Covid vaccines - thread banned users in First Post

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119103264#Comment_119103264

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

bad2thebone

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119104094#Comment_119104094

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

astrofool

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119104066#Comment_119104066

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.

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119104375#Comment_119104375

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!

astrofool

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119104736#Comment_119104736

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.

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119104876#Comment_119104876

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."

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119104876#Comment_119104876

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?

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119105406#Comment_119105406

Why are they telling people this?

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

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.

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119105453#Comment_119105453

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

astrofool

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119105406#Comment_119105406

They have given you all the information on how to read the data and why, yet you persist in making up your own fantasy.

What you are doing is the same thing others try to do with the VAERS data. You are 100% wrong in your interpretation, there is no wiggling away from that.

Furthermore, they specifically give reasons why they changed the methodology to look at outcomes and you won't even engage on that data because it doesn't agree with your narrative.

You have your head buried in the sand.

As I said, if you were right, it's an entirely new area of medicine that would attract study similar to discovering the atom, but it's not.

Which means we're onto the next question of why you think they are covering this up and who's behind it.

(While it's funny that you went back to a quote from many posts ago about behaviours, you of course, unsurprisingly, entirely missed the point, which was that the behaviors differ and that the behaviors are different in different ways at different times of the pandemic, that the no-vaxxers get themselves tested less than other groups is a different behavior, and I'm sure youll try and ignore everything else again, this was my fault for thinking you would understand that).

sydthebeat

There are none as blind as those that refuse to see

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119105465#Comment_119105465

In addition to asking you whether or not you are able to acknowledge a policy change in January 2022 is relevant to the credibility of a comprehensive explanation in November 2021 I'd also question this:

Furthermore, they specifically give reasons why they changed the methodology to look at outcomes and you won't even engage on that data because it doesn't agree with your narrative.

Are you able to acknowledge that in specific question of what may or may not be skewing data in the case rates i.e the number of positives, the severity of those positives is totally irrelevant?

You're telling me I am 100% wrong in questioning the comprehensive explanation they gave in November 2022 for differences in the number of positive PCR cases, and you're telling me it is credible because of a move to lateral flows in January 2022 and on top of that the number of positives are irrelevant, the the outcomes are more important anyway.

It's total madness.

And the idea that "case numbers don't matter, look at the severity at cases, the important measure of vaccine effectiveness is severity of cases" brings me full circle back to the first point I made a few days ago:

This is my problem with the vaccines. 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.

After posting this, I've spent three days largely being told two things:

a) primary function all along was to reduce serious illness and death

b) I just don't understand

Not entirely unexpected to be honest.

bad2thebone

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119105462#Comment_119105462

Well at least you're admitting it now.

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119105552#Comment_119105552

OK. Leaving aside you rant here is the usual dodging and misrepresentations that you guys have to resort to. And leaving aside all the explanations you've been given repeatedly by astrofool. And ignoring all of the questions and points you've dodged and run away from. And ignori g how you still haven't actually made a point.

Let's pretend you are right.

The vaccines are causing more infections after a few weeks.

That's the best you conspiracy theorists can come up with? That's the only safety issue that you can produce?

The vaccines slightly increase your chances of getting a virus you cats have been telling us isn't dangerous?

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119105600#Comment_119105600

Lol nope. I know you're a bit desperate for a point and all. But thats not an admission.

I am not paid, I'm not posting under any other accounts.

Nor have I repeatedly re-registered to avoid bans and previous embarrassments.

You need to get your fantasy straight man.

Either were all some/the same paid government agent(s) out to get you and stop your super dangerous theories.

Or were all mind controlled idiots who are too dumb to understand your genius.

Can't be both.

bad2thebone

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119105530#Comment_119105530

I suppose to see people take an experimental drug in order to have freedom and a bit of normality, and then that privilege to be pulled from underneath them was a sight to behold.

The only thing I can see about the advantage of healthy people taking the freedom juice is, freedom to eat inside, go on a holiday or a gig...

Other than that the rest of us held out saved our money and weren't tricked by coercion in order to protect someone who's supposedly protected already, to take a drug that doesn't work as intended.

bad2thebone

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119105621#Comment_119105621

Well then if you're not an agent or have vested interests what's your modus operandi here.

95% of the population have taken the shot.

What's your point in being so strident and squabbling with people ?

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119105657#Comment_119105657

Cause i'm interested in conspiracy theories. I'm curious why people believe then and go to such lengths to keep believing them even when they are obviously false. I think it's interesting to see the raising and falling of different types of misinformation and falsehoods. The explanations for why certain claims are false are also interesting and informative.

I know you won't accept this as your closed mind won't allow you to think that this is a possible reason, and you prefer your fantasy explanations for why we're here. But that's your issue man.

astrofool

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119105552#Comment_119105552

Supply the document from November 2021 (or whenever) and we can go through the data the same way, the outcome will be the same.

You have been very dishonest in ignoring the vast majority of content in the document when going on this solo run and still haven't come up with a valid point other than you not knowing. Which is not surprising given your comprehension levels demonstrated so far of the documentation and data.

This is my problem with the vaccines. When the vaccines were first rolled out the clear expectation was that the primary function was to prevent catching Covid.

Again, you are failing to comprehend what prevented cases are. You are failing to understand what the trial results meant (reduction in symptoms including almost elimination of severe disease). You are failing to understand why they were approved.

Do you concede that the vaccines have prevented millions of deaths from occurring?

bad2thebone

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119105758#Comment_119105758

So are you trying to be helpful and hopefully break their cycle of believing in things which you find might be harmful to them and others.

Are you worried about the psychological impact of them living in cuckoo land, therefore by being impactful with your tactics you'll eventually wake them up. Therefore you've saved a person from impending doom.

I find conspiracy theories interesting too, I don't believe in all of them, but I do like a good synoptic analysis of what's the whole story.

I'm not talking on a biblical sense.

But anyhow talking about closed minds, being a sceptic isn't being closed minded,it's actually quite free and liberating. If my mind was as closed as yours I'd be feeling quite stagnant. Nothing more stagnant than having a narrow minded world view.

Having an open mind opens up a lot of doors... try it

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119105903#Comment_119105903

Not really, as we keep seeing, conspiracy theorists are not actually open minded at all, and very few of them will change their minds in the short term.

However, the questions they know they dodge do have a tendency to hang around and eat away at their beliefs and doubt can start creeping in.

The people on the fence who might think there is something to the conspiracy however wouldn't be very impressed or convinced by the behaviour of the theorists here.

You don't have an open mind my dude. That's just an empty affirmation you're using to indulge in your fantasy of superiority.

Are you open to the possibility that all of the conspiracy theories you believe are in fact wrong?

If not, then you're not open minded. In my experience, you guys don't like to consider that possibility.

Dohnjoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119105643#Comment_119105643

Are you vaccinated?

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119105767#Comment_119105767

Supply the document from November 2021 (or whenever) and we can go through the data the same way, the outcome will be the same.

I've already linked to it, but here you go again - https://ukhsa.blog.gov.uk/2021/11/02/transparency-and-data-ukhsas-vaccines-report/

Again, you are failing to comprehend what prevented cases are. You are failing to understand what the trial results meant (reduction in symptoms including almost elimination of severe disease). You are failing to understand why they were approved.

It is my contention that the trial's primary endpoint, and the successful results (and hence the vaccine approval) were the prevention of symptomatic disease. Whilst they may also have shown a likelihood in success at the reduction in symptoms including almost elimination of severe disease that was not the primary endpoint, and not what approval was granted for.

Supply a link to the trial results and let's discuss.

But if I am failing to comprehend what prevented cases actually are, and that a measure of the vaccine's success is reduced symptoms in positive case, how do you explain the EMAs definition of "Confirmed Vaccination Failure"?

We have the purpose of the approval specifically defined as "to prevent COVID-19 caused by SARS-CoV-2" and the failure of the vaccine specifically defined as "the occurrence of COVID-19 caused by SARS-CoV-2".

Yet you claim that the occurrence of COVID-19 with reduced symptoms in a vaccinated person is proof that the vaccines are working. How do you explain that? What do you know that the scientists who wrote European Risk Management plan linked below don't know? Why are you rejecting their definition of vaccine failure?

Proposed definition for Confirmed Vaccination Failure with AZD1222: The occurrence of COVID-19 caused by SARS-CoV-2 in a person who is appropriately and fully vaccinated following an incubation period of ≥ 15 days following the second dose of the vaccine

https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/rmp-summary/vaxzevria-previously-covid-19-vaccine-astrazeneca-epar-risk-management-plan_en.pdf

bad2thebone

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119105941#Comment_119105941

That's a personal question which I have a right to keep on my medical records and not share publicly.

Why do you ask ?

Dohnjoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119106087#Comment_119106087

Most anti-vaxxers here seem to be vaccinated.

Fighting Tao

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119106129#Comment_119106129

Something something US work something air hostess something top secret information.

astrofool

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119106056#Comment_119106056

That was the blog, you are mentioning the numbers from November 2021, where is that document so we can see what you're leaving out.

Stop flopping about the place, you're back to try to re-cover old ground that was already de-bunked numerous times (read the thread and your old phishnet posts for when you went awry before).

November 2021 data, start there and we can point out where you are wrong and how you have misunderstood (or more likely not read anything at all as happened this time, was pointed out and now you're running away from it).

And again, be clear, do you concede or not that the vaccines have saved millions of lives as that is data that you can't run away from.

bad2thebone

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119106129#Comment_119106129

Any antivaxxer who's saying they're unvaccinated are lying lol seriously, that's only someone virtue signaling and asking the takeaway to hold the lettuce.

I I'll be honest then, no I'm not vaccinated for covid 19. I just think they came out to quickly. And I cannot say I wouldn't take something that's more advanced than what is out there now. Or God forbid I got a diagnosis of MS, or something that could shorten my life expectancy or weaken my immune system I'd be in a different frame of mind than I'm in now.

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119106255#Comment_119106255

Lol "I'll be honest, but I still won't admit to being a rereg".

Sure man, we believe you...