Covid vaccines - thread banned users in First Post

odyssey06 · 09-02-2023 4:02pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120220365#Comment_120220365

Yes.

In the sense of 'extremely good' not 'causing terror' quality.

They are also terrific in the sense of "of great size, amount" quantities.

hometruths · 09-02-2023 4:13pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120220390#Comment_120220390

And the point I am making re the comparison is that if in the context of flu, breakthrough infections are a cause for concern, the sign of an inadequate vaccine, why would the same logic not apply to covid vaccines. They're extremely good apparently.

hometruths · 09-02-2023 4:20pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120220327#Comment_120220327

Terrific when judged against the timelines of the pandemic, their development and the level of change with covid variants and what they do.

I was pleased to discover not all experts agree with you on this.

Past unsuccessful attempts to elicit solid protection against mucosal respiratory viruses and to control the deadly outbreaks and pandemics they cause have been a scientific and public health failure that must be urgently addressed.

https://www.cell.com/cell-host-microbe/fulltext/S1931-3128%2822%2900572-8

odyssey06 · 09-02-2023 4:22pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120220436#Comment_120220436

I don't see why 'extremely good' and concern about breakthrough infections are mutually exclusive?

For one thing, the flu article didn't distinguish between infection and symptomatic infection and severe infection.

The article states:

Given that a bad flu season can kill 50,000 people in the United States alone, "10% to 60% protection is better than nothing," says Michael Osterholm, an epidemiologist at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis. "But it's a terribly inadequate vaccine for a serious public health threat."

Is that 60% protection against death? 60% protection against infection? If the flu vaccine delivered 60% protection against flu hospitalisation every year, would that be 'terribly inadequate'?

We don't know. Which is why it is unwise to read so much into a single quote.

Covid vaccines are extremely good - in that I am considering the timeline of their development, the complexity of covid and evolving variants, and considering the protection they afford against symptomatic and severe infection.

robinph · 09-02-2023 4:26pm

So from that brief interlude we can agree that 3 vaccines in 3 years is not a lot. Even with the variable effectiveness of the flu vaccines which are nowhere near as effective as the covid ones, 3 vaccines in three years isn't anything odd.

odyssey06 · 09-02-2023 4:31pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120220465#Comment_120220465

Do they disagree with me? It really isn't clear.

Does that quote even relate to covid vaccines?

And how can it be reconciled with these quotes?

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the rapid development and deployment of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines has saved innumerable lives and helped to achieve early partial pandemic control.

The successful deployment of vaccines during the SARS-CoV2 pandemic

So there we have it, from the experts, successful deployment of covid vaccines, innumerable lives saved.

Dohnjoe · 09-02-2023 4:33pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120220465#Comment_120220465

That's co-authored by Fauci.

It's just hilarious at this stage.

hometruths · 09-02-2023 4:42pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120220474#Comment_120220474

Is that 60% protection against death? 60% protection against infection? If the flu vaccine delivered 60% protection against flu hospitalisation every year, would that be 'terribly inadequate'?

We don't know. Which is why it is unwise to read so much into a single quote.

Pre Covid it was generally accepted being immunised meant immunity from infection, not death.

We know that infection in a vaccinated individual is a breakthrough infection, a case of vaccine failure.

I think we can take it as 10% to 60% protection against symptomatic infection.

hometruths · 09-02-2023 4:47pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120220509#Comment_120220509

Yes, the vaccines have saved lives. I have never argued otherwise. And nor are the authors of that study, Fauci included, arguing otherwise.

It is easy to reconcile the statements.

The one you quoted credits the vaccines with "early partial pandemic control", ie better than nothing, but the partiality of the control (as a result of the lack of solid protection against infection) is the "scientific and public health failure"

hometruths · 09-02-2023 4:50pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120220514#Comment_120220514

Yes, that's co-authored by Fauci.

Makes it kind of difficult to dismiss it as a fringe lunatic with extreme views, which is generally your response.

That's why I posted it.

What is so hilarious about that?

odyssey06 · 09-02-2023 5:03pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120220570#Comment_120220570

This is getting absurd at this point. You are torturing words and cherry picking quotes out of context.

So it's a success and a failure at the same time???

This is the level of knots you are tying yourself up into here.

This is the exact quote:

Past unsuccessful attempts to elicit solid protection against mucosal respiratory viruses and to control the deadly outbreaks and pandemics they cause have been a scientific and public health failure that must be urgently addressed.

You left out the "and to control".

And it is not clear at all from that context if it relates to covid, or vaccines alone.

odyssey06 · 09-02-2023 5:07pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120220585#Comment_120220585

So you accept Fauci as an expert. How many aspects of covid and covid vaccines do you disagree with this esteemed expert on?

Dohnjoe · 09-02-2023 5:08pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120220585#Comment_120220585

I didn't dismiss it. I found it amusing to see someone with your views on vaccines deferring to Fauci's expertise.

Dohnjoe · 09-02-2023 5:10pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120220647#Comment_120220647

Watch the caveats fly in now.

hometruths · 09-02-2023 5:23pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120220630#Comment_120220630

I didn't leave out the control. I specifically referred to the control in reconciling the quotes - partial control is not the same as control.

It was a failure because the level of control was only partial and early.

The statements are not contradictory.

hometruths · 09-02-2023 5:38pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120220647#Comment_120220647

Not 100%. I've no idea exactly how many.

If you want to ask me about something specific I will tell you if I agree with him or not.

Or if you're asking me to quote things I agree with, thats no problem either, here's a selection:

Although current influenza vaccines reduce the risk of severe disease, hospitalization, and death to some degree, their effectiveness against clinically apparent infection is decidedly suboptimal, ranging from 14% to 60% over the past 15 influenza seasons

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the rapid development and deployment of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines has saved innumerable lives and helped to achieve early partial pandemic control.12 However, as variant SARS-CoV-2 strains have emerged, deficiencies in these vaccines reminiscent of influenza vaccines have become apparent. The vaccines for these two very different viruses have common characteristics: they elicit incomplete and short-lived protection against evolving virus variants that escape population immunity.

For each mucosal virus, we must also arrive at consensus on desired levels of protection; for example, goals for protection might be:

•

preventing infection entirely, as vaccines for systemic respiratory viruses may do (Table 1);

•

limiting viral replication or preventing transmission as with influenza anti-neuraminidase immunity;

•

preventing disease; or

•

only preventing severe disease (e.g., requiring hospitalization), as appears to be the case with some influenza virus and SARS-CoV-2 vaccines.

Such consensus is needed if we are to develop the best vaccines and optimized vaccination strategies and policies for using them. With influenza, for example, vaccines historically have been designed to prevent upper respiratory infection, not secondary pulmonary infection associated with spread from the upper respiratory tract. This has proved problematic because current influenza vaccines are suboptimal at both preventing infection and eliciting pulmonary immunity.113 Although influenza and SARS-CoV-2 vaccines reduce disease severity when vaccines fail to prevent infection, significant numbers of fatalities still occur, resulting in tens of thousands of annual influenza deaths in the United States.114,115,116 With the imperfections of these vaccines, it seems a public health imperative to aggressively pursue better vaccines and vaccination strategies.

A key challenge for next-generation vaccines is determining if one-size-fits-all vaccines or vaccines targeted to key risk groups will be useful.

Past unsuccessful attempts to elicit solid protection against mucosal respiratory viruses and to control the deadly outbreaks and pandemics they cause have been a scientific and public health failure that must be urgently addressed.

Do you disagree with any of the above?

odyssey06 · 09-02-2023 5:41pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120220713#Comment_120220713

You have taken this quote from an entirely different part of the article:

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the rapid development and deployment of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines has saved innumerable lives and helped to achieve early partial pandemic control.

btw the citation links to this article: SARS-CoV-2 vaccines: a triumph of science and collaboration.

And applied it to this part, which is not just about vaccines.

Past unsuccessful attempts to elicit solid protection against mucosal respiratory viruses and to control the deadly outbreaks and pandemics they cause have been a scientific and public health failure that must be urgently addressed.

With relation to covid they directly state vaccines helped to achieve partial pandemic control. Is that the same as an unsuccessful attempt to control? Maybe. Maybe not.

But none of this is directly stated as such in the article and it is misrepresentation to present it as such - as opposed to your interpretation of it.

odyssey06 · 09-02-2023 5:46pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120220760#Comment_120220760

It's not a question of whether I agree or disagree. It is not about the content of this one article.

The point is that you are citing someone as an expert, then only citing the parts you agree with. Of course, it is still possible to disagree with them, new findings may emerge or new studies, they may be citing superseded studies. They cannot just be dismissed or else it shows the lack of foundation \ intellectual consistency in your position.

You can't just cite them as an 'argument from authority' when it is convenient to you. Either they are an authority on the subject or they are not.

Fighting Tao · 09-02-2023 5:49pm

We’re back to tomahtoes and tomaytoes.

hometruths · 09-02-2023 5:55pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120220771#Comment_120220771

With relation to covid they directly state vaccines helped to achieve partial pandemic control. Is that the same as an unsuccessful attempt to control? Maybe. Maybe not.

Yes, the two quotes are from different parts of the article. Opening the article, they state that the vaccines helped to achieve early and partial control.

They then go on to discuss the shortcomings. The whole point of the article is that these vaccines do not prevent infections, i,e control outbreaks, the same way as other vaccines - eg measles.

Hence early and partial control is early because what little protection against infection they offered waned quickly, and partial because there were too many cases of vaccine failure - i.e breakthrough infections.

In their concluding remarks they state:

Past unsuccessful attempts to elicit solid protection against mucosal respiratory viruses and to control the deadly outbreaks and pandemics they cause have been a scientific and public health failure that must be urgently addressed.

These statements reconcile very easily. They are not contradictory.

The entire article has been about the vaccines failure to control infections.

And yet you say their concluding remarks are not necessarily about vaccines, that's just my interpretation of it?!

The sentence directly before that quote is:

We must think outside the box to make next-generation vaccines that elicit immune protection against viruses that survive in human populations because of their ability to remain significantly outside of the full protective reach of human innate and adaptive immunity.

And the title is "Rethinking next-generation vaccines for coronaviruses, influenzaviruses, and other respiratory viruses"

You're clutching at straws here.

09-02-2023 5:57pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120220492#Comment_120220492

He said "third booster". Considering the "primary course" for Covid vaccines was 2-3 shots, and the boosters are additional, he has taken between 5-6 shots in three years. Not three.

Dohnjoe · 09-02-2023 6:05pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120220791#Comment_120220791

..

odyssey06 · 09-02-2023 6:25pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120220820#Comment_120220820

You are cherry picking out quotes from one part of the article as directly applicable to another.

The concluding remarks are clearly not only about vaccines or else they would not have included the line about "and to control".

You are assigning all of the 'failure' to vaccines.

Even in this post you have jumped from "failure to control infection" to justifying the entire sentence re: "a scientific and public health failure." They are not the same things.

You are conflating and picking out sentences from all over the article. So yes it is just your interpretation of the article.

I don't think there's any point in pressing that point further. As it risks obscuring the actual content of the article.

So at this point, I would suggest posters read the article in full:

https://www.cell.com/cell-host-microbe/fulltext/S1931-3128%2822%2900572-8

09-02-2023 6:26pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120216736#Comment_120216736

Most politicians are low level plebs. All they needed to know was "get vaccines into arms for a virus".

Some of the ones in more prominent positions would likely of been aware. For example, Boris Johnson's Father, Stanley, an ex-Rockefeller and UN employee, openly spoke about the need for Britain to significantly depopulate. Boris wrote about depopulation too, before becoming Prime Minister. As I said in previous posts, Club of Rome are a population control group connected to the Rockefellers. They state 1B as the carrying capacity of Earth, so I'm sure various people at that level were aware it was a mass sterilisation event.

@robinph You were talking about Africa before and how it should have been targeted over Western countries. Well, apart from the vaccine hesitancy there and distrust in government, Africans also have a MUCH lower carbon footprint than people in the West. Often over 20 times less. This is another reason they need to depopulate in the West first. They can address Africa later through various other means.

I find it funny that people really believe the elites were trying to save everyones life with these injections. They need to get rid of 6-7B people, not keep you alive, lol. Plus, they couldn't give a f*ck about any of you. Why would they? I even remember they were bribing people in some places with burgers, fries and donuts to come and take their shot... "for your health". I mean, really, lol. They need you dead or sterilised to save the planet. It's nothing personal. They're openly saying 1B is all the Earth can handle, and you guys think they want to save you from a flu virus, haha.

https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/content/average-brit-carbon-emissions/

Fighting Tao · 09-02-2023 6:30pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120220929#Comment_120220929

So how come with billions of doses of multiple covid vaccines, not one conspiracy theorist has produced the research showing that all the manufacturers are sterilising people?

The above question is just one of the big questions that identity an elephant in the room that you refuse to acknowledge. Probably because it shows that your depopulation belief is absolute quackery.

Dohnjoe · 09-02-2023 6:35pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120220929#Comment_120220929

The world being over-populated has been an issue for decades now, I learnt about it in school.

But this plan to kill 6 billion seems pretty new, has it already started? If so, what's the kill rate and what's their target? half a billion per year?

They better hurry up, some of these elites are pretty old.

robinph · 09-02-2023 6:39pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120220929#Comment_120220929

The West is already reducing the population as more advanced countries are not having enough babies, but you want them to be sterilised by vaccinations. Yet you also noticed that less advanced countries have higher birth rates and are thus the source of increasing World population, but you are not concerned about that as part of your depopulation poor?!?

Dohnjoe · 09-02-2023 6:46pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120220921#Comment_120220921

"Vaccines are very good, but there's always room for improvement" apparently equals "vaccines are a failure"

That's the vibe I'm picking up anyway.

09-02-2023 6:50pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120220940#Comment_120220940

I just posted about the Pfizer guy who admitted it's doing something to fertility, and how it could be an insane scandal down the line. Watch more and more couples in the West struggle to conceive over the coming years. Guaranteed.

The shots were likely all the same, regardless of manufacturer. Notice how you didn't get a choice when you went for your shot? They would never offer you a choice as that would have you stop and think: "which one is better?", "let me research first and then decide" etc etc. Offering a choice would result in delays and possible hesitancy. They just wanted the stuff into people's arms; hence you just went in and took what you were offered.

Same reason they gave loads of people different branded for their boosters etc. "I had the J&J initially. I then had a Moderna for my first booster, and a Pfizer for my second". Like a pharmaceutical pick n' mix, lol. It didn't matter as it .was all the same stuff

The U.S military and DARPA were heavily involved in the whole thing; that should tell you all you need to know. I'm not sure if all the heart attacks and clots happening since are an unintended side-effect. Probably not, as older people dying off helps in the bigger picture. That said, it was primarily a sterilisation event. They had very little choice but to do what they did. The planet would be destroyed otherwise within the next 50-100 years.

Fighting Tao · 09-02-2023 6:53pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120221002#Comment_120221002

Firstly, anyone can produce a video pretending to be an insider in any company.

You are making it up as you go along trying to fill in the many gaps. For example, you claim they were probably all the same. Surely someone with a point to prove would get a dose of each and analyse them in a laboratory to compare. Why hasn’t any conspiracy theorist done that?

So how did the Chinese, Indians, and Russians get on board with the plan?

Covid vaccines - thread banned users in First Post

Comments