Advertisement
Boards are fundraising to help the people of Ukraine via the Red Cross at this horrific time. Please donate and share if you can, you will find the link here. Many thanks.

Covid vaccines safety

1115116118120121201

Comments

  • Registered Users, Subscribers Posts: 3,952 ✭✭✭ hometruths


    Thanks, not reading the entire piece makes sense, but I must say I have no idea why missing the footnote or the assumption that the author of the piece was in a related field would explain why you failed to notice exactly the same things you objected to when you thought they were my words.

    Unless of course there was an element of cognitive bias involved in your reading of the the article - cognitive biases being a natural human tendency resulting from the mental shortcuts (‘heuristics’) we use subconsciously to process information.

    To answer your question, I'm interested in the detail of Covid rather than the headlines, so yes I do read the BMJ website Covid section on a regular basis, as I do the Lancet, our own HSE/HSPC releases and data, as well of those of the UK government.



  • Registered Users Posts: 13,778 ✭✭✭✭ Dohnjoe


    Right, cognitive bias, says the poster who picks a very juicy outlier from the consensus to side with

    What is the consensus of the Lancet, HSE, UK gov, experts, etc on the safety of Covid vaccines?



  • Registered Users, Subscribers Posts: 3,952 ✭✭✭ hometruths


    What is the consensus of the Lancet, HSE, UK gov, experts, etc on the safety of Covid vaccines?

    Unquestionably and indisputably safe.



  • Registered Users Posts: 13,778 ✭✭✭✭ Dohnjoe




  • Registered Users, Subscribers Posts: 3,952 ✭✭✭ hometruths


    I don't know if they are safe for sure, I'm not convinced anybody does. I am pretty sure they are not unquestionably safe.

    My issue with the vaccines is that the blind faith in their efficacy at preventing infection and transmission in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary calls into question the blind faith in their safety.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 22,152 ✭✭✭✭ King Mob


    So all of those experts who disagree with you are all lying? Are they just not as good at medicine as you?



  • Registered Users Posts: 13,778 ✭✭✭✭ Dohnjoe


    No one is saying vaccines are 1000% safe. Not the Lancet, not anyone. If you think that, then you are grossly mistaken (we've had injuries, even deaths from Covid vaccines). What they are saying is that vaccines are overwhelmingly safe.

    Again, if you think you know more than the consensus of experts on this, okay, but what information do you have that they don't?



  • Registered Users, Subscribers Posts: 3,952 ✭✭✭ hometruths


    Of course I don’t have information that the consensus of experts have, that’s ridiculous.

    i have far less information, only what is published. However a lot of what is published is very informative.

    look at the UK vaccine surveillance reports, for some time they have been publishing the covid case rates per 100k vaxxed and unvaxxed.

    those numbers have, for a few months, been showing that the vaxxed are contracting covid at a far higher rate than the unvaxxed.

    that i think is a worry.



  • Registered Users Posts: 22,152 ✭✭✭✭ King Mob


    What point are you arguing man. The safety or the effectiveness?


    In this post you only seem to be discussing the effectiveness. But a few posts ago you were arguing against its safety.

    Flip flopping like this is a pretty common anyi vaxx tactic. They switch between the two topics to keep themselves from being cornered on either.


    So do you agree with the majority of experts and organisations that state the vaccine is as safe as any other medicine? Or are they wrong about this also?



  • Registered Users Posts: 13,778 ✭✭✭✭ Dohnjoe


    I think your worry is misplaced, reading one of the latest ones they address this


    "Results

    The rate of a positive COVID-19 test varies by age and vaccination status. The rate of a positive COVID-19 test is substantially lower in vaccinated individuals compared to unvaccinated individuals up to the age of 29. In individuals aged greater than 30, the rate of a positive COVID-19 test is higher in vaccinated individuals compared to unvaccinated (Table 12). This is likely to be due to a variety of reasons, including differences in the population of vaccinated and unvaccinated people as well as differences in testing patterns.

    The rate of hospitalisation within 28 days of a positive COVID-19 test increases with age, and is substantially greater in unvaccinated individuals compared to vaccinated individuals.

    The rate of death within 28 days or within 60 days of a positive COVID-19 test increases with age, and again is substantially greater in unvaccinated individuals compared to fully vaccinated individuals.

    Interpretation of data

    These data should be considered in the context of the vaccination status of the population groups shown in the rest of this report. In the context of very high vaccine coverage in the population, even with a highly effective vaccine, it is expected that a large proportion of cases, hospitalisations and deaths would occur in vaccinated individuals, simply because a larger proportion of the population are vaccinated than unvaccinated and no vaccine is 100% effective. This is especially true because vaccination has been prioritised in individuals who are more susceptible or more at risk of severe disease. Individuals in risk groups may also be more at risk of hospitalisation or death due to non-COVID-19 causes, and thus may be hospitalised or die with COVID-19 rather than from COVID-19. The vaccination status of cases, inpatients and deaths should not be used to assess vaccine effectiveness because of differences in risk, behaviour and testing in the vaccinated and unvaccinated populations. The case rates in the vaccinated and unvaccinated populations are crude rates that do not take into account underlying statistical biases in the data. There are likely to be systematic differences between vaccinated and unvaccinated populations, for example

    testing behaviour is likely to be different between people with different vaccination status, resulting in differences in the chances of being identified as a case

    • 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 which may have contributed to a lower case rate in the past few weeks

    These biases become more evident as more people are vaccinated and the differences between the vaccinated and unvaccinated population become systematically different in ways that are not accounted for without undertaken formal analysis of vaccine effectiveness. Vaccine effectiveness has been formally estimated from a number of different sources and is described on pages 4 to 12 in this report."

    That addresses it pretty well. And on the chart below that (which I suspect you are reading) they put another big disclaimer

    "1 In the context of very high vaccine coverage in the population, even with a highly effective vaccine, it is expected that a large proportion of cases, hospitalisations and deaths would occur in vaccinated individuals, simply because a larger proportion of the population are vaccinated than unvaccinated and no vaccine is 100% effective. This is especially true because vaccination has been prioritised in individuals who are more susceptible or more at risk of severe disease. Individuals in risk groups may also be more at risk of hospitalisation or death due to non-COVID-19 causes, and thus may be hospitalised or die with COVID-19 rather than because of COVID-19."

    Does that alleviate your worry?



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 13,778 ✭✭✭✭ Dohnjoe



    A study from Jersey, where 75% of the pop is vaccinated found "unvaccinated people were between 2.2 – 3.7 times more likely to test positive for COVID-19 than those who have received at least two doses. "




  • Registered Users, Subscribers Posts: 3,952 ✭✭✭ hometruths


    No, this bit is precisely the cause of my worry:

    testing behaviour is likely to be different between people with different vaccination status, resulting in differences in the chances of being identified as a case

    • 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 which may have contributed to a lower case rate in the past few weeks

    these explanations have been used for months now, and may have been plausibleish to explain very slightly higher rates in the vaxxed than the unvaxxed? But are they credible to explain double the rates?

    So the unvaccinated, who are supposedly less health conscious, are being twice as careful now as the more health conscious vaccinated? Were they only 1.2 times as careful in late October/early November?

    But despite being so much more likely to be cautious against contracting Covid, the unvaccinated are much less likely to get themselves tested, if they do get symptoms? Notwithstanding the fact the unvaccinated are incentivized to get tested due to use of recovery certs?

    And these differing behaviours only hold true for the reporting period of the latest data, prior to that period the more cautious unvaccinated were actually "more likely to have caught COVID-19 in the weeks or months before the period of the cases covered in the report" than the more reckless vaccinated thus "this gives them some natural immunity to the virus which may have contributed to a lower case rate in the past few weeks"

    And the above continues to hold true over numerous reporting periods during which the gap between the vaccinated and unvaccinated has continued to widen?

    Do you really think that is plausible?



  • Registered Users Posts: 13,778 ✭✭✭✭ Dohnjoe


    Just checking you understand proportions (you never know on this forum). If there are 49 unvaccinated in ICU, and 51 vaccinated, that means there are many more times the number of unvaccinated in ICU than vaccinated, you understand that right?



  • Registered Users, Subscribers Posts: 3,952 ✭✭✭ hometruths


    Yes I understand that perfectly. Why do you ask?



  • Registered Users Posts: 13,778 ✭✭✭✭ Dohnjoe


    Good, and you see the rates I posted for Jersey. Unvaccinated approx 3 times more likely to contract Covid than vaccinated..



  • Registered Users Posts: 59 ✭✭ Astartes


    The very fact that countries made it impossible to sue the corporations if it destroys some of their people raises an eyebrow no?


    Why aren't they open source also? If they are so crucial for humanities survival?



  • Registered Users, Subscribers Posts: 3,952 ✭✭✭ hometruths


    But why shift the discussion from the data in the UK vaccine surveillance reports which are counted confirmed cases in a population of 70m to a link from Jersey dealing in estimates in a population of 100k?

    Are you claiming the Jersey figures are more accurate/reliable and if so, why?

    link to UK data

    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-vaccine-weekly-surveillance-reports



  • Registered Users Posts: 13,778 ✭✭✭✭ Dohnjoe


    Because I think you don't understand the statistical disclaimers all over the figures, which is what they warn about (we've also had massive issues trying to explain the VAERS and Yellow Card disclaimers, often with no success)

    So it's easier to focus on something simpler like Jersey cases

    Or recent US cases which demonstrate (again) that vaccinated are more likely to get Covid than unvaccinated, and of course dramatically reduce hospitalisation and death.




  • Registered Users, Subscribers Posts: 3,952 ✭✭✭ hometruths


    I understand the disclaimers perfectly well.

    The unvaccinated are less likely to have caught covid in this reporting period, because they caught it previously.

    oh, but we said that it previous reporting periods too.

    you never answered if you thought these explanations were plausible?



  • Registered Users Posts: 13,778 ✭✭✭✭ Dohnjoe


    The below make sense to me. Especially the last two points.


    "• testing behaviour is likely to be different between people with different vaccination status, resulting in differences in the chances of being identified as a case

    • 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 which may have contributed to a lower case rate in the past few weeks"

    As I've linked, other countries/areas are showing vaccinated individuals are less likely to get Covid than unvaccinated. So I don't share your concern on that.

    As for hospitalizations/deaths - the vaccine is a no-brainer in that regard.

    "According to the CDC, adults who are 65 and older and have received both doses of either the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine showed a 94% reduced risk of Covid-related hospitalizations."


    In terms of vaccine safety, the risks are tiny, we are seeing e.g. myocarditis basically on almost the same level as it naturally occurs (AND on top of that there are suspected caveats to those statistics)

    Again, I am looking at the same data you are, and I don't share your concerns. Neither do the experts.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 14,337 ✭✭✭✭ astrofool


    In Europe you can sue the corporations to your hearts content, surely you have a safety issue to sue them for as well?



  • Registered Users, Subscribers Posts: 3,952 ✭✭✭ hometruths


    So these are the two points that especially make sense to you:

    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 which may have contributed to a lower case rate in the past few weeks"

    so the first point is saying that the vaccinated are at increased risk of exposure to covid due to increased socializing etc because they have the confidence of their increased protection, maybe upto 90%. Notwithstanding that increased protection, this factor partly explains the higher rates amongst the vaccinated in this reporting period

    meanwhile the second point is saying, the unvaccinated who are being very cautious this reporting period, were more likely than the vaccinated to have caught covid in previous reporting periods, when the vaccinated were not taking advantage of their 90% protection and being their usual sociable selves

    and this consistently has held true for Several reporting periods

    seems legit.



  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 23,128 Mod ✭✭✭✭ robinph


    I believe that the Oxford vaccine has been made available for other manufacturers to produce if they asked for the licence. The Astra Zeneca deal was just to do with the initial roll out, but they don't have exclusive use.



  • Registered Users Posts: 7,994 ✭✭✭ Igotadose




  • Registered Users Posts: 1,116 ✭✭✭ Phishnet


    I can honestly say that I have more of an informed view of the people who are in ICU with the delta variant than you have.. My brother is a consultant that works in St James hospital in Dublin. Taking this hospital as a microcosm of what is happening nationwide, I can assure you that most of the people in ICU with covid have been there a while. Most of them before the omicron variant presented in this Country, so I acknowledge that you are an uninformed person that jumps to inane conclusions based on a fictional narrative.

    The Irish Government has eased most covid restriction because the omicron variant is not making people terribly sick, doahhh!

    Is that sinking in.....



  • Registered Users Posts: 22,152 ✭✭✭✭ King Mob


    Huh wow. Another conspiracy theorist claiming personal unverifiable experience as evidence?


    My brother and Canadian girlfriend also work in every hospital in Ireland and they say the exact opposite and they they could probably beat up your brother.


    Also a reminder you previously were assuming that you had the omicron variant based on your assumption that's what most people had. Where you just lying then or...?



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,116 ✭✭✭ Phishnet


    What are they, the car park attendants.....😂😂😂



  • Registered Users Posts: 22,152 ✭✭✭✭ King Mob


    Since we're making up things, let's say they are neurosurgeons.


    Also not sure why you're trying to insult them here. Maybe my post was a bit over your head and you think that they actually do work at a hospital?



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,116 ✭✭✭ Phishnet


    “The greatest fool may ask more than the wisest man can answer.” that’s sums you up King Mob. There is no point arguing with a fool, so I won’t waste anymore of my time arguing with someone who spends all their precious time on this thread (literally). Unless you are a paid shill, get a life before its is over.

    I will leave you with this question, think......why on God’s green earth would the Irish Government remove most covid restrictions in society in the face of a deadly pandemic, think......



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 22,152 ✭✭✭✭ King Mob


    Lol. And again, because you're in a pissy mood, you're throwing out a false accusation and insults.


    If this thread is a waste of time, why do you and your conspiracy buddies keep coming onto it and telling lies?

    Why do you get so upset when people point out that's what you're doing?



Advertisement