum quite a few times. I don't think you are aware that you are rehashing anti-vax and Covid-contrarianism/conspiracy theory talking points.

What do I think of it? Let the virus ravage the population whilst "sheltering" the vulnerable in some unspecified way, it's beyond stupid. I've come across more idiotic stuff from small groups of scientists/experts, but it's still up there.

hometruths · 24-10-2022 4:02pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119787665#Comment_119787665

"Let the virus ravage the population" is putting it strongly.

The whole point of it was that Covid would not "ravage" those at least risk, quite the opposite - they would be minimally affected and could acquire immunity, thus it made sense not to apply lockdown rules for them, and instead divert resources to ensuring much better protection and support for sheltering those at highest risk.

The fact that the majority of people who had covid suffered few, if any, ill effects more than a severe cold has borne this view out.

To dismiss this view as the idiotic mad ramblings of conspiracy theorists is ridiculous.

King Mob · 24-10-2022 4:04pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119787724#Comment_119787724

Covid has killed millions of people.

You and your fellow extreme anti-vaxxers keep implying (but not directly support) a conspiracy theory to try and diminish and downplay these deaths.

Fighting Tao · 24-10-2022 4:09pm

Didn’t Dr. Nick Riveria and other such great doctors sign the Great Barrington Declaration?

King Mob · 24-10-2022 4:15pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119787759#Comment_119787759

Yup:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Barrington_Declaration

Seems to be the same kind of scam that the 9/11 truthers ran a while back.

hometruths · 24-10-2022 4:15pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119787759#Comment_119787759

I've no idea who Nick Riveria is, but Kermit the Frog could have signed it for all I care.

Sure the credibility and expertise of who authored it is relevant, but who signed it makes no difference at all.

Fighting Tao · 24-10-2022 4:23pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119787776#Comment_119787776

I’d be pretty sure that Kermit did sign it too. Yeah, that’s the type of person who signed it.

https://www.etsy.com/ie/listing/887192686/nick-riviera-the-simpsons-art-print?click_key=51f77cc77f3e0682e45a5e0224ed0124ca9e8333%3A887192686&click_sum=33a176bf&external=1&ref=pla_sameshop_listing_top-1&pro=1&frs=1

King Mob · 24-10-2022 4:25pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119787776#Comment_119787776

No, it does make a difference.

Making a "open letter" like this is a tactic used by lots of anti-science folks to dupe people into thinking they have more authority and support than they actually do.

There's no reason at all for them to have open signatories that they cannot and do not vett other than to have a number that is impressive to people like yourself.

This implies a level of dishonesty on their part.

It's no different to the petition put out by Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth.

https://www.architectmagazine.com/design/architects-shy-from-trutherism_o?o=1

Gage often seems to wield his AIA status in promoting his conspiracy theories. In making his case, he also regularly cites that more than 100 AIA members and at least six AIA Fellows have signed his petition calling for a new investigation. In total, Gage says that more than 1,700 of the petition’s roughly 16,000 signatures are from architects and engineers.

Fighting Tao · 24-10-2022 4:32pm

I thought we had seen the last of the great barrington declaration as all other anti-vaxxer conspiracy theorists realised quite quickly how foolish it made them look.

Dohnjoe · 24-10-2022 4:44pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119787724#Comment_119787724

That's cool. I didn't dismiss it as "mad ramblings of conspiracy theorists", I wrote that conspiracy theorists have latched onto it, because they have amply demonstrated they will latch onto anything that can be remotely seen as contrarian or against vaccines/masks/etc.

It's a theory, not a popular one, by three people with questionable views. It, quite rightly, attracted a lot of criticism.

Some doctor stood up in an Ohio statehouse and claimed there were magnets in the vaccines, whilst a registered nurse claimed a key was magnetised to her. There's an actual group of doctors and physicians who are against vaccines. As with any academic subject, there are always outliers, partisans, contrarians, quacks and straight up grifters.

With regularity you could set your clock by, anti-vax and conspiracy theorists attach themselves to these individuals or groups.

hometruths · 24-10-2022 4:47pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119787817#Comment_119787817

Making a "open letter" like this is a tactic used by lots of anti-science folks to dupe people into thinking they have more authority and support than they actually do.

Much like robinph describing the authors as anti-vaxxers, you describing them as anti-science makes you look foolish.

Dr. Martin Kulldorff, professor of medicine at Harvard University, a biostatistician, and epidemiologist with expertise in detecting and monitoring infectious disease outbreaks and vaccine safety evaluations.

Dr. Sunetra Gupta, professor at Oxford University, an epidemiologist with expertise in immunology, vaccine development, and mathematical modeling of infectious diseases.

Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, professor at Stanford University Medical School, a physician, epidemiologist, health economist, and public health policy expert focusing on infectious diseases and vulnerable populations.

What is about these individuals that identifies them as anti-science?

hometruths · 24-10-2022 4:55pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119787880#Comment_119787880

Fine you didn't dismiss it as "mad ramblings of conspiracy theorists". You dismissed it as up there with some most idiotic stuff you'd come across from scientists.

And you're trying to equate it with the fact that "Some doctor stood up in an Ohio statehouse and claimed there were magnets in the vaccines".

But what you're not doing is offering any actual argument as to why the substance of the opinions is idiotic. But no worries, I am used to that.

odyssey06 · 24-10-2022 5:13pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119787919#Comment_119787919

Opinions were already given along those lines, in direct replies to your posts, which you failed to engage with. The ones linked below are only my own. There were others. It was only 3 days ago.

Now to come back, reheat the same argument, say that people aren't "offering any actual argument as to why the substance of the opinions is idiotic" is not debating in good faith.

Easier to just call people vaccine fanatics I guess.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119774822#Comment_119774822

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119775691#Comment_119775691

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119776081#Comment_119776081

hometruths · 24-10-2022 5:41pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119787976#Comment_119787976

Have we reached herd immunity?

We certainly have a high enough level of immunity that covid is being viewed as endemic rather than pandemic.

When does the expert think it likely to occur?

He could not say, nor did he claim to know this. The point was that we would risk/reward balance until we reached herd immunity favoured allowing those least at risk from the virus, young healthy adults for example, to go about their business and divert resources to a more focussed protection of the most vulnerable.

Could the expert be wrong about a central point of his declaration?

Which central point are you referring to? If it is that eventually natural immunity would build up to levels we could function properly again, no he was not wrong.

You keep running away from the question, how were hospitals meant to continue as normal in a society where covid was allowed to run rampant? How were vulnerable people to be protected if they went in for scans, in a world where the staff working there were interacting in such a world? How were hospital services to carry on as normal, dealing with the extra volumes of hospitalisations in such a world???

Did our hospital services continue as normal in lockdowns? No. Were vulnerable people protected when they went in for scans? No.

The whole point of the idea was that was potentially a better way of operating, you would try to get as much done as possible in the hospitals without dealing with massive extra volumes of hospitalisations because those most at risk of hospitalisation are precisely the ones you are protecting better.

odyssey06 · 24-10-2022 5:59pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119788096#Comment_119788096

Incredibly weak responses. No wonder you tried to dodge replying earlier.

The expert didn't mention moving to endemic. He didn't mention "until we could function properly". He mentioned herd immunity. They are not the same. He gave no timeline for how long this would take, or that it would require vaccines and the appearance of a strain such as Omicron.

Hospitals services did not continue as normal, precautions were taken to protect the vulnerable and allow healthcare staff to focus on treating covid surges.

To pretend that they could have opened up more, without there being even more outbreaks in the hospitals, and then trot out a line like "you would be protecting them better" is a statement completely without merit or foundation.

You would be dealing with extra volumes of hospitalisations because there would be more cases. Even among supposedly less vulnerable. There would be more cases in healthcare workers because they would be going around in a society without restrictions. How could the vulnerable in hospitals be protected, in such a healthcare setting? How could the vulnerable living at home be better protected than they were during the societal restrictions?

Another thing the Barrington Declaration is silent on. How many people need to shield. How are multi-generational households supposed to function. How long would they have to shield for.

So yes, my conclusion on the Great Barrington Declaration is that it is fantasy nonsense, silent on any details, unaccountable... it is the epitome of hurling from the ditch.

Covid vaccines - thread banned users in First Post

Comments