Covid vaccines - thread banned users in First Post

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119402668#Comment_119402668

Re the exchange with odyssey I posted this:

Vaccine effectiveness is negative after 8 months according to this study in the Lancet:

Figure 2 Vaccine effectiveness (any vaccine) against SARS-CoV-2 infection of any severity in 842 974 vaccinated individuals matched to an equal number of unvaccinated individuals for up to 9 months of follow-up

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-67362200089-7/fulltext

That graph literally shows negative vaccine effectiveness against infection of any severity from 8 months onwards.

Odyssey took exception to this and started arguing about effects from day 181 onwards etc, but nothing he said contradicted the point that the graph shows negative efficacy from 8 months onward. He was just waving around the usual arguments about misrepresenting the data etc.

So after restating my point a few times, I just ignored his post as per the forum charter: If you see posts that fall below the level of "counter-argument" (DH4) on this chart, do not respond 

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119402668#Comment_119402668

This literally means more data needed to get an accurate number but that the protective effect is in place, i.e. proven

So if you agree that more data was needed to get an accurate estimate presumably you agree that the data on severity they had available was not extremely comprehensive?

Big Bag of Chips

@astrofool, please do not question or comment on moderator instruction on thread. If you have any problems with a post or poster report it. Also other posters are irrelevant to my warning to you.

Please post only according to the forum charter or do not post in the thread again.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119402785#Comment_119402785

Hold on a second here. For starters, it was a report you introduced to support your claim you were better off not getting vaccinated.

I pointed out nowhere does the report state anything to support that conclusion. Its conclusion is support for boosters.

To your specific claim that I only talked about figures from Day 181 onwards. This is false.

In post #9594 I directly quoted a line from the report which directly contradicted your original claim and your new false new claim in post 9836.

Protection against severe COVID-19 was better maintained for up to 9 months of follow-up, although some waning became evident after more than 4 months. 

I repeatedly pointed out that you were ignoring the complexities in the report, of types of vaccines (mRNA versus AZ), how healthcare workers could have distorted some of the findings and the difference between protection against infection & severe covid.

You offered no comeback to the points raised in this post. Again note that I mention 9 months.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119382948#Comment_119382948

Fr0g

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119397844#Comment_119397844

He said what he said you have not proven that it was taken out of context

Here he is doubling down saying he would impose

"much, much more stringent restrictions"

https://reason.com/2022/07/25/anthony-fauci-interview-covid-restrictions-masks/

and of course the inevitable admittance that the cloth masks that most people were required to wear indoors throughout the pandemic do not substantially prevent the transmission of COVID-19.

But if course if I said that I would be considered a conspiracy theorist.

So why were they mandated?

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119403793#Comment_119403793

It was taken out of context. The video cut him off mid sentence.

This video is nothing more than a deliberate attempt to deceive.

This is the full transcript already posted on this thread.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119396871#Comment_119396871

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119402785#Comment_119402785

But again you are relying on your personal untrained and biased interpretation of that graph. You are not representing the actual conclusions and statements of the paper.

The paper does not mention negative effectiveness in its text or conclusions.

This isn't the first time you've made this misrepresentation either.

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119403648#Comment_119403648

Hold on a second here. For starters, it was a report you introduced to support your claim you were better off not getting vaccinated.

I pointed out nowhere does the report state anything to support that conclusion. Its conclusion is support for boosters.

This is total nonsense. I did not introduce the report to support the claim that you were better off not getting vaccinated.

I introduced the report to in post 9588 to highlight the graph showing "Vaccine effectiveness (any vaccine) against SARS-CoV-2 infection of any severity in 842 974 vaccinated individuals matched to an equal number of unvaccinated individuals for up to 9 months of follow-up"

You replied to the post with the graph in post 9590:

Did you read the entire article?

Waning was slightly slower for mRNA-1273, with a vaccine effectiveness of 96% (94 to 97; p<0·001) at 15–30 days and 59% (18 to 79; p=0·012) from day 181 onwards...

For the outcome of severe COVID-19, vaccine effectiveness waned from 89% (82 to 93; p<0·001) at 15–30 days to 64% (44 to 77; p<0·001) from day 121 onwards...

The results strengthen the evidence-based rationale for administration of a third vaccine dose as a booster.

In response to that specifically I made the point about being better off not getting vaccinated in post 9591:

Well yes, if double vaccination is providing negative effectiveness after 8 months it will undoubtedly strengthen the argument for a booster if you're double vaccinated!

But it also strengthens the argument for not getting vaccinated in the first place.

That graph is indicating that after 8 months the vaccinated have less protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection than the unvaccinated - thus it clearly strengthens the argument for not getting vaccinated in the first place.

I introduced this claim specifically in response to your post. I did not introduce the report as support of this claim.

In reply you said "No. The article directly contradicts your claims and nowhere does it state support for your claim."

A couple of times I restated my specific claim that the graph titled Vaccine effectiveness (any vaccine) against SARS-CoV-2 infection of any severity in 842 974 vaccinated individuals matched to an equal number of unvaccinated individuals for up to 9 months of follow-up, showed negative effectiveness after 8 months in case you had misunderstood in good faith. But you just deflected and waffled, so I ignored your posts for the reasons stated above.

astrofool

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119403947#Comment_119403947

You are specifically ignoring data and using quotes on severity (even if you ended up misunderstanding the quotes anyway) and then ignoring quotes and trying to use data elsewhere (where you misunderstand what the data means), you have caught yourself in a bind again and will need to climb down on one area.

It's almost as if you have your own made up conclusion and are ignoring everything that doesn't support it, no matter how overwhelming it may be.

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119404060#Comment_119404060

Vaccine effectiveness is negative after 8 months according to this study in the Lancet:

Figure 2 Vaccine effectiveness (any vaccine) against SARS-CoV-2 infection of any severity in 842 974 vaccinated individuals matched to an equal number of unvaccinated individuals for up to 9 months of follow-up

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-67362200089-7/fulltext

This graph shows negative vaccine effectiveness (any vaccine) against SARS-CoV-2 infection of any severity in 842 974 vaccinated individuals matched to an equal number of unvaccinated individuals after 8 months.

If I am wrong about that by all means correct me and tell me what it shows.

But please don't start the "You are misunderstanding/misrepresenting the data, but I cannot explain how" routine on this as well.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119404085#Comment_119404085

If I am wrong about that by all means correct me and tell me what it shows.

You have been shown that you are wrong and been told what it shows about 12 times at this stage. There are currently four posts on this page, half of which are yours. Both of the other two, 50% of all posts on this page alone, have done this. You are unwilling to accept your mistake. What more do you want from people?

You're (deliberately, I'd wager) misinterpreting the graph. You've been shown that this is the case and given the reasoning behind it. You're just ignoring everything else and keep reposting the graph and saying what you think it means. It's a move straight out of the Cheeful S playbook.

I'll tell you what......quote the part of the study (without reposting the graph again, I want proper, unambiguous text quotes, not a graph that you're putting your own spin on) and show us where in the study it says that "vaccine effectiveness is negative after 8 months". Again, forget about the graph, something nice and definitive that proves your claim.

Also, for anyone keeping score, we are back to the the paradox that the anti-vaxxers have been touting for a year now.

"Covid is harmless - nothing more than a flu

The vaccines are also useless

The best way to boost your immune system to prevent catching covid is to....eh....catch covid

Don't take the vaccines, catch covid instead and that'll help you from catching it again, but don't forget it's harmless"

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119404085#Comment_119404085

But we have explained how you are misrepresenting the data.

You are claiming the study concludes things it doesn't.

The study does not mention "negative efficacy".

That's something you are concluding.

And yes you also claimed that the study supports the notion that you are better off not getting vaccinated. Another thing the study does not actually say.

You've done this before with another study. And as with that you will not explain why the study didn't mention this shocking revelation of negative efficacy.

patnor1011

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119404230#Comment_119404230

None of current covid "vaccines" will prevent you from catching covid. That is simple fact.

*thanks for kind reminder

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119404309#Comment_119404309

This statement is false and directly contradicted by the Lancet Study and Qatar study cited on the thread.

Lancet Study from 2021:

For the outcome SARS-CoV-2 infection of any severity, the vaccine effectiveness of BNT162b2 waned progressively over time, from 92% (95% CI 92 to 93; p<0·001) at 15–30 days, to 47% (39 to 55; p<0·001) at 121–180 days, and to 23% (−2 to 41; p=0·07) from day 211 onwards.

Qatar Study v Omicron:

The effectiveness of three doses of BNT162b2 and no previous infection was 52.2% (95% CI, 48.1 to 55.9)

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2203965

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119404309#Comment_119404309

So you are arguing that the vaccines are therefore useless?

Also I notice you've given up the scare quotes. Have you given up the notion that the vaccines aren't vaccines?

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119404216#Comment_119404216

Figure 2 Vaccine effectiveness (any vaccine) against SARS-CoV-2 infection of any severity in 842 974 vaccinated individuals matched to an equal number of unvaccinated individuals for up to 9 months of follow-up

The vertical axis is % Vaccine effectiveness ranging from -100 to 100 and the horizontal axis is Time from second dose in months ranging from zero to 9 months.

I am claiming that this graph, which is a graphical representation of the findings of the study, shows that from 8 months vaccine effectiveness is negative.

You say:

You have been shown that you are wrong and been told what it shows about 12 times at this stage.

But nobody has addressed the claim of what the graph is showing.

Are you, or any of the other posters, who are so certain I am misinterpreting/misunderstanding/misrepresenting the graph actually prepared to state what vaccine effectiveness is shown at 9 months on this graph?

Asked not to show the graph, shows the fuckin graph anyway. Are you okay in the head?

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119404609#Comment_119404609

So you are unable to provide any text or quote from the study that specifically says or concludes that the negative efficacy actually occurs.

And you are again unable to explain why this stunning revelation is not at all commented on.

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119405848#Comment_119405848

That's all he has. He's done this before with another study.

He keeps pointing to the graph and declaring that it proves his point.

He ignores the fact that the study doesn't actually mention or comment on it. He won't explain why that is. He ignores all of the context around the graph. He won't explain why no one seems to think that's the important part of the study.

Same thing here.

He's also ignoring the conclusion of the study states that people should just get boosters.

This is most likely because he's only being shown the graph in tweets from the grifters.

Big Bag of Chips

@[Deleted User] do not post in this thread again.

Fr0g

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119403846#Comment_119403846

And the second video? Where he said he recommended to the president to lock down? Which one is the lie?

Fr0g

NSW data:

37 times more likely to be hospitalised with COVID if you are vaccinated than if you are not.

https://metatron.substack.com/p/new-south-wales-australia-covid-update?utm_source=%2Fprofile%2F30382446-joel-smalley&utm_medium=reader2

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119406844#Comment_119406844

So before anyone looks this up. What did you do to confirm this claim is true and accurately reports the facts?

Why should we trust that this time it's different from the last time you link dumped something without checking it or even reading it?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119406828#Comment_119406828

You didn't understand the quote. His emphasis is it wasn't a personal decision, it was a decision made by the CDC as a group. He made that pretty clear...

The Nal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119406844#Comment_119406844

A dump and run from a random blog. Can you explain this in your own words please?

astrofool

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119404609#Comment_119404609

The claim was addressed by the authors of the graph in the study it was part of (similar to your scottish data cul-de-sac), as was pointed out by everyone else multiple times.

How is this a safety issue? What is the conspiracy behind it?

The vaccine megathread is available to talk about efficacy if you don't think it's a conspiracy:

Vaccine Megathread No 2 *Ages 12 to 69 can register now* - Read OP before posting - Page 289 — boards.ie - Now Ye're Talkin'

I would note that your alter-ego, phishnet, is banned from a few threads on there.

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119407482#Comment_119407482

The claim was addressed by the authors of the graph in the study it was part of (similar to your scottish data cul-de-sac), as was pointed out by everyone else multiple times.

Nope, the fact that the graph shows negative vaccine effectiveness has not been addressed by the authors. All they have to say on the subject is that:

from day 211 onwards there was no remaining detectable vaccine effectiveness

i,e vaccines offer no protection after about 7 months. They do not address the fact that their results show negative effectiveness from 8 months onwards. They publish the graph, but they make no comment on it.

How is this a safety issue? What is the conspiracy behind it?

Clearly if the vaccine is causing immune function of vaccinated individuals to be lower than that of unvaccinated individuals it is a safety issue.

Is it a conspiracy? For sure the more interesting discussion here is why do the authors of the study not comment on it, but unfortunately we cannot have that discussion as long as we're arguing over whether or not the results show negative effectiveness.

It's just the same thing again as your approach with the efficacy against severity data. The more interesting discussion is why there is total revisionism on the primary function the vaccines were approved for - to prevent symptomatic infection -, but we can't have that discussion as long as we are bogged down in your argument that there is no revisionism because the insufficient data was in fact extremely comprehensive.

I would note that your alter-ego, phishnet, is banned from a few threads on there.

If you think I am phishnet the correct course of action is to report me and if the mods agree with you, no doubt they will take action. Repeatedly accusing me of being phishnet on the thread simply to try and discredit my posts is against the charter.

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119407725#Comment_119407725

So you're admitting that the paper doesn't actually say anything about the supposed negative efficacy.

I assume again you're going to not be able to explain why they wouldn't comment on it?

And since the authors of the article did not say that the vaccine causes negative efficacy, why are you claiming the paper concludes this?

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119406828#Comment_119406828

The second video is irrelevent. The first one has been edited to fool people.

The transcript has been posted on the thread which explains his words. His full sentence, not the video which stops mid-sentence in an utterly dishonest attempt to take a quote out of context.

The video is the lie.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119407725#Comment_119407725

"Vaccine effectiveness" is not negative at 9 months.

Show us the line in the report which states this.

It is directly contradicted by the contents of the report:

Protection against severe disease was 89 per cent after one month and 64 per cent from four months an onwards during the rest of the maximum follow-up of nine months. 

How can the vaccine be causing immune functions to reduce if they have superior durable protection against severe covid?

You are spreading medical misinformation.

I have already pointed out that the long term results could be confounded by the fact that under 60s who received the vaccine 8 months back from October 2021 were likely those in the highest risk groups such as Health care workers, and they received Astra Zeneca, the least effective/long lasting of the vaccines used in Sweden versus mRNA based Pfizer and Moderna. I have pointed this out to you 6 times, you have offered no reply except to say it is waffle and deflection. When it is obvious you are engaged in this.

You also repeatedly ignore, or somehow place zero value on the months of protection against infection the vaccines provide and the durable protection versus severe covid. This is not waffle. This is central to discrediting your claim re: better to be unvaccinated.

And this is from the authors of the report. They would hardly be saying this if they thought this study showed any indication that it was better to be unvaccinated or their findings showed anything of concern with the vaccines. Your claim is false, and unsupported by evidence.

"The bad news is that the protection against infection seems to be diminished by seven months after the second dose of vaccine," says Peter Nordström, professor of geriatric medicine at Umeå University. "The good news, however, is that the protection against a severe infection that leads to hospitalization or death seems to be better maintained. Vaccination is therefore very wise and important."

"The results underscore and support the decision to offer a third dose," says Marcel Ballin, doctoral student in geriatric medicine at Umeå University and co-author of the study. 

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/02/220207100117.htm

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119407886#Comment_119407886

"Vaccine effectiveness" is not negative at 9 months.

Show us the line in the report which states this.

It states it in the graph which was published with the report. It is a graphical representation of the results of the study.

It is directly contradicted by the contents of the report:

Protection against severe disease was 89 per cent after one month and 64 per cent from four months an onwards during the rest of the maximum follow-up of nine months. 

You keep talking about protection against severe disease. The graph shows vaccine effectiveness against infection of any severity. You are not comparing like for like.

I'm asking you what vaccine effectiveness against infection of any severity at 9 months does the report show? Are you prepared to answer that?

You are spreading medical misinformation.

Spreading medical misinformation?! Nonsense. I am quoting a study published in the Lancet.

I have already pointed out that the long term results could be confounded by the fact that under 60s who received the vaccine 8 months back from October 2021 were likely those in the highest risk groups such as Health care workers, and they received Astra Zeneca, the least effective/long lasting of the vaccines used in Sweden versus mRNA based Pfizer and Moderna.

No doubt AstraZeneca wanes faster, but does the report say these results are skewed by AZ vaccines administered to under 60s health care workers. Or are you just assuming that is likely?

You also repeatedly ignore, or somehow place zero value on the months of protection against infection the vaccines provide and the durable protection versus severe covid. This is not waffle. This is central to discrediting your claim re: better to be unvaccinated.

I'm not ignoring it. But for the purposes of contradicting the claim that the graph shows negative effectiveness against infection of any severity at 8 months, it is of zero value.

And this is from the authors of the report. They would hardly be saying this if they thought this study showed any indication that it was better to be unvaccinated or their findings showed anything of concern with the vaccines. Your claim is false, and unsupported by evidence.

My claim is that the report shows negative effectiveness against infection of any severity from 8 months onwards. The evidence is Figure 2 from the report.

Fr0g

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119406987#Comment_119406987

So you didn't bother reading it.

It's very simple and he explains it very clearly. These are hospitalisation numbers. The data shows that the more vaccines you take the more likely you are to go to hospital with COVID.

When officials quote the unvaccinated numbers you have to be careful that they are not including 1,2 or three dosed or whatever they consider to be fully vaccinated + 2 weeks. That definition is a movable feast. I consider those that have never been vaccinated as unvaccinated. Officials do not.

jackboy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119408276#Comment_119408276

Statistics are tricky. When most of the population is vaccinated it is expected that most in hospital would be vaccinated, as there are so few left unvaccinated, especially the vulnerable.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119408017#Comment_119408017

The report doesn't state that ANYWHERE. You are misinterpreting the graph. If this was a major finding of the report, why is it not stated anywhere in the text?

This is what the text says:

From thereon, the waning became more pronounced, and from day 211 onwards there was no remaining detectable vaccine effectiveness (23% [–2 to 41]; p=0·07).

This image shows an expanded view of Table 2 - results of the Total Cohort Study, Vaccine Effectiveness (any vaccine):

Lancet - Total Cohort Study.png

The report lists possible limitations \ confounding factors. I have proposed healthcare workers vaccinated early with AZ as one possible instance.

Other than the observational design, the present study has some limitations to consider. Although we adjusted our analyses for several potential confounders, the possibility of residual and unmeasured confounding remains, including a higher risk of selection bias in unvaccinated individuals with longer follow-up time. 

Should we also consider possibilities such as that vaccinated individuals may also have been more likely to get themselves tested? Or work in such roles? Or have conditions which would make them more likely to seek vaccination, and be tested for hospital admissions or scans? And so mild or asymptomatic infections more likely to be detected?

I propose these because otherwise, there is a mystery in your case. How, medically, could a vaccine at +9 months somehow make someone be more susceptible biologically to be infected and yet have significant (64%) positive protection against severe covid?

How could such a thing be possible?

Why it this the conclusion of its author:

"Vaccination is therefore very wise and important."

You used the report to spread false, dangerous medical misinformation claims that it was better to be unvaccinated and that the results possibly indicated a weakening in the immune system from vaccines.

I have comprehensively established with reference to the report, its conclusions and direct quotes from its authors that this claim is false and not shared by the experts who conducted the study. As you have not refuted the counterpoints or restated the claims, I will treat them as withdrawn.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119408276#Comment_119408276

Yep, you said it, it is very simple. More than that, it is overly simplistic.

Any such figures that don't control for age, vulnerability, conditions are worthless.

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119408365#Comment_119408365

The report doesn't state that ANYWHERE. You are misinterpreting the graph.

The vertical axis is % Vaccine effectiveness ranging from -100 to 100 and the horizontal axis is Time from second dose in months ranging from zero to 9 months.

I am claiming that this graph, which is a graphical representation of the findings of the study, shows that from 8 months vaccine effectiveness is below zero.

You keep telling me I am misinterpreting the graph, but you seem unwilling or unable to offer the correct interpretation of the graph.

I will ask again - we have a graph which inarguably shows vaccine effectiveness from zero to 9 months.

What, according to this graph, is the vaccine effectiveness at 9 months?

If you are unable to answer that question, the only explanation is you are unable to interpret the graph, and thus not really in a position to be telling other people that they are misinterpreting it.

If you are able to answer the question, and are simply unwilling to, it also undermines your claim that I am misinterpreting the graph.

Big Bag of Chips

@astrofool backseat moderation is not allowed. You are aware of this. You have already been given an onthread warning about your posting style on this thread. Do not post in this thread again.

Big Bag of Chips

I'd really rather not lock the thread, as that just shuts down discussion. But I would ask all posters to reread the Forum Charter, and pay particular attention to this bit

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

• Respect the opinions of others.
• 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 (short of soapboxing). Remember: many users read, but do not post, and may be interested in reading your opinions - so the opinion of 2 or 3 other prolific posters is rarely meaningful, and should neither be seen as a victory or a threat.

There should be a reasonable give-and-take in terms of how strongly someone expresses a belief in the truth (or falsity) of something, and how others react to it. The goal here is open-minded, open-ended conversation, not derision and ridicule of contributors for asking questions or questioning information.

Please remember that there are many forms of evidence. As well as cold hard facts, there is anecdotal evidence, circumstantial evidence, and any number of other things. Some people value these differently to others. Just because you don't find something to be convincing as evidence doesn't mean that it isn't evidence, nor that someone else can't find it convincing.

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

The repeated ad nauseum arguments of the past few weeks are tedious and boring. One side repeatedly asking the same questions, but not really wanting to hear the answers offered by the other side. The other side posting their belief/interpretation of data only to be questioned again and again on why they believe it. It adds nothing and indeed discourages any kind of discussion as the same handful of people just go round and round in a loop of repeating the same questions/explanations meaning others are slow to get involved in a discussion that has descended into over and back argument.

The thread has gone very far off course from it's original discussion. This happens in threads. Especially threads with almost 10000 replies. There is no problem with a thread moving in a different direction. But there is a problem with circular arguments. Continually asking a poster why they believe/think/accept something after the poster has repeatedly posted their belief/position is as disruptive to a thread as dumping links with no discussion.

If poster A has explained something a number of times, that is what they believe, what they think, what they interpret from data available to them. Asking poster A same question 25 more times isn't going to change that. So stop repeatedly asking

I point you again at

• 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 (short of soapboxing). Remember: many users read, but do not post, and may be interested in reading your opinions - so the opinion of 2 or 3 other prolific posters is rarely meaningful, and should neither be seen as a victory or a threat.

It's tedious. Stop it.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119408527#Comment_119408527

I included Table 2, which is the data set representing:

Vaccine effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2 infection of any severity up to 9 months after full vaccination (>14 days after the second dose) by number of days after the second dose

I highlighted the line showing Total Cohort Study (any vaccine). The words 'any vaccine' is important.

This is the table which underlies the graph:

https://www.thelancet.com/action/showFullTableHTML?isHtml=true&tableId=tbl2&pii=S0140-6736%2822%2900089-7

You will note that there is only 1 single row in the entire table showing a negative figure, the last line for "ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 subcohort". That is the name of the Astrazeneca vaccine.

So nowhere does the report show that effectiveness for 'all vaccines' was negative after 9 months.

The graph has appended the findings for AZ onto the findings for all vaccines \ combination of vaccines. That is all.

I will further note that if you look at the data in the row, the data set is significantly smaller than the others.

• Number of individuals = 53060
• Vaccinated Number of events = 86
• Vaccinated Incidence per 100 000 person-days = 1.6
• Vaccinated Number of events = 26
• Vaccinated Incidence per 100 000 person-days = 1.4

So there were 86 cases in people vaccinated with AZ only 8 months later versus 26 for unvaccinated. 60 cases difference out of fifty thousand people! Which can easily be explained away with reference the study limitations e.g. to my above points on who the people vaccinated with AZ were in Sweden in early 2021.

By contrast these are the figures for the Total Cohort Study, Any Vaccine, over the entire study:

• Number of individuals = 1,685,948
• Vaccinated Number of events = 6,147
• Vaccinated Incidence per 100 000 person-days = 4.9
• Vaccinated Number of events = 21,771
• Vaccinated Incidence per 100 000 person-days = 31.6
• Difference in Events = 15,600

I suggest the scale of these figures accounts for the author's comment on the study:

"Vaccination is therefore very wise and important."

* In light of mod comments, this is my last attempt at clarifying the figures for you. But any further statements of fact about negative effectiveness, or that the report supports the position better to be unvaccinated / vaccines weaken immunity will be challenged

sydthebeat

The problem with this thread is there was never a conspiracy presented in the first place.

No one claimed the vaccines were 100% safe, though this is constantly suggested by the anti vax side.

The fact that the effectiveness of the vaccine wanes is nothing new either. See flu vaccines each flu season, or tetanus shots every ten years etc.

The anti vax side want so bad to find some kind of global conspiracy behind the vaccines and the pandemic, but none of them have the necessary to come out and admit that's their view, because it's so easily countered

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119408759#Comment_119408759

We’re clearly going around in circles, and given the mod comments, I think it is best if we agree to disagree, so I will leave it at that.

snowcat

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119408858#Comment_119408858

Its exactly the same on the other side. The extreme pro vaxxers believe that the vaccines are overwhelmingly safe for all age groups, that they should be given to everyone even not at risk groups. That there will not be any long term effects even though there is no way of determining this. That they substantially reduce transmission. That the cost of billions/trillions is worth it. Me personally am not an anti vaxxer in general and believe the only conspiracy is pharma greed which is nothing new in that business. The almost religious respect for the vaccines and pharma is more of a conspiracy to me.

Fighting Tao

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119410456#Comment_119410456

Scientists can be very certain that the vaccines are safe in the long term. Here is an easily accessible (understood) article on it. There is decades of experience and evidence to back it up. Yet again, read this thread as you seem forgetful to previous replies to your concern. Much has been provided that covers this.

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-60468900.amp

snowcat

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119410460#Comment_119410460

https://www.science.org/content/article/thousands-report-unusual-menstruation-patterns-after-covid-19-vaccination

Now I'm not a doctor but it does not take a doctor to work out that anything that disrupts the menstrual cycle even in the short term will also effect fertility. The impact in men would not be as obvious and we will see what happens with fertility rates long term.

sydthebeat

Aisprin effects menstrual cycles.

Stress effects menstrual cycles.

The COVID 19 virus itself effects menstrual cycles.

It's obvious you're not a doctor

snowcat

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119410489#Comment_119410489

Are you a doctor? Its good either way that you acknowledge the mRNA vax can effect menstrual cycle/fertility. I remember Luke O'Neill about a year and a half ago once stating there was no possible mechanism that the vaxx could effect menstrual cycles. Experts are not right all the time.

Fighting Tao

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119410497#Comment_119410497

What is it with anti-vaxxers asking me what I work at?

Menstrual cycles were covered only a few pages back. Is there really a need to try and reintroduce it? It seems premature that the circle has completed again.

snowcat

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119410499#Comment_119410499

Im only here occasionally so did not read it. I presume its the usual EPV rhetoric of,

1. Its not possible
2. Lots of other things could be causing it.
3. OK. It might be happening but the chances of it happening are tiny.
4. You would be worse off with Covid
5. So take the goddam drug.

Fighting Tao

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119410520#Comment_119410520

I’m not here to rehash pages of discussion for you. You can read back a couple of pages to catch up. It won’t take long.