Covid vaccines - thread banned users in First Post

kernkraft500

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119447023#Comment_119447023

Moderna overproduced, that's their own issue, everyone else produced to order

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119446982#Comment_119446982

This is seeming a tad weird that you're not willing to engage with a poster that is engaging in fact based arguments....

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119446569#Comment_119446569

Why are you claiming this when you know it's nonsense?

You keep vaguely hinting at this idea, but when you're asked to explain it any further you dodge and ignore.

Why do you believe boards mods are doing this?

Are they involved in a conspiracy to silence you?

Or do you not want to say this directly as it sounds a bit silly?

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119446845#Comment_119446845

So You're back to claiming the vaccines don't actually work?

Why would they be better off without the vaccine when you've already conceded that thr vaccine is effective in reducing severe disease and you have conceded that the virus is far far more dangerous than the vaccine?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119447297#Comment_119447297

He's refused to answer a question a few times..tbh I'm over the vaccines..at this stage let's just all hope they're safe..I think we may find out in years to come that they weren't, but shur, I didn't take it..

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119447583#Comment_119447583

More deflection and time wasting then.

At this point are any conspiracy theorists actually still contending the vaccines are dangerous?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119447595#Comment_119447595

Look..there's 1400 extra people dying every week in the UK.. climate change is giving people heart attacks..There are interests trying to making sure we'll never find out..

We can't all be as evangelical as yourself, sitting at your desk in GCHQ or wherever..

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119447609#Comment_119447609

But you guys have failed to show that any of these supposed deaths are due to the vaccine. You keep running away and crying when you're challenged on this.

You've failed on that point completely.

Likewise you keep persisting in your childish fantasy that there's government agents poster here.

You also run away when you're challenged on that fantasy.

You're still just wasting time.

The conspiracy isn't going to magically become true if you just keep talking my dude.

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119447415#Comment_119447415

and you have conceded that the virus is far far more dangerous than the vaccine?

Source?

kernkraft500

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119447609#Comment_119447609

it's more of a 77th Brigade tasking what you're trying to allude to

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119447784#Comment_119447784

Why? Are you claiming that the vaccines are more dangerous then?

If that's the case provide evidence.

Otherwise you are conceding that point.

You've been asked many times to clarify your eliefs but you constantly dodge evade and contradict yourself.

CQD has just claimed that the vaccine is killing 1400. Do you believe this claim?

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119448127#Comment_119448127

You've been asked many times to clarify your eliefs but you constantly dodge evade and contradict yourself.

I have been very consistent on this and clarified it many times.

I believe the risk/reward benefit of the vaccines is favourable for the elderly and immunocompromised.

For others, particularly children, I do not believe it is favourable.

No evasion, no contradiction.

Sure I ignore some of your posts, as do others. That's because you are inclined to totally misrepresent other posters deliberately. Such as in the example above in which you posted "you have conceded that the virus is far far more dangerous than the vaccine" - when you know I have said no such thing.

This is not a new tactic. You were called out for it on the very first page of the thread when @patnor1011 pointed out:

As I said in other thread you simply keep twisting what was said and putting your own words in someone else mouth. So again, I said nothing of what you claim I said. It happened in your head only.

And here we are 340 pages later and you're still at it. It's why nobody takes you seriously.

EyesClosed

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119448171#Comment_119448171

You can't tell me what the safety issue with the vaccine is though, I keep asking you, you keep avoiding it, or deflecting

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119448171#Comment_119448171

Lol but dude the question was "is the vaccine more dangerous than the virus?"

The point you were making was that African countries would be better off not getting the vaccines.

Your wishy washy, unsupported and demonstrably false position about it not being favourable doesn't have anything to do with that point or that question.

It's not possible to get a straight answer out of any of you, so we have to piece together your stances as best we can until you contradict yourselves.

So I will assume you accept that the vaccine is not more dangerous then vaccine until you state otherwise.

And I will assume that that claim is nonsense until you provide anything beyond your own biased and untrained opinion to support that.

I will also assume that you agree with CQDs false claim but are unwilling to state your support for it because you understand that it undermines your position.

Also you're very overestimating how much value I put into the opinion of a band of conspiracy theorists have about me.

The point pat was whinging about was his objection to me pointing out he claimed that the vaccines aren't vaccines.

He has since repeated this notion many times. No twisting there I'm afraid.

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119448196#Comment_119448196

As I have said repeatedly I think it is possible that the vaccines are a contributing factor to the excess deaths around the world.

And also I think it is possible that the vaccines are showing negative effectiveness.

Both of these would be safety issues in my opinion.

I haven't avoided or deflected from this issue at all.

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119448253#Comment_119448253

But both of these points have been you claiming stuff without any actual sources.

You've nothing but your own suspicion that the vaccines are contributing to those deaths and you've been shown repeatedly evidence against this.

Similarly, your claim about negative effectiveness is based on your interpretation of graphs in studies that do not actually state anything about negative effectiveness. At the same time you ignore the rest of the content of those studies that talk about the vaccines effectiveness in reducing infection and reducing severe illness.

You've deflected from those points repeatedly.

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119448282#Comment_119448282

But both of these points have been you claiming stuff without any actual sources.

Negative effectiveness:

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

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

Now I dropped this point as there was a mod instruction to quit the circular argument that was me saying this graph shows negative effectiveness and other posters saying no it does not.

But it remains a source showing negative effectiveness which firs with all the real world data showing increased infection rates in the vaccinated vs the unvaccinated.

EyesClosed

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119448253#Comment_119448253

But that's back to my early point that without any evidence... Anything is possible.

There is no evidence at all to suggest the vaccine is killing people... The only articles posted here have nothing to do with the vaccine and its just implied that they do.

So yes you can believe what you want, but without any evidence its a silly belief.

hometruths

But that's back to my early point that without any evidence... Anything is possible.

I can't remember if it is was you or somebody else that made this argument using dragons as an example, which is clearly ridiculous. So no, it does not equate to anything is possible.

The reason the vaccines are more likely to be a contributing factor than dragons, is there has been a massive vaccine roll out program in the preceding 12 months. So it's not without any basis.

Genuine question, where is the evidence that the vaccines are definitely not a contributing factor to the excess deaths?

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119448296#Comment_119448296

Lol. But now you're putting arguments into peoples mouths yourself on two levels.

First, no one argued that the graph didn't show negative numbers. That's a strawman on your part and you know it.

Secondly, you are claiming that the study shows negative effectiveness, yet the authors of the study do not say that.

Now, watch how you avoid a simple yes or no question.

Does the study talk about or mention anything about negative effectiveness outside of that one graph? Anywhere at all in the text or abstract or conclusion?

Yes or no?

If yes, quote it directly please.

But we both know the answer is "no", but you won't admit this.

If you aren't able to answer this really straight forward establishing question man, how can any argue anything with you?

This is why you guys aren't taken very seriously and why you have to post this stuff here rather than in a medical or science forum.

The Nal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119448371#Comment_119448371

Ah the old prove a negative.

Anyway, how about a study from 300 million - yes 300 million does.

Covid vaccines not linked to deaths, major US study finds

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099%2822%2900054-8/fulltext

EyesClosed

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119448371#Comment_119448371

But I can't prove a negative.

Also I'm not claiming anything, you are claiming its possible the vaccine is killing people, so prove it.

It's not up to me to disprove it.

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119448390#Comment_119448390

First, no one argued that the graph didn't show negative numbers. That's a strawman on your part and you know it.

Ok, if we are agreed that the graph does show negative effectiveness then that's great. I'm happy to stand corrected on the genuine mistake I made thinking that you and others claimed it does not show negative effectiveness.

Secondly, you are claiming that the study shows negative effectiveness, yet the authors of the study do not say that.

Yes, I am claiming that the data from the study shows negative effectiveness. The authors don't say it explicitly - they simply publish a graph showing data from their study that shows negative effectiveness, as you agree.

The authors are more concerned about the fact that it hits zero effectiveness at 7 months, and that's the point they make - that is their finding.

You are correct that they make no comment on what happens after 7 months but the graph clearly shows it. It descends into negative effectiveness after 8 months.

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119448431#Comment_119448431

If there is no evidence to prove the vaccines are a contributing factor and there is no evidence to prove they are not a contributing factor, why are you so certain that I am wrong in my opinion that they might be a contributing factor?

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119448395#Comment_119448395

Safety data from more than 298 million doses of mRNA COVID-19 vaccine administered in the first 6 months of the US vaccination programme show that most reported adverse events were mild and short in duration.

Well that's super. A massive of study of people who have received two doses within 6 months.

But these excess deaths started showing up about a year after the vaccine rollouts began, and include third and fourth doses.

So that study is not entirely relevant to the specific question under discussion.

EyesClosed

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119449844#Comment_119449844

Because there have been countless studies posted here to show the work and effort put into the vaccines.

Countless tests and studies done, none of them have pointed to any deaths.

So there is studies, I'm not basing my opinion on nothing, unlike you.

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119449830#Comment_119449830

And again, you're putting arguments in people's mouths. It's very funny that you're doing this after only just accusing me of doing so.

The graph shows negative numbers. However this does not imply that it shows actual negative effectiveness that is really occurring.

It could be the result of statistical anomalies or other factors. We saw this was the case in the other example of a study you tried to misrepresent.

No one is arguing that the graph doesn't show negative numbers. People are arguing that your untrained, biased interpretation of that graph (which is not supported or shared by the guys who produced the graph) to mean that negative effectiveness is actually occurring.

Ok. So the authors of the study did not comment on the idea of negative efficacy. They do not mention it. They don't state anything about it. It isn't part of their conclusion, abstract or statements.

Cool.

Why don't they?

It's another straightforward question that I suspect you will avoid.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119449844#Comment_119449844

That's not how evidence or logic work. You cannot provide anything to prove a negative.

It's a common tactic for conspiracy theorists and other science denialists to fall back to.

I would love to see how you think people are supposed to do this.

There is however tons of points that you've been provided that you ignore that show that it is unlikely to be a contributing factor.

Like all of the safety studies that have been done. None show anything at all that would indicate that the vaccines would be causing such high levels of deaths.

If the vaccines are causing all of these deaths, why have no safety studies shown this?

Is it because of a conspiracy you can't actually show?

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119449891#Comment_119449891

And are you saying that from your understanding of these studies you think it is impossible the vaccines are a factor in the spike in excess deaths, or merely unlikely?

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119449938#Comment_119449938

So you are admitting that the graph shows negative numbers but does not show negative effectiveness??!! despite the fact that the authors say it shows: "Vaccine effectiveness (any vaccine) against SARS-CoV-2 infection of any severity in 842 974 vaccinated individuals matched to an equal number of unvaccinated individuals for up to 9 months of follow-up"

The graph undoubtedly and inarguably shows a finding of negative effectiveness. Trying to argue it shows anything else is just more head in the sand, emperor's new clothes stuff.

Of course you can argue that the you don't believe the findings are correct because of statistical anomalies but that does not change what the graph shows.

EyesClosed

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119449947#Comment_119449947

Yes I am saying based on the studies the vaccines are overwhelmingly safe.

Prove otherwise and I'm all ears.

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119449972#Comment_119449972

No, that's not an accurate summation of my argument. You're putting arguments into people's mouths again.

Nor am I arguing that the numbers are incorrect or that statistical anomalies about the edges of the data that they don't use for their arguments or conclusions invalidates the study.

And again you just admitted that the authors don't say anything about negative effectiveness.

As predicted, you didn't answer my question, so you concede it.

You can't explain why the authors would not mention this negative effectiveness.

Cool.

So I'm curious, what do you think the pink areas on the graph represent?

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119449972#Comment_119449972

Asked and answered.

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

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119450000#Comment_119450000

And again you just admitted that the authors don't say anything about negative effectiveness.

Yes for the umpteenth time the authors don't comment on the negative effectiveness at 8 months. The focus of their study seems to wane after finding zero effectiveness at seven months.

They are content to let the graph show negative effectiveness and not comment on it.

So I'm curious, what do you think the pink areas on the graph represent?

I suspect they are confidence intervals, what do you think they represent?

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119450014#Comment_119450014

Lol I forgot that the study also said:

"Vaccination is therefore very wise and important."

Given that @hometruths has said that the vaccine is not worth the risk for most people, Do you agree with the author's statement?

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119450027#Comment_119450027

Ok. Why don't they comment on it?

And yes, they are confidence intervals.

Are the confidence intervals entirely in the negative?

And why do you say "suspect"? You're the one arguing about the meaning of the graph and it's specifics...

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119450014#Comment_119450014

So, the graph, including AZ, is showing Vaccine effectiveness (any vaccine) against SARS-CoV-2 infection of any severity in 842 974 vaccinated individuals matched to an equal number of unvaccinated individuals for up to 9 months of follow-up" to be negative after 8 months?

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119450052#Comment_119450052

After 8 months it is only AZ. So the graph is misleading. If you are using it to state anything about vaccine effectiveness (any vaccine) then you are simply wrong. If you doubt that, prove me wrong with reference to the data used to build the graph - which is all linked to from the report.

This is why you need to read the report and understand the data that was used to produce it.

This is not a statistically significant finding.

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

sydthebeat

60 cases difference out of fifty thousand people! 

in the affected age groups, this is easily explained as to the likelyhood of health care workers being overly represented leading to more reinfection cases.

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119450049#Comment_119450049

Ok. Why don't they comment on it?

No idea. You'd have to take it up with them.

And why do you say "suspect"? You're the one arguing about the meaning of the graph and it's specifics...

I say suspect because it is not labelled as such, its not 100% totally certain that this is what they are, it's just overwhelmingly likely, but given that it does not say that anywhere on the graph and you are prone to argue if something is not actually stated explicitly then it is untrue, I said suspect.

On the other hand the axis with negative numbers is labelled "Vaccine effectiveness" so we can be certain what it is showing.

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119450107#Comment_119450107

It's almost sad astrofool isn't here to argue that this is in fact proven by extremely comprehensive data in massive trials.

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119450156#Comment_119450156

Ok finally. Only took you like a page to get an answer to this question.

You can't explain why they wouldn't comment on it.

So we can exclude the notion that the graph indicates a safety issue, as doesn't make sense for them not to comment on it if it was.

Now, lets say Odyssey's argument is correct that that the numbers showing negative effectiveness were not statistically significant.

Would this explain why they wouldn't comment on them?

Also, since you suspect that the pink areas are confidence intervals, you will then agree that they also show that the numbers might be above zero. Correct?

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119450194#Comment_119450194

You mean this massive trial which showed vaccines preventing at least 15000 cases - rather than the much smaller set of data representing AZ at + 8 months?

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

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

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

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119450222#Comment_119450222

Ok finally. Only took you like a page to get an answer to this question.

I raised this point the last time round when I said the far more interesting discussion about this graph is why the authors didn't comment on it, not the question of whether or not it showed vaccine efficacy.

So we can exclude the notion that the graph indicates a safety issue, as doesn't make sense for them not to comment on it.

Well that's not necessarily true. As we have seen with the covid origins theory, the chair of the Lancet commission on covid has claimed that scientists have a narrative and deliberately avoid anything that conflicts with this narrative. If scientists and experts prepared to avoid hard questions on covid origins, no reason to believe it would be any different on vaccines. Negative efficacy would definitely conflict with the vaccine narrative.

Now, lets say Odyssey's argument is correct that that the numbers showing negative effectiveness were not statistically significant.

Would this explain why they wouldn't comment on them?

I would definitely expect them to comment on them one way or another. Why not say our findings re negative efficacy are not statistically significant. Exactly like the reports on the clinical trials - they commented that the findings indicated an efficacy against severe disease but findings were unreliable due to insufficient data.

I don't think you can assume they didn't comment on them because they were not statistically significant. That seems unlikely to me.

Also, since you suspect that the pink areas are confidence intervals, you will then agree that they also show that the numbers might be above zero. Correct?

Yes.

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119450289#Comment_119450289

I raised this point the last time round when I said the far more interesting discussion about this graph is why the authors didn't comment on it, not the question of whether or not it showed vaccine efficacy.

The point being that you didn't know why they didn't comment on it?

Well that's not necessarily true. As we have seen with the covid origins theory, the chair of the Lancet commission on covid has claimed that scientists have a narrative and deliberately avoid anything that conflicts with this narrative. If scientists and experts prepared to avoid hard questions on covid origins, no reason to believe it would be any different on vaccines. Negative efficacy would definitely conflict with the vaccine narrative.

But this explanation isn't possible either. If negative efficacy would conflict with the vaccine narrative, and the authors of the study were involved in a conspiracy, why would they make that graph?

They could have easily excluded that part of the data without comment. Or could have claimed that it wasn't statistically significant. Or straight up alter the data to show an even bigger benefit than it does.

Again it makes no sense.

(Hell they could have even just not put the raw data into a graph at all, and I suspect that you'd have never have found that one picture you keep posting.)

And again, if this is the argument you're suggesting, then you are suggesting that the study is fraudulent and thus entirely invalid.

And again, you're misrepresenting things as that expert you're quoting said nothing about vaccine safety studies.

I would definitely expect them to comment on them one way or another. Why not say our findings re negative efficacy are not statistically significant.

Maybe because they thought that would be clear from the actual numbers.

Maybe because they innocently thought that only people who had some idea bout statistics would be reading the data, not conspiracy theorist grifters trawling through studies to cherry pick stuff.

Maybe because their actual conclusions and comments didn't really rely on anything beyond the point they state, so didn't think it was important enough.

You are arguing that they stumbled upon a massive safety issue, but neglected to comment on it. Why do you expect them to comment on specifics of the statistics, but then think it's plausible that they wouldn't comment on such a significant finding?

That's completely ridiculous and grasping at straws.

I don't think you can assume they didn't comment on them because they were not statistically significant. That seems unlikely to me.

But you do think it's likely that there's a global conspiracy controlling what they say.

Your scale of what is and isn't likely is clearly off.

Also, since you suspect that the pink areas are confidence intervals, you will then agree that they also show that the numbers might be above zero. Correct?

Yes.

Ok then. So in that case, the graph doesn't necessarily show negative efficacy.

Also, you've avoided yet another point.

The study you're clinging to states:

"Vaccination is therefore very wise and important."

Do you agree with the study when it claims this? Do you believe this conclusion they reach is accurate?

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119450356#Comment_119450356

Again it makes no sense.

I'm not ignoring any of your points, just highlighting this comment because it covers all of your points. I agree. It makes no sense why they did not comment on it. They included the graph, when as you say presumably they could have left it out.

But it is far from the first let's rustle up an argument for covid vaccines study/report/article/commentary that makes no sense.

And again, you're misrepresenting things as that expert you're quoting said nothing about vaccine safety studies.

And again, I am not misrepresenting things. The point is there is no reason to believe scientists would stick to a narrative on covid origins and avoid looking at things that contradict that narrative, but not do the same on vaccines. This point seems to have gone over your head.

Ok then. So in that case, the graph doesn't necessarily show negative efficacy.

Grasping at straws.

Also, you've avoided yet another point.

The study you're clinging to states:

"Vaccination is therefore very wise and important."

Do you agree with the study when it claims this? Do you believe this conclusion they reach is accurate?

I'm not clinging to this study. I'm simply pointing out there findings on vaccine effectiveness. I think using these findings to promote vaccines is horseshit.

As you well know I think, except in certain circumstances, vaccination is neither wise nor important.

But in any event, the study does not claim that. Where in the study does it state that. Anywhere at all in the text or abstract or conclusion? Yes or no? If yes, quote it directly please. If no then stop misrepresenting things, yadda yadda yadda, etc etc etc.

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119450482#Comment_119450482

I'm not ignoring any of your points, just highlighting this comment because it covers all of your points. I agree. It makes no sense why they did not comment on it. They included the graph, when as you say presumably they could have left it out.

No, you're yet again putting an argument in my mouth.

I said that your insistence that they are engaging in a cover up makes no sense. I said the idea that they stumbled upon a huge safety issue like that, but didn't comment on it makes no sense.

My actual argument is that they didn't actually stumble on a huge safety issue and that the appearance of negative numbers in the graph are perhaps due to statistical quirks from a very low number of data points or similar. This makes complete sense.

Your scenario does not make any logical sense. I've explained why it makes no sense rather than just declare it does, unlike you.

You are ignoring the rest of my points, because you are not actually able to counter them like I was able to show your suggested explanation didn't make sense.

So, you've no explanation for why they wouldn't mention it. I've supplied several that are plausible and logically consistent.

And again, I am not misrepresenting things. The point is there is no reason to believe scientists would stick to a narrative on covid origins and avoid looking at things that contradict that narrative, but not do the same on vaccines. This point seems to have gone over your head.

But, leaving your misrepresenting aside, as we've seen, we know that this isn't the case here. See above.

Grasping at straws.

Nope, just holding you to the same accuracy that you demand from others.

According to that graph, the efficacy after 9 months has a huge range of values. They can't narrow it down any more than they have because the data they are working with at that end of the graph isn't statistically significant. So for all we know the actual number could be positive.

I'm not clinging to this study. I'm simply pointing out there findings on vaccine effectiveness. I think using these findings to promote vaccines is horseshit.

As you well know I think, except in certain circumstances, vaccination is neither wise nor important.

Ok. So then you think the study's conclusions are false and therefore it and all it's statistics are invalid.

If that's not the case, why are they making this false conclusion? Why would you trust the figures when you believe the authors are lying?

It makes no sense to do this unless you were just cherrying picking the graph and completely editing out of reality the rest of the context.

Edit: Scratch that last part. Double checked the study and it doesn't actually contain that quote. I confused it with something else.

However the study does state:

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

Which is much the same idea.

Edit edit:

The source of the quote is from the author of the study:

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

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

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119450576#Comment_119450576

Double checked the study and it doesn't actually contain that quote. I confused it with something else.

Becoming quite the habit.

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119450645#Comment_119450645

Mm hmm.

Cool.

Using that as an excuse to dodge points then. I will take that as you conceding them.

I edited the post to reflect the source of the quote.

The author of the paper states:

"Vaccination is therefore very wise and important."

You believe he is either lying or incompetent.

Which is it?

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119450482#Comment_119450482

It was a direct quote from the author of the report introducing it and has been presented to you already on the thread, with its source.

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

It was his conclusion, as an expert, in response to his finding. A study you introduced onto the topic so you must accept his standing as an expert. And he uses these findings to promote vaccines. What you have provided to counter this, well it counts for nothing in comparison.

You can cling to whatever opinion you want about vaccines, but don't pretend it is supported by this report and is expressly refuted by the expert author of the study.

The findings of the study show the benefits of vaccination - thousands of cases prevented over the trial period.

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

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

That's just cases. It also showed durable protection against severe covid for the entire trial period.

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

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

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119450671#Comment_119450671

So in the context of hospitalization or death, he thinks vaccination is wise and important.

I’ve no problem with that. If you’re at increased risk of hospitalization or death then vaccination could of course be viewed as wise or important.

But not for everybody. The wisdom and importance depends on the individual.