Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Anyone else feel ashamed of getting the Covid shots?

11920212325

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 855 ✭✭✭moonage


    Maybe it's the Ukrainians' low jab rates that is stopping them from getting as sick.

    I've seen the needle and the damage done.



  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,201 ✭✭✭hometruths


    Good to see Yale medicine are acknowledging that the goal posts have shifted:

    Pfizer:

    the first COVID vaccine to receive FDA Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) back in December 2020, after the company reported that its vaccine was highly effective at preventing symptomatic disease…

    How well it works: The 2023-2024 updated vaccines were approved based on preclinical studies of their efficacy against the latest circulating strains. Some people may still become infected even though they have been vaccinated, but the goal of the vaccines now is to prevent severe disease, hospitalization and death

    and

    Moderna:

    Moderna uses the same mRNA technology as Pfizer-BioNTech and had a similarly high efficacy at preventing symptomatic disease when the companies applied for authorization;

    How well it works: The 2023-2024 updated vaccines were approved based on preclinical studies of their efficacy against the latest circulating strains. Some people may still become infected even though they have been vaccinated, but the goal of the vaccines now is to prevent severe disease, hospitalization, and death.

    Shifting the goal posts if needs be is not necessarily a bad thing, but gaslighting people into thinking they were always in the same place to start with is pretty moronic. Amazing how many people here are still at it.

    https://www.yalemedicine.org/news/covid-19-vaccine-comparison



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,915 ✭✭✭✭astrofool


    Shocker that priorities shift when pandemic has ended…

    (though I see you have finally acknowledged the severe disease efficacy ;)



  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,201 ✭✭✭hometruths


    I have never questioned the fact that vaccines are effective at reducing the severity of the almost inevitable subsequent infection, particularly in those most at risk.

    What I have always questioned is your belief, and many others, that this reduction in severity has since 2020 always been the primary intended benefit of the vaccines, and that is what they were approved for.

    That is total nonsense. The specific goal of the vaccines when approved was to prevent infections as I have proved to you time and time again, this is just the latest example.

    The great thing is I don't really care anymore, my priorities have shifted now the pandemic has ended, and nobody is foaming at the mouth to vaccinate every man, woman and child in the country, demonising anybody who decides not to.

    Sure plenty of people on here are still getting triggered by the discussion and continuing to demonise those who disagree, but out in the real world nobody cares a damn.

    If you wish to spend your time arguing black is white, knock yourself out. I'll still enjoy spectating.



  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 25,199 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    So your antibodies won't last long, typical covid infection is under a year. Two other things to take from this both on the personal and population level. On a personal level, one mild infection (symptom wise) is no indication of how the next one will go and two, and this was the big thing of the lockdown and vaccination, it isn't for you. You may not suffer but the person you pass it too could.



  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 25,199 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    Well that is misleading in the extreme. Trials on mRNA treatments for various illnesses have been happening since the early noughties. In fact, it is the reason it was able to be developed so fast, because there was so much work done before and thankfully people saw the opportunity to pivot from cancer treatment to covid treatment.

    The trials were the biggest ever undertaken at that phase ever, they ran several phases concurrently which was unheard of before but had one failed, they would have pulled it.

    It takes a fair amount of ignorance to pass comment without doing any research but, to be fair, we all do it from time to time.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 370 ✭✭vswr


    they're talking a crap, and not able to back up it… there's a difference.



  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 25,199 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    • Not novel technology
    • Not the point of a vaccine, that's you call, I didn't take the vaccine because I was in an at risk group, I took it because I know people who are
    • Not sure what your point on the mutation becoming dominant is, that is quite common in virology.
    • No vaccine protects from infection but most stop it before it becomes an issue. this one in particular reduced symptomatic time and as a proxy reduced transmission time. This is well documented.



  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 25,199 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    Apologies for my misunderstanding, I often make the mistake of thinking that people care about others in the general population, even if they do not know them. I make this mistake all the time. I help people jump start cars, I gave some teenagers spare change when they were short for a bit of food in the takeaway, I help people take their bags down from the racks on the train. The vaccine is less in your face, far less preachy, I don't go round bragging in public that I got it but I get what it does for people I don't know, and who potentially never know.



  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 25,199 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    Due to high uptake of vaccines across the EU, due to many of the vulnerable already dying during both Covid 19 initial infection wave and the invasion.

    Your made up story actually validates widespread vaccine use.



  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 25,199 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    Which unvaccinated group is this? Were there no vaccinations in Ukraine? Have several of the groups that might have given them Covid not already either been infected or vaccinated or both?

    I am not saying your position is wrong, but simply that nothing you say backs it up.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 370 ✭✭vswr


    I just don't understand why the want to study, where even if they came to Ireland in 2022, they would have had nearly 2 years worth of potential sporadic exposure.

    Unless Ukraine has magically been COVID free?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,356 ✭✭✭✭drunkmonkey


    There seems to be some regret among health professionals if nearly half believe they cause serious side effects and don't work. They should know better than anyone.

    Nearly 42 percent of healthcare workers are worried that Covid-19 vaccines will cause serious side-effects, while 44 percent don’t believe the jab offers them protection against the virus, a new study has found.

    A total of 595 nurses, doctors and other healthcare professionals employed by the Health Service Executive (HSE) in Dublin and the northeast responded to a survey of attitudes in relation to Covid and influenza vaccines.

    https://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/two-five-healthcare-workers-fear-33529054



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,676 ✭✭✭Cluedo Monopoly


    That is very surprising. I did hear last year there was reluctance amongst health care workers regarding taking more Covid boosters but those stats are quite dramatic. I'd love to see more details including how the questions were framed.

    What are they doing in the Hyacinth House?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,356 ✭✭✭✭drunkmonkey


    The report is here https://imj.ie/attitudes-towards-covid-19-and-influenza-vaccination-in-healthcare-workers/ , I find it confused in it's answers, still 42% believing it will causes "serious" side effets is a huge number, I would have expected a lot less.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,852 ✭✭✭Ten Pin


    Health Care Worker flu and covid vaccine uptake last autumn / winter from document "COVID-19 Vaccination Uptake in Ireland - week ending 18 February 2024"

    Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20240406153159/https:/www.hpsc.ie/a-z/respiratory/coronavirus/novelcoronavirus/vaccination/covid-19vaccinationuptakereports/2024/

    "Uptake of Autumn Booster & Seasonal Influenza doses by HSE HCWs since 18/09/2023 to 05/02/2024

    In total 110,073 records for HSE Health and Care Workers were included in the analysis.

    Overall Uptake

    • 20,447 received COVID-19 vaccine, an uptake of 18.6%

    • 40,850 received influenza vaccine, an uptake of 37.1%

    Amongst those who received a vaccine:

    • 18,977 (17.2% of all HSE HCWs) received both COVID-19 and influenza vaccine

    • 1,470 (1.3% of all HSE HCWs) received COVID-19 vaccine only

    • 21,873 (19.9% of all HSE HCWs) received influenza vaccine only

    • 67,753 (61.6% of all HSE HCWs) did not receive any COVID-19 or influenza vaccine

    • 89,626 (81.4% of all HSE HCWs) did not get a COVID-19 vaccine

    • 69,223 (62.9% of all HSE HCWs) did not get an influenza vaccine"



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,852 ✭✭✭Ten Pin


    deleted double post



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,267 ✭✭✭Shoog


    You should be concerned that this was by its very nature a self selecting survey - which are never truly representative of a population. This is a very low grad report because of its choice of methodology. It maybe reflective of reality - but its very difficult to say with any certainty.

    There are systematic ways of doing this type of survey which avoid self selection biases.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,676 ✭✭✭Cluedo Monopoly


    Wow. 18.6% is an extremely poor uptake figure for Covid booster. Less than half the Flu uptake.

    What are they doing in the Hyacinth House?



  • Registered Users Posts: 15,220 ✭✭✭✭charlie14


    Reuters Fact Check. February 12th 2024.

    Preventing transmission never required for COVID vaccines initial approval. Pfizer vax did reduce transmission of early variant.

    Social media users are circulating video clips of testimony by a Pfizer executive that is said to "admit" that the company and it`s parner BioNTech did not test whether their mRNA based COVID-19 vaccine reduced virus transmission prior to rolling it out - which is something the companies were not required to do for initial regulatory approval nor did they claim to have done.

    To get emergency approval companies needed to show that the vaccines were safe and prevented vaccinated people from getting ill. They did not have to show that vaccines would also prevent people from spreading the virus to others.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,201 ✭✭✭hometruths


    Not sure why you're quoting me with this old chestnut, I never mentioned anything about transmission.

    Your fact check confirms both what Yale Medicine said and I said.

    To get emergency approval companies needed to show that the vaccines were safe and prevented vaccinated people from getting ill.



  • Registered Users Posts: 15,220 ✭✭✭✭charlie14


    Which they did where unvaccinated were 4 times more likely to require hospitalisation and 11 times more likely to require ICU admission than those vaccinated, so I don`t see what point you are attempting to make.

    At no stage, be it the vaccine manufactures, the World Health Organisation, health authorities etc. ever stated vaccines would provide 100% immunnity from infection.



  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,201 ✭✭✭hometruths


    The point I was trying to make, and citing Yale Medical do so, was that vaccines were initially approved to prevent symptomatic Covid 19.

    If you disagree with that, fair enough, I don't really care.



  • Registered Users Posts: 15,220 ✭✭✭✭charlie14


    For vaccine to prevent symptomatic COVID-19 they would have had to have been capable of providing 100% immunity from infection. Neither the vaccine manufacturers or anybody else claimed they would provide that.



  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,201 ✭✭✭hometruths


    Just like prevention of transmission I never said anything about 100% efficacy, so you can include me and Yale Medical in that group too.



  • Registered Users Posts: 15,220 ✭✭✭✭charlie14


    I really do not get what point you are making.

    To prevent transmission a vaccine would have to have 100% efficacy against transmisssion, and that was neither a claim that COVID-19 manufactures (or anybody else for that matter) made nor was it a requirement for initial emergency approval.



  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,201 ✭✭✭hometruths


    Once again I didn't mention anything about the vaccines being approved to prevent transmission, they were not approved to do so, and I did not claim that they were.

    I really do not get what point you are making.

    That much is very clear, and instead you're trying to argue a point we're in agreement on, might it not just be simpler to drop it and move on?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,414 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    That's not what the report says though.

    What you said: 42% believing it will case

    Versus

    Nearly 42 percent of healthcare workers are worried that Covid-19 vaccines will cause serious side-effects.

    There's a huge difference between claiming something will be the case, and being worried it might be. It also gives no indication of number of cases of side effects.

    The questions in the report seemed to be framed from a particular perspective, rather than trying to get an overall assessment. What I mean by that is it doesn't ask what question which is, balancing advantages, risk of side effects etc would you recommend vaccination to protect against outcomes including hospitalization. That might clear up some of the confusion.

    "To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)



  • Registered Users Posts: 15,220 ✭✭✭✭charlie14


    Your own post was "that vaccines were initially approved to prevent symptomaic covid-19". As Reuters fact-check shows they weren`t. And not only was it not a requirement for initial emergency approval, the vaccine manufacturers at no stage claimed they would. To claim that would have required 100% efficacy.

    Pfizer-BioNtech`s Phase 3 clinical data for it`s original vaccine in December 2020 showed 95% efficacy for preventing symptomatic Covid-19, so where some appear to have got this idea that the vaccines were a 100% guarantee of not becoming infected is, to say the least, strange.



  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,201 ✭✭✭hometruths


    So your Reuters fact check says for approval the vaccines needed to demonstrate they "prevented vaccinated people from getting ill."

    And you think this fact check contradicts my statement that the vaccines were approved to "prevent symptomatic Covid 19".

    So I can only assume you don't consider people with Covid 19 symptoms as ill.

    If so, I don't care, we can agree to disagree.

    And if you have an issue with the people who claim the Covid vaccines were a 100% guarantee of not becoming infected, take it up with them, not me.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 15,220 ✭✭✭✭charlie14


    But that is the point you are missing when you say "that vaccines were initially approved to prevent symptomatic transmission". Neither the manufacturers or anybody else claimed they were or would. How anybody who even looked at the efficacy results from the Phase 3 clinical trials could somehow believe otherwise for the initial emergency authorisation is beyond comprehension.

    Especially when the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the initially emergency authorisation on 11th. Dec 2020 stated "At this time, data is not available to make a detrmination about how long the vaccine will provide protection, nor is there evidence that the vaccine prevents transmission of SARS-CoV-2 from person to person.

    If you believe otherwise then that is up to you, but the facts just do not back it up.



  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,201 ✭✭✭hometruths


    But that is the point you are missing when you say "that vaccines were initially approved to prevent symptomatic transmission"

    But here's the problem - I didn't say that, and you putting it in quotation marks doesn't change that.

    And you know I didn't say it.

    Not only because I've now told you four times I didn't say it, and also stated unambiguously that the vaccines were not approved to prevent transmission.

    But also because I know you've read my posts looking for the gotcha to quote, and if I had posted this you would have quoted it gleefully and linked the post containing the statement you've taken such an issue with.

    The only reason you haven't is because you couldn't find it and you know I didn't say it. Your reduced to simple assertions emboldened with quotation marks speaks volumes.

    I agree with you that vaccines were not initially approved to prevent transmission of Covid-19, I cannot put it any clearer than that.

    So even though you know I didn't say it why on earth are you persisting on trying to argue a point that we are in agreement on?

    Are just you badgering me or trolling for fun, or what's your beef here?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,915 ✭✭✭✭astrofool


    I'd imagine it was the nonsense that you were again spinning into (having been thoroughly and utterly refuted on the CT forum) again from this post:

    What I have always questioned is your belief, and many others, that this reduction in severity has since 2020 always been the primary intended benefit of the vaccines, and that is what they were approved for.

    But you're probably best off following your own advice:

    The great thing is I don't really care anymore, my priorities have shifted now the pandemic has ended, and nobody is foaming at the mouth to vaccinate every man, woman and child in the country, demonising anybody who decides not to.

    Though, according to moonage, maybe your opinions were themselves caused by the needle ;)



  • Registered Users Posts: 15,220 ✭✭✭✭charlie14


    The point that you are missing is you have either forgotten what you said or you now wish you hadn`t said it because it has been shown to be untrue.

    Your Post # 1124. "The point I was trying to make, citing Yale Medica (to) do so, was that vaccines were initially approved to prevent symptomatic Covid 19"

    It was not a requirement for approval, the vaccine manufacturers never claimed it would ,and the FDA also made it clear when they initially authorised the vaccine on 11th. Dec 2020 stating, "….nor is there evidence that the vaccine prevents transmission of SARS-CoV-2 from person to person"

    If you want to stick to your assertion in your post #1124 that is up to you, but it is factually incorrect



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,240 ✭✭✭✭Goldengirl


    The way that question is asked directly after questions about administration is misleading also , as it could have been understood by some of those replying as whether they were worried about side effects after administration of the vaccine to another person also Less would have concerns about influenza vaccines because they have been administering them for years now .

    And on the uptake of the booster , healthcare staff in general received all the original primary course and boosters ...these particular boosters would have been dose 5 for most . This woukd have been after many had been infected through different waves of the disease.

    The post that said that hcws 'regret ' the vaccinations , is not borne out either by the article they quote or the data . In fact in the article linked ..

    "The authors of the research, which was published in the latest issue of the Irish Medical Journal, said the responses showed great awareness and support for vaccination among healthcare workers.

    However, they noted that “sizeable small proportions” believed the Covid-19 vaccine would make them unwell and cause serious side-effects. “These findings highlight misconceptions about -healthcare worker- vaccination, and are consistent with other published works,” they wrote."

    And as has been pointed out before no numbers are produced anymore of those in healthcare who have been infected in the months beforehand , which will of course negatively influence uptake because there has to be a wait time of 6 months after infection before a booster can be given .

    There are caveats which make reference to this in the HSPC data also quoted above by another but incompletely .

    On the subject of why people are not getting as sick with Covid now it is because we have reached an estimated seroprevalence of antibodies against the disease through infection and vaccination in this country of 99.6% up...the disease is now endemic ..and unless it mutates to a newer more virulent strain, the majority will be able to fight it off .

    Also it is unlikely unless you have been isolating and masked for the last 4 years that you would not have come into contact with it at some point and if you have a mild infection eg post Omicron , it might not have caused serious enough symptoms to warrant testing , especially in younger people many of whom do not even notice symptoms anymore .

    And this is a good thing . This is where we wanted to be in 2020 when nobody knew how this would play out .

    This post is not to downplay Covid's seriousness for those with underlying illnesses or immunocompromise who can still have serious disease and should always be considered at risk regardless of vaccination etc .

    And we still have large numbers suffering long term effects from the disease who are increasingly the forgotten people with few resources allocated to their continuing health needs .

    .https://seroepi-hpscireland.hub.arcgis.com/

    ( forgive me directing all this to you at this hour 🙈 I know you know this but the post just grew !)



  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,201 ✭✭✭hometruths


    Presumably you've noticed the post you quoted says nothing about transmission.

    "vaccines were initially approved to prevent symptomatic Covid 19"

    This obviously and inarguably refers to preventing covid 19 infections in vaccinated individuals. Nothing to do with transmission.

    But you know that. Otherwise you wouldn't have felt the need to invent a different statement and attribute it to me.



  • Registered Users Posts: 15,220 ✭✭✭✭charlie14


    Nobody ever claimed that the vaccine would give immunity from infection. If you undersrand anything about the efficacy rating of a vaccine you should know that for immunity the efficacy would have to be 100% for that to be the case, and no vaccine claimed to be that percentage nor did any of the Phase 3 clinical trials show that to be the case. The FDA also made it crtstal clear when they stated " nor is there evidence that the vaccine prevents the transmission of SARS-Cov-2 from person to person"

    Where you got this idea from that the vaccines were supposed to provide immunity from infection I have no idea as nobody ever claimed they would. What we do know, from Ireland alone, is that if you were unvaccinated you were 4 times more likely to require hospitalisation and 11 times more likely to end up in ICU than if you were vaccinated.



  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,201 ✭✭✭hometruths


    Again I didn't mention anything about 100% efficacy.

    I got the idea that the vaccines were initially approved "for the prevention of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in individuals 16 years of age and older" from the FDA.

    That's a verbatim quote from the same FDA document you are referencing.

    If your interpretation of prevention of disease is different from mine, so be it, move on, it doesn't bother me, no idea why it appears to bother you so much.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,356 ✭✭✭✭drunkmonkey


    You're statement is false. Albert clearly claimed it prevented cases which would be infections. He then went to the CDC and FDC with the updated information on the phase 3 clinical trials.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 15,220 ✭✭✭✭charlie14


    It`s a pity you didn`t post the actual interview rather than a catchy little screen shot.

    In the interview on CNN he added the caveat on that 100% efficacy for the 12 -15 age group in that it was based on 1200 individuals, and that it would undoubtedly become lower when the results from larger number became known. So no, he was not claiming it would provide 100% efficacy for those under 15 years of age.

    Not that it really matters as we were discussing the initial emergency use authorization from the FDA of 11 Dec. 2020, which for the Pfizer Phase 3 trials consisted of 46,331 individuals, and authorization was only for those 16 years and older.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,356 ✭✭✭✭drunkmonkey


    It was a tweet from his personal account. It had nothing to do with some interview on CNN. He said 100%, you said nobody did. You're statement remains false. There are plenty of other examples where influential people have said, Nada, Zip, No way will you catch it. Confirmation bias is a problem when presenting facts though so I understand why you've never seen anyone say it when other people have.



  • Registered Users Posts: 15,220 ✭✭✭✭charlie14


    Had you bothered to check out what he said when asked, you would have seen that he was referring to the result from 1200 cases and that the efficacy percentage would undoubtedly become lower when the results of larger numbers became known. So no, he did not claim the vaccine would provide 100% immunity from infection for those under 16 years. Not exactly running, as you stated to the FDA with updates of the Phase 3 trials now was it?

    Trials, which by the way were completed months previously, (as far as I recall in November 2020), with FDA giving approval for the initial emergency use authorization in December 2020 only for those 16 years and older.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,356 ✭✭✭✭drunkmonkey




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,676 ✭✭✭Cluedo Monopoly


    Ok but that doesn't explain the poor uptake rate for Covid boosters amongst frontline health workers. What's your take on that? I think it was 18%.

    What are they doing in the Hyacinth House?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,414 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    Because so many of them have already had covid, because while the booster does reduce your chances of getting infected, it is leaky and wanes, and they've already had sufficient protection from previous vaccination (and\or infection) that severe covid not a major concern.

    And the vaccination can leave you floored for a day or so.

    "To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,676 ✭✭✭Cluedo Monopoly


    What are they doing in the Hyacinth House?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 793 ✭✭✭jsd1004


    We are getting somewhere here at least. Usually a mention that the vaccine can have pretty severe side effects would have you labelled an anti vaxxer. Maybe the reason is they are mostly young intelligent people under retirement age. Have little to fear from an Omicron Covid infection. Recognise that even with the vaccine they can still get and transmit Covid. And dont particularily want to be floored for a day or worse. Pretty much the reasons I ended up not getting the primary vaccination.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,414 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    Nope. You are fabricating anti vax propaganda, again.

    There is no good faith reading that turns "Floored for a day or so" into "pretty severe side effects".

    And already explained on thread in the context of the vaccine rollout in 2021 pre Omicron, the benefits of initial vaccination were far more significant than the marginal gain from boosters. And benefits of those doses are lasting even v Omicron.

    We are getting nowhere while you comtinue to misrepresent, while you post anti vax claims without foundation, and feign ignorance even as multiple posters discredit your claims with factual scientific studies.

    At least you have stopped trying to cite unverifiable friends / jobs, to garnish your claims in lieu of actual evidence.

    "To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 793 ✭✭✭jsd1004


    Ok then. So being floored for the day or more is reasonable? The Omicron infection has less symptoms in the majority of healthy people. Floored for the day for me is a pretty severe side effect. I have never been in bed for a day with an illness and dont plan to test it.
    And we will see will your other pro drug friends rally behind you for daring mention that you could be floored for a day for taking a vaccine that the disease has less side effects. Id guess you could be in trouble for confirming it.

    Post edited by jsd1004 on


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,414 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    Ah earlier on thread you seemed to suggest you decided not to get vaxxed well before Omicron. So you have invalidated your own point, as you shift the goalposts back and forwards as needed to suit the current dubious claim.

    Not everybody will be floored for day or so by vaccines, it is a possibility that is all. The probability and range of symptoms for Omicron and later variants is much worse as attested in studies and by posters on this forum reporting symptoms.

    Floored for a day is not a severe side effect under any generally accepted definition of it. That is your own invention as likely is such a dubious claim as never having spent a sick day in bed ever.

    "To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)



  • Advertisement
Advertisement