Will you take an approved COVID-19 vaccine?

astrofool

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117752779#Comment_117752779

This is not an argument for your position, this is you giving up because you don't have anything to back up your argument without resorting to hear'say or crank websites.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117752820#Comment_117752820

It is actually a very relevant question. If the first batch of peer reviewed papers on the effective of the vaccines against the delta variant were published tomorrow and they suggested that it was effective, would you be in favour of young people taking the vaccines? Answering that question will partially answer your own question to me so it's entirely relevant.

floorpie

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117752844#Comment_117752844

What does "effective" mean to you? Infection by SARS-CoV-2? Symptoms? Transmission?

astrofool

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117752835#Comment_117752835

Yes, and of those, none were serious as supported by the conclusion of the study.

Yet you seem to be making out otherwise. Why is that?

"I got a vaccine and something non-serious happened afterwards which can include headaches and temporary blurred vision" is not something to be worried about given that being infected with SARS-COV2 itself would cause much worse reactions (given that it is the immune system reacting to the spike protein that causes the temporary ailments with vaccines and not so temporary ailments with the actual virus).

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117752854#Comment_117752854

How about you answer for all 3 cases, e.g. 1) No, 2) no, 3) yes.

floorpie

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117752855#Comment_117752855

An eye disorder is not a serious adverse outcome, according to their classification of serious adverse outcomes. Your discussion was about eye disorders, that's why I'm not talking about serious adverse outcomes.

JEC

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117752692#Comment_117752692

I don't know 'lots of people that had rare side effects'. I know 2 people with serious side effects. I know others with minor effects and I know plenty older relatives with no side effects at all.

It is not VAERS, it is the EU Eudravigilance database reporting suspected adverse events which is managed by the EMA.

Suspected not verified, so there is no definite link established between vaccine and side effect. I believe that most people ďo not report adverse events, think of everyone you know with minor side effects - did they report? Therefore, i believe it is fair to assume that the people that do report are genuinely concerned about a possible link.

Check it out. www.adrreports.eu

Apologies not allowed to post a link.

iLikeWaffles

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117752188#Comment_117752188

Look it is besides the point but we didn't have vaccines at Christmas and we still opened up, which was a massive mistake for the sake of revenue. If you go ahead and read my first response to the thread [original thread] you'll see we're on the same page here. Lets look at the crowds in the UK at football matches, now lets compare that to 3 months ago were there was small crowds allowed. Packing people like sardines into stadiums is life back to normal, the message it sends is incorrect as people will be getting complacent looking at the crowds there thinking that it is fine to not be wearing masks, social distancing or being cautious. Comparing that to the 24,000 for semi and 40,000 permitted for the All-Ireland final, it is a little more responsible as it is limiting capacity and allows for distancing, all the same anyone there still need to be cautious. We are a long way from "return to normal". Not airing on the side of caution is letting full stadiums of people on weekly basis in highly populated cities around the UK.

The way it is at moment in the back of most people minds is I'm sick of this ****, see it everyday with people getting off a bus. Impatiently taking the mask off still on and waiting for the doors to open. Everyone need's to ease into getting back to normal which is the message everyone should be sending in a position of influence. Last night there was a game in a packed stadium and the presenters are socially distancing in the crowded stadium, and funnily enough one of them actually said watch your distance jokingly but half serious. So what exactly is the message that is being sent there?! Lack of leadership of course is to blame.

I'm not missing the fact that no vaccine eliminates the spread. It is exactly the point I've been making. I had 2 doses btw!

astrofool

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117752865#Comment_117752865

It was temporary blurred vision, this is something that can happen with all vaccines and with all virus infections, why are you trying to make it out to be something it isn't?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117752873#Comment_117752873

I asked you another yes/no question but you refused to respond again?

astrofool

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117752873#Comment_117752873

The Eudravigilance data has the same warning not to be misused as the VAERS reporting, yet you are trying to do so, why?

"Information on suspected side effects should not be interpreted as meaning that the medicine or the active substance causes the observed effect or is unsafe to use. Only a detailed evaluation and scientific assessment of all available data allows for robust conclusions to be drawn on the benefits and risks of a medicine."

growleaves

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117752839#Comment_117752839

I never stated any position. My first comment was on your intellectual pride. As long as you're going to talk like a complete bell-end, a legendary 'man of science' in your own mind towering over others, I'm going to mock you. Develop some self-awareness if you don't like it. Same goes for others.

floorpie

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117752864#Comment_117752864

For me the only thing that matters is infection by SARS-CoV-2. I think it's bizarre and senseless that none of the trials reported infection as their primary efficacy objective and instead relied on symptoms to then assess infection, seeing as infection implies both transmission and symptoms, but symptoms does not imply infection (speaking of logic and inference).

If data came out showing 100% efficacy in preventing infection by the Delta variant then I would support vaccination for vulnerable people, and mildly vulnerable people.

floorpie

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117752885#Comment_117752885

I'll repeat what I said, your discussion was about eye disorders, that's why I'm talking about reported eye disorders in the trial (and by implication, VAERS), and nothing else

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117752901#Comment_117752901

So you're against any vaccine for any variant that does not show 100% efficacy?

astrofool

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117752895#Comment_117752895

I'm not sure you are of the intellectual capability to effectively mock someone, but watching your attempts is funny, like a mouse in a maze :)

(is that what you were aiming for?, the personal insults should probably be dropped).

floorpie

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117752915#Comment_117752915

Ok sorry, that was exaggerated. If they show a significant reduction in rates of infection, I should have said.

astrofool

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117752913#Comment_117752913

So you agree that they are nothing to worry about, given their non-severe, temporary nature?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117752927#Comment_117752927

So were you in favour of adults taking the current vaccines before the delta variant became dominant?

floorpie

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117752935#Comment_117752935

For unvaccinated demographics who have almost zero risk of serious outcomes otherwise? Yeah of course they should consider the negative effects of vaccination. "Worry" is too strong a word.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117752944#Comment_117752944

Vulnerable adults, yeah of course

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117752945#Comment_117752945

And what is your definition of a vulnerable adult?

astrofool

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117752945#Comment_117752945

The negative effects of the vaccines are much smaller than the negative effects of the virus for all people regardless of "starting risk". With a highly transmissive variant like Delta this means either taking the vaccine or taking a bigger risk with the virus with the set of people who have a reaction to the vaccine having a greater, more adverse, reaction to the virus.

iLikeWaffles

Just realised the original thread posted in was merged into this train wreck.

astrofool

To be fair, the other thread was probably the only example where the "real" donald trump was smarter than the "real donald trump" (i.e donny got vaccinated).

floorpie

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117752955#Comment_117752955

Someone in an age group or with comorbidities for which COVID-19 is associated with significant excess mortality (significant meaning "great", not statistical significance)

JEC

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117752894#Comment_117752894

I am not misusing it. I am simply stating that people are reporting suspected side effects. If you experienced temporary blurred vision would you report it? I doubt it and, to be honest neither would I, yet you assume that is all that us being reported.

In the case I refer to there was a sudden, unexplained, vision distortion in one eye. It has not resolved and the person involved cannot return to work or drive. How do you know some of the reported cases do not involve similar levels of incapacity? I can't say that they do, just like you cannot say they don't. I sincerely hope they don't.

Let me reiterate, I would never tell anyone not to take the vaccine on the basis that it is not safe. I do not know that, although my experience has raised concerns. I simply believe people have a right to be fully informed of potential adverse events and a right to freedom of choice.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117753044#Comment_117753044

I would presume you would therefore include many immunocompromised people in that definition then?

As the majority of immunocompromised people cannot or are at least not recommended to take the vaccine, they instead rely on those around them to be vaccinated in order to decrease their likelihood of infection. What is your counter-suggestion to keeping immunocompromised people safe?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117753055#Comment_117753055

Are you really not going to answer my yes/no question?

astrofool

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117753055#Comment_117753055

But that is exactly what the database is, anything at all that happens post vaccination is reported, they can then use the data to see if the incidence of an event is more than it is in the rest of the population who didn't get vaccinated.

It literally is the case that people who get blurred vision report it and it's included in the numbers, you're conflating that you wouldn't report it to seeing the database as a set of serious cases.

This is also why it has all the disclaimers on the page about people trying to misuse the data (both positively and negatively).

floorpie

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117753063#Comment_117753063

I'm not familiar with immunocompromised people but I presume they tend to exhibit care in their life in this regard at all times. I don't have have any suggestions unfortunately as I'm not familiar. I'll just reiterate that I think it's bizarre, incompetent, farcical, that the vaccine trials assessed the vaccines on the basis of symptoms rather than on infection, for the very reason you're talking about. Due to their methodological design, me being vaccinated now does not protect elderly people in my life (or immunocompromised people), because the trials did not assess infection per se.

Furthermore I think it's a complete farce that Moderna did not publish immunogenicity data that they DID collect as per their protocol, and instead waved it away in their paper saying "we don't have enough data". It wasn't until the release of the adolescent study this week that we see the flaw of the methodology chosen in phase 3 in the adult trial (i.e. that the vaccine does not stop infection).