Covid vaccines - thread banned users in First Post

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119162399#Comment_119162399

 Come on, bring it to it's conclusion without needing guidance for each step.

Ok, fair enough, let's give it a shot.

According to an article in the BMJ, October 2020, pre-approval, your beliefs are a reasonable assumption, but not actually true:

In the trials, final efficacy analyses are planned after just 150 to 160 “events,”—that is, a positive indication of symptomatic covid-19, regardless of severity of the illness.

Yet until vaccine manufacturers began to release their study protocols in mid-September, trial registries and other publicly released information did little to dispel the notion that it was severe covid-19 that the trials were assessing. Moderna, for example, called hospital admissions a “key secondary endpoint” in statements to the media. And a press release from the US National Institutes of Health reinforced this impression, stating that Moderna’s trial “aims to study whether the vaccine can prevent severe covid-19” and “seeks to answer if the vaccine can prevent death caused by covid-19.”

Just in case anybody is tempted to dismiss the BMJ as another anti-vaxxer rag, they quote the chief medical officer of Moderna:

But Tal Zaks, chief medical officer at Moderna, told The BMJ that the company’s trial lacks adequate statistical power to assess those outcomes. “The trial is precluded from judging [hospital admissions], based on what is a reasonable size and duration to serve the public good here,” he said.

Hospital admissions and deaths from covid-19 are simply too uncommon in the population being studied for an effective vaccine to demonstrate statistically significant differences in a trial of 30 000 people. The same is true of its ability to save lives or prevent transmission: the trials are not designed to find out.

Zaks said, “Would I like to know that this prevents mortality? Sure, because I believe it does. I just don’t think it’s feasible within the timeframe [of the trial]—too many would die waiting for the results before we ever knew that.”

Just to hammer home the point that the public might believe otherwise, they continue:

Still, it’s fair to say that most of the general public assumes that the whole point of the current trials, besides testing safety, is to see whether the vaccine can prevent bad outcomes. “How do you reconcile that?” The BMJ asked Zaks.

Zaks has no problem reconciling that. He is emphatically unambiguous:

“Very simply,” he replied. “Number one, we have a bad outcome as our endpoint. It’s covid-19 disease.” Moderna, like Pfizer and Janssen, has designed its study to detect a relative risk reduction of at least 30% in participants developing laboratory confirmed covid-19, consistent with FDA and international guidance.

Number two, Zaks pointed to influenza vaccines, saying they protect against severe disease better than mild disease. To Moderna, it’s the same for covid-19: if its vaccine is shown to reduce symptomatic covid-19, it will be confident it also protects against serious outcomes.

So the chief medical officer of Moderna is saying the data prevents the bad outcome of covid-19 disease. That's what the data shows. Yes he was confident that it will protect against serious outcomes but he does not have the data to prove it. Which is exactly why the regulators cited insufficient data on protecting against serious outcomes.

So the chief Medical officer of Moderna says of the the trial data: "Hospital admissions and deaths from covid-19 are simply too uncommon in the population being studied for an effective vaccine to demonstrate statistically significant differences"

Yet you say: "the data on severity was extremely comprehensive and proven in massive trials"

These two statements are totally contradictory.

By your own logic there can only be two explanations for this: a) you're smarter than him or b) he's lying.

Which is it?

astrofool

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119162932#Comment_119162932

Next step, why is everybody in every country spinning this information, why is every scientist in on it.

(and good to see you found the BMJ article I pointed you at 😉)

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119162576#Comment_119162576

And when the scientists were proposing an explanation for the case data that you believe is clearly false, were they lying there too? Or...?

Because in that case you have to belive that they were either lying about it or that you are somehow better at their jobs than them.

Unless you can provide another reason why they would provide an explanation that is totally and clearly false.

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119163116#Comment_119163116

Next step? Surely the next step takes care of itself, by addressing this fact:

So the chief Medical officer of Moderna says of the the trial data: "Hospital admissions and deaths from covid-19 are simply too uncommon in the population being studied for an effective vaccine to demonstrate statistically significant differences"

Yet you say: "the data on severity was extremely comprehensive and proven in massive trials"

These two statements are totally contradictory.

My position is given that you are spinning this, you are far better placed than I to explain why people are spinning it.

Unless of course I am mistaken, and you in fact agree with the chief medical officer of Moderna?

Igotadose

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119164693#Comment_119164693

The Moderna CEO is implying that when vaccinated, hospital admissions and deaths drop off. Not that vaccine isn't effective - in fact, it's so effective they can't find enough cases to study because they've dropped off.

Data on severity and complications was proven in massive trials before the vaccines were given approval. This isn't contradictory at all - in fact, it emphasizes the safety and effectiveness of the vaccines.

astrofool

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119164693#Comment_119164693

You're plumbing the depths now, even the approval authorities agreed with the chief medical officer of Moderna, nobody is arguing that, just your inability to grasp any of these constructs.

But, come on, next step, you've humiliated yourself enough with misunderstanding concepts (yet seem to want to go over them again and again).

Why are all governments and scientists around the world engaging in spin over vaccine effectiveness, why are the scientists of failed vaccines also backing up the findings of the successful vaccines when they have nothing to gain. Just get it out of your system. "I don't know" from you means you've conceded your entire argument again, you have to know for your argument to make any sense.

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119164961#Comment_119164961

Again he's cornered cause he can't be honest and just admit to believing into a giant silly conspiracy theory.

He knows that admitting it would invalidate all of his attempts at pretending to not be a conspiracy theorist.

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119164961#Comment_119164961

You're plumbing the depths now, even the approval authorities agreed with the chief medical officer of Moderna, nobody is arguing that, just your inability to grasp any of these constructs.

Yes the approval authorities agreed with the chief medical officer of Moderna when he said: "Hospital admissions and deaths from covid-19 are simply too uncommon in the population being studied for an effective vaccine to demonstrate statistically significant differences" - the approval authorities said exactly the same thing in their reports.

My point is that you disagree with him when you say that approval was granted because ""the data on severity was extremely comprehensive and proven in massive trials"

Are you saying he is lying or that you are smarter than him? What is your reason for disagreeing with him?

astrofool

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119165187#Comment_119165187

You keep trying to go over the bits that were explained to you and you don't understand even when explained in detail. However, assuming that you believe this, you need to explain why all the scientists and governments around the world engaged in spin around the vaccines or your argument doesn't stand up.

Going over the minutiae of statements you don't understand doesn't progress that area and it's impossible to educate someone who doesn't want to learn.

(I am impressed by how easy it was to lead you to the BMJ article and then proceed to thoroughly misunderstand it, as predicted 😊).

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119165202#Comment_119165202

You keep trying to go over the bits that were explained to you and you don't understand even when explained in detail.

Nobody has even tried, least of all you, to explain how the statement on trial data: "Hospital admissions and deaths from covid-19 are simply too uncommon in the population being studied for an effective vaccine to demonstrate statistically significant differences" means that approval was granted because "the data on severity was extremely comprehensive and proven in massive trials".

Did I miss the explanation? Perhaps you could link to where it was explained in detail?

Because the more you just keep on deflecting with "you don't understand" the more you prove my original point:

When the vaccines were first rolled out the clear expectation was that the primary function was to prevent catching Covid.

When it became abundantly clear that this was not working as intended, but they were having good effect in preventing serious illness and death, very few vaccine proponents acknowledged this. It was spun as if the primary function all along was to reduce serious illness and death, and anybody who thought they were taking the vaccine to prevent them getting Covid just didn't understand how vaccines worked.

This is total and utter nonsense, and as far as I am concerned it undermines all subsequent claims about the vaccine efficacy and safety.

astrofool

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119165293#Comment_119165293

You can re-read the thread in your own time, but we are at this juncture now, I'm not disputing that you don't understand while everyone else does (and I did notice you backed away from the controlled environment question a few times at this stage):

you need to explain why all the scientists and governments around the world engaged in spin around the vaccines or your argument doesn't stand up.

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119165499#Comment_119165499

No need to re-read the thread. I raised this specific question for the first time last night, only a handful of posts ago, and you haven't even acknowledged it let alone explained it detail:

The chief medical officer of Moderna says:

Hospital admissions and deaths from covid-19 are simply too uncommon in the population being studied for an effective vaccine to demonstrate statistically significant differences in a trial of 30 000 people. The same is true of its ability to save lives or prevent transmission: the trials are not designed to find out.

And you say: "the data on severity was extremely comprehensive and proven in massive trials"

Is the chief medical officer of Moderna wrong?

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119165587#Comment_119165587

Why aren't you answering his question man?

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119165613#Comment_119165613

Out of interest, why aren’t you so concerned, that he has not answered this question, man?

Is the chief medical officer of Moderna wrong?

are you able to answer it?

Fighting Tao

Wormed so far down a hole that he is now clinging onto dear life on one comment someone made once upon a time in the hope that it distracts people enough to try and dig out the other side of the world away in some remote location that he can be an anti-vaxxer conspiracy theorist where he can’t be questioned.

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119165988#Comment_119165988

So are you saying the chief medical officer of Moderna is wrong on this point?

astrofool

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119165587#Comment_119165587

I completely agree with what the Moderna CMO Tal Zaks said, he hasn't said what you think he has, you would need to read much much more approval data and analysis (and study science and medicine) then you have delved into so far (such as the approval processes for other medicines and vaccines). However, this is you still stuck like a rat, if Tal Zaks meant what you think he meant, that means that everybody is in on something, what is that thing that you won't say?

Remember, what is at question is your reading of the statements and data, for that to hold together, you need to explain why, with that interpretation, scientists and governments are spinning the data.

Fighting Tao

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119166006#Comment_119166006

Your comprehension skills have been lacking even when people were translating into language that toddlers would understand. No matter what I say to explain it to you won’t make a difference because you don’t want to understand. Don’t forget to pop back up the hole to spam the same same posts in a month or so after living alone on the outback where no one will challenge your wilful ignorance.

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119166054#Comment_119166054

I completely agree with what the Moderna CMO Tal Zaks said, he hasn't said what you think he has

There is no doubt in what I think he means, it's written in plain English any fool could understand:

Hospital admissions and deaths from covid-19 are simply too uncommon in the population being studied for an effective vaccine to demonstrate statistically significant differences in a trial of 30 000 people. The same is true of its ability to save lives or prevent transmission: the trials are not designed to find out.

He means that they cannot conclusively say the vaccine is effective at reducing hospital admissions and death due to insufficient data.

However, this is you still stuck like a rat, if Tal Zaks meant what you think he meant, that means that everybody is in on something, what is that thing that you won't say?

Everybody is admiring the emperor's new clothes. They're truly stunning.

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119165791#Comment_119165791

Because he hasn't spend a good deal of the thread dodging questions.

Because these gotcha questions of yours are very silly.

Because your arguments always seem to rely on their narrow interpretations of out of context quotes that you can't actually explain on the wider context of your own beliefs.

And cause it's funnier to highlight your cowardice and dishonesty.

I'll answer any question you'd like the moment you answer astrofools.

astrofool

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119166177#Comment_119166177

And if your interpretation of what he is saying is correct, for that to stand up, you now need to explain why all scientists and governments are engaged in spin, or your interpretation is wrong, there is still only 2 options left for you no matter where you try and spin out towards.

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119167468#Comment_119167468

Asked and answered

I think there is a range of plausible reasons, depending on who is doing the lying, and how blatant the lie is.

For example at a higher level such as EU messaging, governments, individual politicians etc - if they say that the vaccines were approved to reduce the severity of outcomes based on comprehensive data from massive trials then I'd guess the reason for lying is simply public health policy.

Policy is to have as a high a vaccination rate as possible. They have calculated that a more transparent and honest approach - i.e saying we'll update the approval from authorising use to prevent symptomatic Covid, to authorising use to reduce the severity of symptomatic Covid - would harm vaccine confidence and thus uptake. Far better for confidence and uptake to cling to the charade that vaccines are working as intended.

At a lower level, members of the public - eg yourself and some of the other posters on this forum - I have absolutely no idea why you would lie, but I don't think you are deliberately lying to cover anything up. The only plausible explanation is that the spin has been very effective thus you genuinely believe it.

TLDR: Everybody is admiring the emperor's new clothes. They're truly stunning.

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119167896#Comment_119167896

Barely an answer as you only give one really inadequate reason yet hint at vague other ones that you won't detail.

I suspect that this is simply a bluff on your part because you don't have any other possible reasons to give, but still want some wiggle room to avoid all the issues with the single explanation you gave.

As for that explanation we can reject it off hand as it's completely contradictory.

You are claiming that the SHADOWY THEY wanted to protect public perception of the vaccine program by doing something that negatively impacted the perception of the vaccine program. You've been declaring up and down that their actions and their actions alone are you issue. If they had not done what you're accusing them of, then there would be nothing damaging public perception.

And you are also suggesting that they did this in a very obvious way that simply didn't make sense. Why would they attempt this in a way that obvious to untrained randos on Twitter? Why not simply alter the initial approval?

Your explanation simply does not make sense.

It does not make sense to me, and using your own logic and argument that's enough grounds to declare that your argument is false.

So any chance you'll be explaining why experts lied about their explanation for the case data?

Or do you concede that they weren't lying?

astrofool

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119167896#Comment_119167896

That doesn't explain why all the scientists involved, including those in competing companies, are part of the spin, why governments in countries at war with each other right now (some of which have low vax rates so have nothing to gain), are part of the spin.

That whole paragraph doesn't have the tiniest shred of sense in it to explain anything you've posted, you're going to have to dig deeper to appear credible as otherwise your entire theory is entirely debunked.

shillyshilly

the smell of @Gortanna off this thread

I like how the hard work of literally 100,000's if not millions of researchers is just undermined with opinion pieces from nearly 2 years ago and the continuous alluding of "they're all in on it"

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119168249#Comment_119168249

Nah, Gortana couldn't help himself bringing up the WEF every second post. No one has brought that up for ages and Gortanna wouldn't have that kind of self control...

shillyshilly

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119168301#Comment_119168301

:-D :-D

snowcat

ICU's and hospilisations are rocketing in Ireland. Are they the vaxxed or unvaxxed? It could not be the triple injected plus a fourth injection..could it? Best injection rate in Europe and on the base of a developing wave.

Dohnjoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119170977#Comment_119170977

Really?

I'm just reading here that recent spike hasn't been explained and could be a statistical anomaly, that deaths peaked in March and currently mortality is stable.

Also, it could be like seasonal flu we might need a booster every year. We don't have some sort of "contract" with the virus..

snowcat

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119171302#Comment_119171302

Ah shure we are grand 90% vaxxed. No way it could spread here

Dohnjoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119171341#Comment_119171341

Yup it can spread. Vaccinated people can catch the virus. It has mutated many times, and can mutate further (probably will)

sydthebeat

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119170977#Comment_119170977

OH THE HORROR !!!

Fighting Tao

Through the stratosphere!

snowcat

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119171521#Comment_119171521

Looks bad all right. We have the wall of vaccines though

snowcat

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119171418#Comment_119171418

Africa seems fine. Eastern Europe no issues. Fully vaxxed countries experiencing spikes

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119171602#Comment_119171602

Again must be true if an anti vaxxer is claiming it without a source.

Why do you believe this is happening?

Did you forget that you were supposed to not be a conspiracy theorist who was spreading nonsense like buzzer?

Dohnjoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119171602#Comment_119171602

Africa explained

https://theconversation.com/the-impact-of-covid-19-has-been-lower-in-africa-we-explore-the-reasons-164955

Eastern Europe?

https://www.news-medical.net/news/20220210/Excess-COVID-19-mortality-in-Eastern-Europe-linked-to-lower-vaccination-rates-and-weak-implementation-of-regulations.aspx

https://www.economist.com/europe/2021/11/13/eastern-european-countries-are-being-hit-by-a-wave-of-covid-deaths

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/poland-report-over-50000-covid-cases-wednesday-official-says-2022-01-26/

You claimed rates are rocketing here, where is this coming from?

snowcat

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119171620#Comment_119171620

Im not sure. Can you explain why its happening King Mob? Are all the hospitilisations unvaxxed? Why do the African countries and the Eastern European countries not have a massive fatality rate

snowcat

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119171637#Comment_119171637

We are up 40% week on week. Google it

Dohnjoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119171676#Comment_119171676

I did. It explains the context. Nothing unsurprising.

The only "confused" person here seems to be you. Why is that do you think?

snowcat

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119171720#Comment_119171720

Ah yea. The ould semi agressive retort when you are not sure what to say.

Dohnjoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119171738#Comment_119171738

It's a simple question.

Dohnjoe

I remember the flat-earther who was "confused" by science. Therefore the world was flat. Interesting how that works isn't it.

snowcat

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119171777#Comment_119171777

Im a scientist. Science is based on questioning known boundaries and learning from them. Most questioners of science have been declared heretics. Questioning anything on a vaccine is going that way.

Tonesjones

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119171418#Comment_119171418

Remember they used to say vaccinated people catching the virus were rare breakthrough cases. That didn't last long before the goalposts moved.

Cdc website Dec 21: Most people who get COVID-19 are unvaccinated. However, since vaccines are not 100% effective at preventing infection, some people who are fully vaccinated will still get COVID-19.

An infection of a fully vaccinated person is referred to as a “vaccine breakthrough infection.”

Go away out of that. A minimum of 1.5 million out of 5 million people in Ireland caught covid but 90% vaxxed.

snowcat

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119171875#Comment_119171875

Herd immunity..We just need to get x% injected

Tonesjones

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119171904#Comment_119171904

Luke O Neill special

Actually didn't he say masks were a waste of time? As did Fauci.

"If you are not infected no reason to wear a mask"

"500 million pieces of virus fit on the end of a full stop"

Your paper mask or man utd scarf wrapped around your chops is pointless

https://youtu.be/g7_P2RmrA6U

snowcat

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119171904#Comment_119171904

its fine thought..vaccines working perfectly as intented. They were never developed to reduce transmission!

bad2thebone

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119171932#Comment_119171932

Sometimes I wonder if he's posting in this thread lol

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119171651#Comment_119171651

Great so you admit that the vaccine isn't causing it and it's not a safety issue.

I think the links supplied to you by dohnjoe explain it to you.