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

Covid vaccines - thread banned users in First Post

1107108110112113251

Comments

  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,174 ✭✭✭hometruths


    They also don't mention the conspiracy claims that there's secret microchips in the vaccines thay have been causing rashes of magnetism "as an impossibity".

    Why didn't they mention that as an impossibility? Does the fact they don't mean that such a thing is suddenly possible or plausible?

    If you think this is a credible argument it's no wonder you believe that the rates in the unvaccinated are likely to be lower this week because they are more likely to have caught covid in previous weeks when they were simultaneously less likely to have caught covid because of lower exposure.

    You should stick to debating the microchip gang, where you can hold your own by calling them names. You're out of your depth now, and it shows.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    This one appears to have originated from Alex Jones.... Two major things mentioned in the article. Firstly, it's non replicating so it can't grow. Secondly, monkeypox is primarily carried by rodents. Not monkeys. So seeming like a pretty weak conspiracy with zero basis in reality. Please don't get annoyed and start insulting us now. 😂




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,329 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Lol it's your argument man. You claimed that because they didn't mention it as an impossibility it must mean it's a possibility.

    I'm just highlighting how silly your argument is when you apply it to the conspiracy theories you don't subscribe to.


    My argument is that the report does not mention it as a possibility or a concern. If it was a possibility or a concern they'd mention it in a report about the safety and effectiveness of the vaccines. I don't understand why they wouldn't. Can you explain why they wouldn't mention it?


    The other part of my argument is me pointing out that you can't provide any reputable source that raises the possibility as an explanation for the data. You can't show any other indications beyond your personal conclusion about the data which doesn't agree with the reports or the authors conclusions.


    So what exactly is the difference between your fanciful argument based nothing but your personal paranoia and bad2thebones?

    I'm not seeing much of a separation there in terms of beliefs or tactics



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,442 ✭✭✭bad2thebone


    I see you're a big fan of Alex Jones. Who would have thought it.

    How come I've read about monkey pox coming from monkeys then.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,901 ✭✭✭✭astrofool


    It's all in the weekly reports, UK has them documented to a very in depth level.

    If you disagree with the UK scientists, say so and present your hypothesis instead.

    You are claiming vaccines don't work despite mountains of data to the contrary.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,329 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    He won't just say that he believes all of those scientists are involved in a conspiracy. He knows that will tank his paper thin veneer of reasonablness.

    But he's cornered since he can't claim to know better than them.

    So fully expect a dodge and more ignoring. Possibly with a stroppy declaration that he's "done with the discussion cause he's proven his point" or some such.



  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,174 ✭✭✭hometruths


    As I have pointed out yes I do disagree agree with the scientists on the assumptions they include in the caveat. I understand that you think the assumptions are not contradictory and are in fact plausible. My hypothesis is that their assumptions are contradictory. I have repeated this a few times.

    For example I think it is contradictory that the unvaccinated are less likely to get tested because they are less health conscious yet more likely to reduced exposure to Covid because they actively avoid social interactions.

    Similiarly I think it is contradictory to suggest that the rates in the unvaccinated are lower this week because they are more likely to have caught covid in previous weeks when they were simultaneously less likely to have caught covid because of lower exposure.

    I find these assumptions implausible, and given that nobody has provided a plausible explanation, I think using these assumptions as part of vaccine effectiveness analysis is likely to be garbage in, garbage out.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,329 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Ok. Why are these scientists wrong while you are right?

    Are you just better at their job at them, or are they lying?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,705 ✭✭✭whippet


    In fairness he did say

    I think it is contradictory

    and

    Similiarly I think it is contradictory to suggest that

    Which is just his opinion - based on .. nothing more than his opinion. So it is not being claimed by anyone else. Thankfully we have scientists and actual experts making the decisions .. not people who have hunches and gut feelings about stuff rather than data.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,329 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    But still if it actually is contradictory, then it wouldn't make sense for scientists to support it.

    And since he won't accept that he might just be wrong because of ignorance and bias, it must be that the scientists are wrong.

    So I'm curious what he thinks is happening. Are the scientists claiming something wrong because they're too dumb to see it, while he, some rando on the internet with zero expertise did?

    Or is he claiming that they are deliberately lying?



  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,174 ✭✭✭hometruths


    So you disagree with my opinion, fair enough what is yours?

    Take these two caveats for example:

    • People who are fully vaccinated and people who are unvaccinated may behave differently, particularly with regard to social interactions and therefore may have differing levels of exposure to COVID-19.
    • People who have never been vaccinated are more likely to have caught COVID-19 in the weeks or months before the period of the cases covered in the report. This gives them some natural immunity to the virus for a few months which may have contributed to a lower case rate in the past few weeks.

    I think it is contradictory to suggest that the rates in the unvaccinated are lower this week because they are more likely to have caught covid in previous weeks when they were simultaneously less likely to have caught covid because of lower exposure.

    Do you disagree? If you think I have misunderstood the meaning of the plain English, please do let me know your interpretation?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,901 ✭✭✭✭astrofool



    For example I think it is contradictory that the unvaccinated are less likely to get tested because they are less health conscious yet more likely to reduced exposure to Covid because they actively avoid social interactions.

    Why are the unvaccinated avoiding social interactions? Cases measure verified tests, those who are unvaccinated and refuse to get a jab are also less likely to go and get tested so won't be included in the numbers even when infected.

    NPHET and similar authorities have models that include the actual estimated numbers that they used for managing the pandemic, those numbers can be double the recorded case count (which can also be limited by testing capacity).

    Similiarly I think it is contradictory to suggest that the rates in the unvaccinated are lower this week because they are more likely to have caught covid in previous weeks when they were simultaneously less likely to have caught covid because of lower exposure.

    But that is precisely what they are saying due to the antibody coverage that proves it's the case. ~85% are covered by vaccines, another 13% have caught it knowingly or unknowingly. Those that test positive after vaccination are more likely to be older and vulnerable thus more likely to get tested than the unvaccinated who skew younger and fitter overall (even though deaths skew a decade younger in the unvaccinated despite their smaller numbers).

    Your assumptions are making no sense.



  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,174 ✭✭✭hometruths


    Why are the unvaccinated avoiding social interactions?

    In the whole I don't think they are any more or less likely to avoid social interactions. That's what the caveats are suggesting:

    • People who are fully vaccinated and people who are unvaccinated may behave differently, particularly with regard to social interactions and therefore may have differing levels of exposure to COVID-19.




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,705 ✭✭✭whippet


    I've no intention of taking another spin on your merry go round of mental gymnastics.

    I've told you before - My opinion is meaningless (yes - I am willing to accept that as an unqualified person) .. however - I do take my wife's opinion very seriously as she has 20 years of professional expertise in the area and the educational history to back it up.

    And - her opinion is totally at odds with yours.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,329 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    But why are the scientists claiming such a blatant contradiction in your opinion?

    You aren't smarter than they are, nor do you have access to better information or expertise.

    They can't be part of a conspiracy to lie about stuff, as that's an asinine and childish suggestion.

    So which is it? Why are you suddenly avoiding this question?



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,174 ✭✭✭hometruths


    And - her opinion is totally at odds with yours

    She believes that the rates in the unvaccinated are lower this week because they are more likely to have caught covid in previous weeks when they were simultaneously less likely to have caught covid because of lower exposure?

    And they had lower exposure in those previous weeks because they were more careful about taking risks of Covid exposure, yet simultaneously they were less likely to get tested because they were less health conscious?!

    Good for her. It takes all sorts.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,705 ✭✭✭whippet


    bingo - you are a genius. Dimond in the rough. Well done you



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,329 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    I do take my wife's opinion very seriously as she has 20 years of professional expertise in the area and the educational history to back it up.

    Yea, but he gets his opinions from guys on twitter, so clearly his opinion is much more trustworthy.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,705 ✭✭✭whippet


    I know ... I've just going to have to have that conversation with the wife and tell her she has wasted two decades of her life as someone called 'home truths' has figured it all out from twitter. She will be gutted. She will probably pull pin on the career and get a stress free job in the local cafe.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,329 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    That is if she isn't just pulling in all the conspiracy money she gets from Bill Gates to push the vaccines...



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,841 ✭✭✭✭Igotadose




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,442 ✭✭✭bad2thebone


    To top it off you should have decorated it with a dash of yellow over the other eye, that way you can add your Ukraine decorations. Have you still yours up ?

    I think it's funny no problem whatsoever with the bants. But if someone posted something similar with two bats,I'm sure you guys would be hopping up and down ;)



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,442 ✭✭✭bad2thebone


    Well wherever you're getting paid from it must be good, you've been posting some amount of shoite here since the posting began.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,705 ✭✭✭whippet




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,442 ✭✭✭bad2thebone


    Follow your gut....I'm sure you're quite intelligent



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,329 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Lol. I'm not getting paid man. Don't be a child. The government isn't out to get you. You aren't rebelling against evil government agents.

    You're dreaming up this notion that we're getting paid because it helps you with your cute little fantasy. But I assure you, it only makes you and your fellow conspiracy theorists look ridiculous.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,442 ✭✭✭bad2thebone


    Well you think I'm ridiculous anyhow, you've been making that clear enough. They're not my fellow's either,as you put it before we're your guests. It's your thread :)



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,329 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Yes, cause you believe that people who disagree with your beliefs have to be government agents.

    You either genuinely believe this, and thus are very paranoid and very ridiculous.

    Or you're just throwing it out as part of this silly extended tantrum you're doing, which is also ridiculous.


    So who exactly pays me, and how much do I get? Am I on shift work, or...?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,442 ✭✭✭bad2thebone


    I'd say you're on so much for each rebuttal, not as much as the other lads because they're better at getting their point across.

    You like to give people a map of locations which are all mixed up and they have to figure out where they're supposed to be going, and where they are.

    Everything is twisted around, and I'f you were a barrister I'd hire you for defense, but I'd hate to have you on the other side.

    Have you ever thought of studying law, in fairness you'd be great in the bar.

    Are you a Kerry man by any chance ?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,329 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Lol Not even an attempt to answer my questions.

    You were pretty brave to start throwing around accusations and making shite up.

    Second you're challenged though...


    So how much am I paid for each rebuttal? Who by?

    Come on man, you're making this all up, why be shy about your fantasies now?



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,442 ✭✭✭bad2thebone


    You're not answering my questions either. Anyhow it's none of my business what you're getting. It's ignorant to talk about money. What's yours is your's and you earned it well.

    Posting in work time while getting paid for something else is still a payment.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,329 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Lol. But dude, you're just making it all up any way. It's all in your head because you can't accept that people might just disagree with you and might not buy into the grifts you do.

    So why not just make up who I'm working for and how much I'm being paid?

    Are you suddenly reluctant to speculate cause you didn't think that far and don't actually have any special insight? Was it that your accusation is literally just the base level "you're a shill!" and nothing else?

    That's a little pathetic man.

    At least have the spine to really believe your fantasies.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Pretty bold statement from someone who considers ultra-Conman Alex Jones his hero. Takes all sorts I s'pose



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,442 ✭✭✭bad2thebone



    Do ye want a slagging match guy's I'm all for banter, considering that's all we do slag each other off and call each other names.

    I'm pretty much up for it, I love a good slagging match.

    You're taking everything seriously, Kingmob takes it to heart I'm suggesting he's a paid infiltrator, you're his little bitch Shifty...

    Come on let's go ????



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,767 ✭✭✭Pinch Flat


    It's funny (to the point of embarrassingly funny) the stuff you guys parrot.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,442 ✭✭✭bad2thebone


    Better than being lead by the carrots, heeere haweee



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,901 ✭✭✭✭astrofool


    OK, let's break it down, go back to the report you got this snippet from:

    People who are fully vaccinated and people who are unvaccinated may behave differently, particularly with regard to social interactions and therefore may have differing levels of exposure to COVID-19.

    Noting that it doesn't say "more or less" just "differently".

    A different behaviour also includes not getting tested (which we know occurs already among the unvaccinated).

    In the early days of the rollout, the unvaccinated did behave differently, the majority did avoid social gatherings etc. until they got vaccinated.



  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,174 ✭✭✭hometruths


    Great, let's break it down.

    Noting that it doesn't say "more or less" just "differently".

    Noted. Which is one of the reasons I said the caveats are not scientific, they're deliberately vague trying to cover all bases.

    But given they point this out a possible explainer as to why rates in the vaccinated showed up higher than the unvaccinated, it is logical to conclude that the differing behaviour results in the unvaccinated have a lower exposure to Covid.

    A different behaviour also includes not getting tested (which we know occurs already among the unvaccinated).

    They have already dealt with that caveat in the first point, the propensity for getting tested in the unvaccinated is unrelated to any reason for differing levels of Covid in the unvaccinated, at least according to the structure of this sentence.

    In the early days of the rollout, the unvaccinated did behave differently, the majority did avoid social gatherings etc. until they got vaccinated.

    Yes, that is true. Because in the early days of the roll out the unvaccinated included people who couldn't wait to get their vaccination, some of whom endured a self enforced lock down counting the days off until they were eligible to be vaccinated.

    But they were still publishing these caveats in Mar 2022 when I think it's fair to say every person who wanted to and was eligible to receive a vaccine had already done so. Most of the eligible but unvaccinated at that point were antivaxxers.

    Are you saying that the known behaviours of the not yet vaccinated in early 2021 during the third wave which represented the worst of Covid should be assumed equal to the behaviours of the anti vaxxers in February 2022 riding out the tail end of the wave in which Omicron became dominant?

    If so, that's even less credible than what we started with before we broke it down.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,901 ✭✭✭✭astrofool


    As said, supply the original document and we can take a look.

    Those elaborations were added many months ago, so may not have been updated (when they then switched to a more scientific measurement than voluntarily reported case counts).



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,174 ✭✭✭hometruths


    Here is one from 2nd February - shows higher vaccination rates in the vaccinated than unvaccinated. This trend goes back to about September/October of last year, but unfortunately they no longer list the weekly links.

    https://publichealthscotland.scot/media/13192/22-02-02-covid19-winter_publication_report.pdf



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    This is pretty much the exact same thing your previous account said when he was losing his rag...



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,442 ✭✭✭bad2thebone


    You can pick it up and wipe away those tears, man up will you and stop being such a moaning Myrtle



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,901 ✭✭✭✭astrofool


    Ok, so a couple of pages in explaining the changes in testing that would now skew towards the vulnerable:

    . The number of confirmed cases is likely to be an underestimate of the total number who have, or have had, COVID-19. A person can have multiple tests but will only ever be counted once. The drop in the number of confirmed cases at weekends likely reflects that laboratories are doing fewer tests at the weekend. On 05 January 2022, the Scottish Government announced that asymptomatic people who return a positive lateral flow test (LFT) would no longer have to confirm their positive result with a PCR test.

    Omicron reinfections which hits the unvaccinated more than the vaccinated (due to vaccines broad defence):

    More recently, however, the monthly proportion of reinfections has risen to 6.4% in December 2021 and 9.8% in January 2022, coinciding with a rapid increase of the Omicron variant in Scotland. Evidence suggests that the Omicron variant is associated with increased risk of reinfection3. 

    Moving to voluntary testing for most of the population:

    On 05 January 2022, the Scottish Government announced that people who do not have symptoms would no longer be asked to take a polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test to confirm a positive Lateral Flow Device (LFD) result. Instead, anyone with a positive LFD, who does not have symptoms, should report the result online as soon as the test is done. In order to ensure that we continue to provide the most accurate information, changes have been made to the national COVID-19 case definition to reflect this revised testing strategy. 

    Change in policy around contact tracing that will again drop the numbers who test unless vulnerable:

    Scotland’s approach to contact tracing has continued to adapt throughout the pandemic to reflect changing circumstances, variability in cases, and increasing proportion of the population fully vaccinated since the roll out of the vaccination programme. The most recent Strategic Framework issued by the Scottish Government in November 2021 sets out how Scotland will continue to adapt now that we are in the phase described as “beyond level zero”

    Specific callout on reading the data:

    There is a large risk of misinterpretation of the data presented in this section due to the complexities of vaccination data. A blog post by the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA), formerly Public Health England (PHE), provides a comprehensive explanation of the biases and potential areas for misinterpretation of such data. They state that a simple comparison of COVID-19 case rates in those who are vaccinated and unvaccinated should not be used to assess how effective a vaccine is in preventing serious health outcomes, because there are a number of differences between the groups, other than the vaccine itself, and these biases mean that you cannot use the rates to determine how well the vaccines work.

    Another warning about how to read the data with links to controlled studies for those hard of understanding:

    Data and rates presented in this section are not a measure of vaccine effectiveness Vaccine effectiveness is a scientific method used to measure how well a vaccine protects people against outcomes such as infection, symptoms, hospitalisation and death in the ‘realworld’. Unlike case rates, vaccine effectiveness analysis accounts for potential biases in the data and risk factors such as age, sex, prior infection, co-morbidities, socio-economic status, and time since vaccination. This method is the most robust way to measure if a vaccine is working. The data and rates presented in this section do not account for biases and risk factors and should not be used to measure vaccine effectiveness. We include links to vaccine effectiveness studies below.

    Specific callout on what I've said that will skew confirmed cases towards those vulnerable to COVID and also the prevalance of antibodies (previous infection) among the population (interesting that you always left that bit out):

    There are likely to be systematic differences and biases between the vaccinated and unvaccinated groups, such as behaviour, vulnerability and previous infection that are unaccounted for when comparing rates. As most of the population is vaccinated, these differences become more evident and could create bias in case/hospitalisation/death rates between vaccinated and unvaccinated population. For example, people who are vaccinated may be more likely to have health seeking behaviour and follow other government guidance such as regular testing and reporting for COVID-19, which makes them more likely to be identified as a case than unvaccinated people, resulting in higher case rates in the vaccinated population.

    Again, the vulnerable vaccinated more likely to count as a case:

    For example, some of the older individuals who have exceeded the recommended time will have not received their next vaccine dose because of frailty or ill health. They are, therefore, more likely to be hospitalised or die if they get COVID-19.

    One of the linked studies on Vaccine effectiveness:

    UKHSA publish a summary of current vaccine effectiveness in their weekly COVID-19 vaccine surveillance report. The latest evidence can be found below which suggests the COVID-19 booster/third dose vaccine lowers your risk of a severe outcome compared to the second dose.

    Again, a warning about the change in policy around cases (almost like they expected some eejits to misinterpret the data):

    Case rates have declined and subsequently plateaued in the last three weeks from 08 January 2022 to 28 January 2022. Caution should be taken when interpreting recent case trends due to the change in policy from 06 January 2022 where an asymptomatic individual who tests positive via a LFD test is not required to take a confirmatory PCR test. This section of the report only includes PCR confirmed COVID-19 cases and does not include cases confirmed by a LFD test.

    More evidence of vaccine effectiveness:

    In the last week from 22 January 2022 to 28 January 2022, in an age-standardised population, the rate of COVID-19 related acute hospital admissions in individuals that received a booster or third dose of a COVID-19 vaccine was between 3.4 to 4.0 times lower than in individuals who are unvaccinated or have only received one or two doses of a COVID-19 vaccine. 

    Another link to a study on Vaccine effectiveness:

    Analyses from Scotland show that the booster and third dose of the COVID-19 vaccines are associated with 57% reduced risk of symptomatic infection with the Omicron variant compared to those who are more than 25 weeks post-second dose of COVID-19 vaccine.

    And then the table, which, as I said, has the unvaccinated more likely to have the higher % of cases and then after the change in how they measure cases came in during early January, the vaccinated become the higher number per 100k (with the number of cases also dropping dramatically).

    And then another final warning about the data confirming all the above just for those still determined to misinterpret the data:

    The number of PCR confirmed COVID-19 cases and case rates have declined in the last week from 21 January 2022 to 28 January 2022. Caution should be taken when interpreting recent case trends due to the change in policy from 06 January 2022 where an asymptomatic individual who tests positive via a LFD test is not required to take a confirmatory PCR test.

    For god's sake, how can you read that document and come to the conclusion you have, being deceitful about what it says and ignoring everything therein bar one table.

    You should be ashamed of yourself, hopefully you're just doing this for fun and you're not taking it seriously.

    I'm 99% sure you'll ignore this analysis anyway and continue the charade.

    Q.E.D.



  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,174 ✭✭✭hometruths


    Edit: thank you for the time you took in a detailed reply, whilst I disagree with most of it, it is appreciated and far more conducive to sensible debate rather than wittering on about microchips!

    Ok, so a couple of pages in explaining the changes in testing that would now skew towards the vulnerable:

    . The number of confirmed cases is likely to be an underestimate of the total number who have, or have had, COVID-19. A person can have multiple tests but will only ever be counted once. The drop in the number of confirmed cases at weekends likely reflects that laboratories are doing fewer tests at the weekend. On 05 January 2022, the Scottish Government announced that asymptomatic people who return a positive lateral flow test (LFT) would no longer have to confirm their positive result with a PCR test.

    The first bit deals with the fact that if you 50,000 people test positive, the total number of true cases, irrespective of vaccination status, will higher. It does nothing to explain why the rate of vaccinated cases in the confirmed cases is higher. The number of cases was higher in the vaccinated vs unvaccinated in November/December as well, all we see in January is a drop in total PCR cases. This does not explain why it was higher in the vaccinated pre 5th January.

    Omicron reinfections which hits the unvaccinated more than the vaccinated (due to vaccines broad defence):

    More recently, however, the monthly proportion of reinfections has risen to 6.4% in December 2021 and 9.8% in January 2022, coinciding with a rapid increase of the Omicron variant in Scotland. Evidence suggests that the Omicron variant is associated with increased risk of reinfection3. 

    Again this has nothing to do with confirmed case rates being higher in the vaccinated or the unvaccinated. Whether a confirmed case is an Omicron reinfection or not does not explain why the rates differ so markedly and consistently.

    Moving to voluntary testing for most of the population:

    On 05 January 2022, the Scottish Government announced that people who do not have symptoms would no longer be asked to take a polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test to confirm a positive Lateral Flow Device (LFD) result. Instead, anyone with a positive LFD, who does not have symptoms, should report the result online as soon as the test is done. In order to ensure that we continue to provide the most accurate information, changes have been made to the national COVID-19 case definition to reflect this revised testing strategy. 

    Again see the first point - the move to voluntary testing using Lateral Flow tests does not explains why the "PCR confirmed COVID-19 age-standardised case rate per 100,000 individuals by vaccine status" is higher in the vaccinated than the unvaccinated. Even if you argue it skews the numbers, it does not explain why the rates pre 5th January.

    You also make no mention of the fact, and neither do the Public Health Scotland, that this was a period in which the unvaccinated were incentivised to get a PCR test rather than a Lateral Flow because of the use of recovery certs as an alternative to vaccine certs. You could only get a recovery cert from a PCR positive, which is likely to skew the numbers towards the unvaccinated being more likely to get tested, not less.

    Change in policy around contact tracing that will again drop the numbers who test unless vulnerable:

    Scotland’s approach to contact tracing has continued to adapt throughout the pandemic to reflect changing circumstances, variability in cases, and increasing proportion of the population fully vaccinated since the roll out of the vaccination programme. The most recent Strategic Framework issued by the Scottish Government in November 2021 sets out how Scotland will continue to adapt now that we are in the phase described as “beyond level zero”

    That's just a couple of sentences patting themselves on the back. Are you say they are are going to change it in the future and it will affect the numbers, or they have constantly been adapting since November, or they did it last week. I accept that changes in policy in contact tracing will affect numbers, but there is nothing in there to suggest what, why, how or when they intend to change the policy and what impact it will have?

    Specific callout on reading the data:

    There is a large risk of misinterpretation of the data presented in this section due to the complexities of vaccination data. A blog post by the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA), formerly Public Health England (PHE), provides a comprehensive explanation of the biases and potential areas for misinterpretation of such data. They state that a simple comparison of COVID-19 case rates in those who are vaccinated and unvaccinated should not be used to assess how effective a vaccine is in preventing serious health outcomes, because there are a number of differences between the groups, other than the vaccine itself, and these biases mean that you cannot use the rates to determine how well the vaccines work.

    This is obviously very relevant as it is exactly what I have been discussing. The caveats warning against "a large risk of misinterpretation of the data presented in this section" - here is the link to the comprehensive explanation - https://ukhsa.blog.gov.uk/2021/11/02/transparency-and-data-ukhsas-vaccines-report/

    And the comprehensive explanation from that blog post is:

    Several important factors can affect the rates of diagnosed COVID-19 cases and this may result in a lower rate in unvaccinated than in vaccinated people. For example:

    • People who are fully vaccinated may be more health conscious and therefore more likely to get tested for COVID-19 and so more likely to be identified as a case (based on the data provided by the NHS Test and Trace).
    • Many of those who were at the head of the queue for vaccination are those at higher risk from COVID-19 due to their age, their occupation, their family circumstances or because of underlying health issues.
    • People who are fully vaccinated and people who are unvaccinated may behave differently, particularly with regard to social interactions and therefore may have differing levels of exposure to COVID-19.
    • People who have never been vaccinated are more likely to have caught COVID-19 in the weeks or months before the period of the cases covered in the report. This gives them some natural immunity to the virus for a few months which may have contributed to a lower case rate in the past few weeks.

    You'll notice that three out of four of these are the exactly the explanations I have said are not credible. We have discussed them and by way of explanation you suggested they mean that known behaviours of the unvaccinated in 2021 would be similiar to those in 2022, which is how we got to these lengthy posts.

    The rest of your post is largely more of the same, "a warning about the change in policy around cases (almost like they expected some eejits to misinterpret the data)", for example once again:

    The number of PCR confirmed COVID-19 cases and case rates have declined in the last week from 21 January 2022 to 28 January 2022. Caution should be taken when interpreting recent case trends due to the change in policy from 06 January 2022 where an asymptomatic individual who tests positive via a LFD test is not required to take a confirmatory PCR test.

    The easiest way to deal with the rest this is point out that none of these policy changes explain the why "the Age-standardised case rate per 100,000 individuals by week and vaccination status, 11 December 2021 to 07 January 2022"

    If all of your points to explain the higher case rates in the vaccinated are concerned with a policy change in numbers in January 2022, how do you explain the above numbers pre January 2022?

    And whilst we're on the subject what is the credible explanation for the fact the English vaccinated also tested positive at a higher rate than the unvaccinated from November 2020:

    Please note that the following table should be read in conjunction with pages 26-28 of this report, and the footnotes provided on page 34.

    And on one of the few bits of your "analysis" that does deflect with policy changes, I know I shouldn't rise to the bait but I will.

    More evidence of vaccine effectiveness:

    In the last week from 22 January 2022 to 28 January 2022, in an age-standardised population, the rate of COVID-19 related acute hospital admissions in individuals that received a booster or third dose of a COVID-19 vaccine was between 3.4 to 4.0 times lower than in individuals who are unvaccinated or have only received one or two doses of a COVID-19 vaccine. 

    Hospital admission for a disease is not evidence of an effective vaccine intended to prevent that disease. Quite the opposite!



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,901 ✭✭✭✭astrofool


    You're fooling yourself, again, no acknowledgement of the numerous paragraphs dedicated towards the message not to use the data like you are trying to use it.

    Again see the first point - the move to voluntary testing using Lateral Flow tests does not explains why the "PCR confirmed COVID-19 age-standardised case rate per 100,000 individuals by vaccine status" is higher in the vaccinated than the unvaccinated. Even if you argue it skews the numbers, it does not explain why the rates pre 5th January.

    It does, it literally does as explained to you in terms a horse could understand by now.

    From the blog post, you posted, the 4 points are credible, and proof of such has also been provided (high antibody levels due to infection, those vaccinated likely to be more vulnerable to COVID and thus test more).

    But even with those caveats, it still says:

    Data on COVID-19 hospitalisations and deaths is much less prone to bias, as testing is more complete, and so it is more valid to compare rates for these severe outcomes. But even so a properly conducted analysis is much more reliable, as explained above.

    Explaining why they moved to outcomes.

    And within the outcomes, even with those vaccinated being more vulnerable to COVID, on average, we still see % more unvaccinated in hospital with COVID and dying with COVID.

    Your posit that vaccines don't work is completely and entirely false, everything you have built your narrative on has been proven untrue.

    And as expected, you are completely ignoring all evidence and studies to the contrary and remain wilfully ignorant.

    Hospital admission for a disease is not evidence of an effective vaccine intended to prevent that disease. Quite the opposite!

    It literally is, as was explained in super patronising fashion to you.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,329 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    As I said. It can't be explained to him because he won't accept any explanation that isn't anti-vaxx. Wasted effort and exactly the same shite we see cheerful pulling all the time.

    "I don't understand, I refuse to understand. Therefore it's a conspiracy."



  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,174 ✭✭✭hometruths


    You're fooling yourself, again, no acknowledgement of the numerous paragraphs dedicated towards the message not to use the data like you are trying to use it.

    This is exactly why this is a totally pointless argument, because no matter what you argue, ultimately you keep coming back to this - they have told you not to interpret the data as an indicator that the rates in the vaccinated are higher than the unvaccinated, therefore do as your told, they are smarter than you. Case closed.

    I have shown you why the "comprehensive explanation of the biases", that is cited as a go to for more info, the reasons not to misinterpret the data, on every and single English and Scottish data release which showed case rates higher in the vaccinated for about 6 months, is not credible.

    When you actually tried to explain to me why you think this specific comprehensive explanation is in fact credible, you tried to use the behaviours of the unvaccinated in January 2021 as a factor in how the unvaccinated would behave in 2022:

    In the early days of the rollout, the unvaccinated did behave differently, the majority did avoid social gatherings etc. until they got vaccinated.

    That's totally ridiculous, and rather neatly demonstrates my point that this "comprehensive explanation of the biases" is not credible, because nobody who has attempted to try and explain its credibility has managed to do so.

    No amount of deflection about the fact that they moved to lateral flow tests in January 2022 or that the vaccine is performing better at other outcomes changes this fact.

    Are you able to at least acknowledge that a policy change to increase lateral flow tests in January 2022 is has no impact on the credibility of a comprehensive explanation published in November 2022?

    Post edited by hometruths on


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,329 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Why are they telling people this?

    Are they lying or have you just figured out something they haven't?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,442 ✭✭✭bad2thebone


    @hometruths it's pointless being respectful towards these provaxxers , pharma lovers, because they have no respect whatsoever for us sceptics.

    You have posted very cordial and relaxed responses and all your getting back is digs and they're being patronizing.

    They're saying we talk shite, these people are extremely old school and don't know how to conduct themselves in society let alone an internet discussion.

    It's probably better not to lower yourself to their level, but they have no level of due regard or due respect for others.

    They don't understand how to conduct themselves while addressing others.

    With the likes of them, I learned through experience that they're lacking individuality and like a pack of wolves they work in groups.

    They're not going to leave here and they will do anything in their power to stop anyone from saying anything bad about the drug's they trust and I know as well as you do that the drug's don't work as advertised.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,329 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    I thought it was because we were being paid/were the same person?



  • Advertisement
Advertisement