Covid vaccines - thread banned users in First Post

ohnonotgmail

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119092450#Comment_119092450

I know I'm doing something right when I'm annoying poster's like you and Markus. It is funny that people complaining about an organised group of skeptics use the word "us" to describe themselves. You couldn't make it up.

Igotadose

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119092696#Comment_119092696

So, don't take it. Take the supplements Blaylock is selling. He might even get you a discount on ivermectin.

One antivaxxer quoting another antivaxxer nutter. Nothing new under the sun.

pjohnson

So the conspiracists are back to fetishising King Mob.

That fetish is one of the few things they all agree on.

astrofool

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119092193#Comment_119092193

Look, with all due respect, if you want to quote that text with efficacy and confidence intervals included, you are going to want to start breaking it down into what you think it means, then include the data that isn't in that block, then include the FDA and EMA decisions that led to that approval, and show where they made an error (edit: and go read some other approval decisions for other products, so that the format is understood).

Because the fact that you posted it as you have would indicate that you don't understand what it means and this undermines any other points you're trying to make about the data, nothing you have built on it works from a logical perspective.

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119092787#Comment_119092787

Because the fact that you posted it as you have would indicate that you don't understand what it means and this undermines any other points you're trying to make about the data

The only point I am making is that the vaccines were not originally approved to reduce the severity of symptoms in covid cases, they were approved to prevent cases.

This is a fact and is spelt out in plain English.

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119092846#Comment_119092846

But it's not plain English. You're playing word games to try and cling to a straw to pretend that anti-vaxxers ever had a point.

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119092775#Comment_119092775

And of course, all the people who were so concerned about keeping discussion civil and were all upset about insults being thrown around. Not a peep.

All of the people accusing "extreme pro vaxxers" of being shills and sockpuppets suddenly don't seem all that concerned about an obvious rereg.

Weird that.

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119092887#Comment_119092887

It is likely that the vaccine also protects against severe COVID-19, though these events were limited in the study and the definition of severe COVID-19 could have been more stringent from a clinical perspective

and

Based on the available limited data, no reliable conclusion on the efficacy of the vaccine against severe COVID-19 can be drawn

A couple of plain English comments on their knowledge of whether or not vaccines would prevent sever Covid.

And their plain English conclusion:

From the experience with other vaccines it is expected that prevention of severe COVID-19 will be achieved by preventing COVID-19 overall.

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119092937#Comment_119092937

Yes. And you are playing word games to misrepresent these statements to mean things they don't.

Are you claiming that they said that the vaccines couldn't protect against severe COVID?

Are you claiming that the vaccines can't really do that?

If you're not, I'm still failing to see what point you're trying to make other than pedantic word games to point to "spin".

Fighting Tao

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119092846#Comment_119092846

What is the conspiracy? If there is none then why are you coming across like a conspiracy theorist and supporting their views?

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119092972#Comment_119092972

He's "not supporting conspiracy theory views". He just believes that conspiracy theorists are right when they make false claims he likes, and then ignores them when they make false claims he knows are ridiculous.

pjohnson

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119092893#Comment_119092893

Its also some new account (definitely NOT A RE-REG) that fantasises and imagines you in lingerie.

Creepy bunch.

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119092962#Comment_119092962

Are you claiming that they said that the vaccines couldn't protect against severe COVID?

No. I am claiming that they said the vaccines were likely to protect against severe COVID but they could not conclude that with confidence based on the available data:

Based on the available limited data, no reliable conclusion on the efficacy of the vaccine against severe COVID-19 can be drawn

Are you claiming that the vaccines can't really do that?

No. I am claiming the vaccines do protect against severe Covid, but that was not what they were approved to do. Approval was specifically granted to prevent all symptomatic Covid cases, irrespective of severity:

From the experience with other vaccines it is expected that prevention of severe COVID-19 will be achieved by preventing COVID-19 overall.

To now say the vaccines are working as intended in December 2020, because they are reducing the severity of in symptomatic Covid cases is a lie.

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119092987#Comment_119092987

Ok. So you believe that the EMA were lying when they said that the evidence they had supported the idea that the vaccines would prevent "all symptomatic Covid cases"? (They didn't say that, but for arguments sake, I'll pretend.)

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119092990#Comment_119092990

No I don't believe they were lying. In the case of Pfizer for example, they approved the vaccines on the basis of trial data that indicated an efficacy of 95% in preventing symptomatic Covid cases.

They were satisfied the data and the risk benefit analysis was good enough, in the context of an emergency, to grant approval for the vaccine specifically to prevent symptomatic Covid cases.

That the vaccine turned out to be nothing like as effective as the original data showed is unfortunate, but it does not mean that they were lying. They acted on the best available information they had at the time.

Dohnjoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119092972#Comment_119092972

We have ourselves a vaccine-pendant.

Agrees that vaccines are safe, agrees they are generally effective, agrees they combat the virus, but just has to have a go out of some spiteful personal experience either in life or on a forum.

Dohnjoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119093027#Comment_119093027

Why didn't they turn out to be as effective as trials?

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119093051#Comment_119093051

I have no idea of the definitive answer to that. I am not sure that anybody does. Certainly one of the most plausible explanations is because new variants of Covid rendered the original vaccines significantly less effective.

Dohnjoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119093067#Comment_119093067

The virus mutates.

Last years flu vaccine is not going to be as effective as this years one, why? The virus mutates and evolves (keep in mind not all virus's do this)

So when someone says the first Covid vaccine was highly effective at reducing symptomatic Covid, and someone else says that currently the vaccines are most effective at reducing deaths from Covid. Both of those statements are correct. They aren't mutually exclusive. A particular one isn't "spin".

Case closed?

Dohnjoe

Narrators voice: "the case wasn't closed"

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119093106#Comment_119093106

No, the point I made yesterday morning still stands:

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.

My point is that people are ignoring that the vaccines are not achieving what they were approved to do, and instead claiming that they were originally approved to reduce serious ill and death.

In response to the above post, numerous posters have claimed that they were in fact approved to reduce serious illness and death, and if I don't agree with that I just don't know how vaccines work.

Which rather proves the point I was making yesterday morning.

whippet

It is clear that Hometruths is an anti vaxxer but is dancing around words to avoid that tag.

by his own admission he is saying that vaccines have been successful and good but still wants to shoehorn some conspiracy in to it.

and no .... the authorisation isn't invalid.

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119093027#Comment_119093027

Ok. So they weren't lying about either point.

Where does the spin come in from the EMA?

Dohnjoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119093153#Comment_119093153

The first test results from the first vaccine showed it was effective in preventing Covid. You acknowledge this.

The virus has since mutated. You acknowledge this.

The vaccines are now primarily effective in e.g. reducing severe illness and death from Covid. You acknowledge this.

No idea what your issue is, or what the conspiracy is, but you sure seem very determined to "have an issue" with the vaccines. If you have a "but they told us" mentality, then this will really blow your mind, a variant could come out upon which vaccines have virtually no efficacy.

Dohnjoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119093188#Comment_119093188

100%. At least the foaming-at-the-mouth anti-vaxxers are open about it, they don't hide behind a veil of semantics and pedantry.

Dohnjoe

"I'm genuinely stumped about vaccines, I know, I'll go to a conspiracy forum" - No one. Ever.

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119093330#Comment_119093330

We keep being told that all the "real discussion" is being exiled here because the mods don't want it in the covid threads. Cause they're part of a global conspiracy.

But their not conspiracy theorists remember.

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119093188#Comment_119093188

He's also supported Pat's original lies about the Vaers data etc shows the vaccines are somehow dangerous.

It's another reason why these guys usually avoid commenting on each other's posts. It tends to show their beliefs a bit and makes it difficult for them to weasel.

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119093322#Comment_119093322

The first test results from the first vaccine showed it was effective in preventing Covid. You acknowledge this. Correct

The virus has since mutated. You acknowledge this. Correct

The vaccines are now primarily effective in e.g. reducing severe illness and death from Covid. You acknowledge this. Correct

The vaccines have only ever received approval for the specific purpose of preventing Covid and they have not received approval for the specific purpose of reducing how serious your symptoms will be if you contract Covid post vaccination.

I am stating this as a fact. I have linked to EMA regulatory documents to support that fact. Do you acknowledge it as true?

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119093395#Comment_119093395

But the document you posted doesn't say that.

You are misrepresenting one sentence from that document to mean that. You engage in some serious stretching to do so.

Please show a statement from the EMA or other bodies that state directly and in those terms: the vaccines have only ever received approval for the specific purpose of preventing Covid.

This should be very very easy for you given how you're agruing that this is the EMA's position, don't believe they are lying and you don't believe there was a conspiracy to cover this up.

And we're still not seeing your point.

You agree that the vaccines are effective in reducing the severity of covid.

But because it wasn't approved for that, the vaccines shouldn't be used?