Covid vaccines - thread banned users in First Post

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119188975#Comment_119188975

All while avoiding any scientific data.

LOL! Any chance of seeing some of the data on severity that you claimed was "extremely comprehensive and proven in massive trials"? That must have been available on day 1 too I guess?

astrofool

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119189064#Comment_119189064

Sure, here's a recent paper for you to run away from or spin away:

Effectiveness of COVID-19 Pfizer-BioNTech BNT162b2 mRNA Vaccination in Preventing COVID-19–Associated Emergency Department and Urgent Care Encounters and Hospitalizations Among Nonimmunocompromised Children and Adolescents Aged 5–17 Years — VISION Network, 10 States, April 2021–January 2022 (cdc.gov)

Here is the "pre-day1" data in press release form for you to try and argue with as well, you can find the trial results directly yourself (I doubt you have that ability, but go surprise everyone):

Pfizer and BioNTech Conclude Phase 3 Study of COVID-19 Vaccine Candidate, Meeting All Primary Efficacy Endpoints | Pfizer

Have you been able to find the EMA approval criteria and data yet? What, no, how surprising, now run away little doggy.

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119189115#Comment_119189115

Sure, here's a recent paper for you to run away from or spin away:

Effectiveness of COVID-19 Pfizer-BioNTech BNT162b2 mRNA Vaccination in Preventing COVID-19–Associated Emergency Department and Urgent Care Encounters and Hospitalizations Among Nonimmunocompromised Children and Adolescents Aged 5–17 Years — VISION Network, 10 States, April 2021–January 2022 (cdc.gov)

Data from April 2021 - January 2022? As you well know your statement "I disagree that the approvers were liars, the data on severity was extremely comprehensive and proven in massive trials that were then repeated with real world data." was in the context of the data available at time of approval.

Here is the "pre-day1" data in press release form for you to try and argue with as well, you can find the trial results directly yourself (I doubt you have that ability, but go surprise everyone):

Pfizer and BioNTech Conclude Phase 3 Study of COVID-19 Vaccine Candidate, Meeting All Primary Efficacy Endpoints | Pfizer

Extremely comprehensive data on severity and proven in massive trials?

There were 10 severe cases of COVID-19 observed in the trial, with nine of the cases occurring in the placebo group and one in the BNT162b2 vaccinated group.

Whilst you might interpret 10 cases as being proven extremely comprehensively, those at the EMA disagreed in deciding to approve the vaccine:

Pfizer

Based on the available limited data, no reliable conclusion on the efficacy of the vaccine against severe COVID-19 can be drawn from 7 days after the second dose (secondary endpoint).

astrofool

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119189268#Comment_119189268

I gave you data from the beginning and data from the end with the findings from the phase 3 trials matching very closely to the data recorded 2 years later.

Your inability to understand all this is on you.

Your inability to provide the approval criteria is also on you.

As predicted, you have just shown yourself to be an even bigger fool, rather than letting the science and data guide you.

(over 100,000 people participated in the various phase 3 trials for the Pfizer vaccine around the world, that by definition is a massive trial, if you want to go into the results and confidence intervals thereof, post the data and it can be discussed, you will run away from this as well, the effectiveness was 95%, you now need to go and understand what 95% means and build from there, or not and continue wearing the dunce cap).

bad2thebone

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119188975#Comment_119188975

You must not be Irish then, because we're thought different about vaccines and how they work.

The covid vaccines were a mass experiment for emergency use . No way would any other vaccines get approval after a few months. It could take ten years of research or even more before they're let loose amoungst the general population. There's a reason for that. But you're stead fast in digging your heels in and being part of the doughnut and McDonald's free pass brigade.

Didn't Donald Trump suggest the warp speed vaccine research and roll out.

Your just a blaggard, and you're trying to be all nonchalant and wise here with your aura of being the vaccine expertise. But you're just bluffing your way through the debate.

Like I said they were ok for the vulnerable and elderly, and helped them out. But healthy people didn't need to be so greedy and roll up their sleeves for a few doughnuts and a free pass to McDonald's.

I've more respect for people who trust their healthy immune system and knew from the start that covid isn't going to knock the stuffing out of them.

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119189501#Comment_119189501

I gave you data from the beginning and data from the end with the findings from the phase 3 trials matching very closely to the data recorded 2 years later.

Your inability to understand all this is on you.

I understand that the post approval real world data comprehensively showed that the vaccines were effective at reducing severity. Have never argued otherwise.

But now you are claiming that because the extremely comprehensive data from January 2022 showed similiar findings as the limited data available in 2020, the limited data can be described as extremely comprehensive!! LOL.

You are correct that I do not understand that claim. It's utterly ridiculous.

Your inability to provide the approval criteria is also on you.

I have linked to the EMA reports and quoted from them on multiple occasions. If there is some gotcha in there that I have missed, fine, just spit it out and we can discuss. These incessant vague references to some smoking gun in the approval criteria is ridiculous.

As predicted, you have just shown yourself to be an even bigger fool, rather than letting the science and data guide you.

(over 100,000 people participated in the various phase 3 trials for the Pfizer vaccine around the world, that by definition is a massive trial, if you want to go into the results and confidence intervals thereof, post the data and it can be discussed, you will run away from this as well, the effectiveness was 95%, you now need to go and understand what 95% means and build from there, or not and continue wearing the dunce cap).

The trial was massive, but it wasn't big enough to gauge severity. In any case, I'm disputing your claim that the data on severity was extremely comprehensive and proven. It wasn't. I know this because the regulators approval report expressly said so:

Based on the available limited data, no reliable conclusion on the efficacy of the vaccine against severe COVID-19 can be drawn from 7 days after the second dose (secondary endpoint).

This appears to me to contradict your statement: "I disagree that the approvers were liars, the data on severity was extremely comprehensive and proven in massive trials that were then repeated with real world data."

It boils down to two simple questions:

Do you think "available limited data" is another way of describing extremely comprehensive data?

Do you think "no reliable conclusion" is another way of saying proven?

Dohnjoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119189584#Comment_119189584

Multiple posters are addressing you, and others have explained in the past. You just lure each into "explaining it to you" and then just play the denialism game and spin everything away.

This is all you do here. It's a game. I've said this before and you continue to do nothing but this.

You aren't the first, or second, or third, or fourth poster on this forum to do this.

Dohnjoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119189551#Comment_119189551

You personally think you know more than vaccine makers and regulators and medical science.

9/11 truthers think they know more than the engineers and investigators.

The "space is fake" people think they know more than millions of NASA employees and physicists.

Always the same pattern.

Dohnjoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119189501#Comment_119189501

And this is why these shysters post on this forum, they know they can get away with it here. Very slippery altogether.

bad2thebone

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119189711#Comment_119189711

Running out of bluster I see.

Bringing up other's conspiracies and other post's.

So we're going into divergency now, that's enough, a sure sign you're on the retreat.

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119189682#Comment_119189682

Ah, the we've already explained this to you line. That old chestnut. Nobody has explained how "available limited data" becomes comprehensive data with hindsight? Or how "no reliable conclusion" now means proven. Least of all @astrofool If you'd like to give it a try, knock yourself out.

It's not a game to me. Similiar to the point @Fighting Tao made earlier, I just post to counter the nonsense posted by the extreme pro-vaccine advocates here in case someone gullible stumbles across the thread and falls for their lies.

Dohnjoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119189807#Comment_119189807

It's all you do here. You must have hundreds of posts.

You "don't get" something, a poster explains it, you "don't get it", another poster explains, you "don't get it". Hundreds and hundreds of posts of nothing but that.

Again, this is far from the first time I've seen this approach here.

And it's all you will ever do, as demonstrated by your continuous, neverending, belligerence on it.

Dohnjoe

Page 243, vaccines are still safe and effective. No conspiracies. 95%+ of the Irish pop. vaccinated.

Fighting Tao

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119189682#Comment_119189682

Nah, he’s the first and the rest too.

Dohnjoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119189852#Comment_119189852

I am presuming this is Phishnet right?

astrofool

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119189807#Comment_119189807

You have countered nothing, you have presented no data or evidence for anything you've said, the previous post was a complete nonsense with no data, every time you are provided with stats and data you reply with a comment or quote taken out of context and run away like a chicken from the data.

The trials were massive, they were the largest ever phase 3 trials for a medicine.

The trial results were posted to you including the results against severe COVID-19.

Those results were then repeated 2 years later with real world data as was provided in the study.

You again have nowhere to go.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119189862#Comment_119189862

It is phishnet, the lad who was sent home by doctors and banned from numerous COVID threads for posting idiocy.

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119189834#Comment_119189834

You do realise how repetitive and relentless your posts are? "We've explained this to you, you don't get it"

You haven't explained anything. It's a simple deflection technique.

You quoted a post in which I asked for a simple explanation via two direct questions, telling me that it has been explained to me. And then I point out that point has not been specifically explained to me, and rather than explain it, what do you say?

"It's been explained to you."

You do it simply to clog up the thread and move it on from the glaring reality of the point being made:

The EMA approval report for the Pfizer vaccine had this to say on severity: Based on the available limited data, no reliable conclusion on the efficacy of the vaccine against severe COVID-19 can be drawn from 7 days after the second dose (secondary endpoint).

In what universe does this equate to proven efficacy against severity based on extremely comprehensive data?!

You want to move discussion on from this point because you know the answer - I have explained it to you enough times, but you didn't need an explanation because it is blindingly obvious.

So you deflect, and appear to get frustrated by my inability to understand or refusal to listen. And make personal attacks. As long as you carry on this technique, I will respond and challenge it every time. If you find that tedious and repetitive you only have yourself to blame.

And you're far from the only poster who uses this deflection technique. KingMob is also a relentless deflector. Consequently wanting to deflect discussion towards posts he thinks are easier to argue.

Why is that do you think?

Fighting Tao

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119189862#Comment_119189862

Sure is.

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119189883#Comment_119189883

This does not actually even make an attempt refute any of the points I made in the post you referenced.

It is simply hand waving, telling me "You have countered nothing, you have presented no data or evidence for anything you've said"

This totally ignores the fact that I countered your offer of the Pfizer trial data to back up your claim that - the data on severity was extremely comprehensive and proven in massive trials - with the directly contradictory written opinion of the EMA approval report based on the Pfizer trial:

Based on the available limited data, no reliable conclusion on the efficacy of the vaccine against severe COVID-19 can be drawn from 7 days after the second dose (secondary endpoint)

And this is exactly the sort of post you try to rely on to claim "I have explained this to you." Total madness. But nobody is fooled by it. Least of all yourself.

astrofool

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119189551#Comment_119189551

Most people universally know how vaccines work and why we give vaccines to babies for virus that are unlikely to harm them as babies but can have serious issues later in life. Also why there is flu vaccine drives in colleges and schools when, statistically, those in college and schools are much less likely to be impacted by flu if they catch it.

The COVID vaccines were never under emergency use in Europe, the manufacturer had liability from day 1.

There is numerous infographics on how trials and approvals work and how they can be sped up (the answer is money not time).

The main warp speed triumph was from Moderna, Pfizer (the first vaccine approved) was European based as was Oxford, J&J was a later success for the program. Since then, there have been numerous other vaccine successes (Novavax, Valneva) and failures (Sanofi, Curevac).

It's funny being called a blaggard by a group of people who wouldn't know the scientific process if it jumped in front of them and boxed them right in the nose sending them home crying.

astrofool

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119189939#Comment_119189939

You were provided directly with the trial data and 2 year data showing the impact on severity.

You responded with an out of context quote. The trials were the largest in history, that is massive. The severity data was there on day 1 with the confidence intervals included to temper the claims but were then repeated with real world data both during the rollout and now 2 years later, everything I have said has been factually proven. You still haven't been able to go over the approval criteria (because it complete counters all the points you've been making).

You've already conceded in this area and all others (just because you're not convinced doesn't mean anything, you were unable to provide any further evidence for your arguments and started retreating to old arguments where you have already been unable to present any new evidence).

However, just for sh*ts and giggles, post your source for this quote and we can then dismantle it for you and show where you have misunderstood again (like was done for the Scottish case data), EMA website is here if you want to look up the approvals yourself https://www.ema.europa.eu/:

Based on the available limited data, no reliable conclusion on the efficacy of the vaccine against severe COVID-19 can be drawn from 7 days after the second dose (secondary endpoint).

bad2thebone

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119189945#Comment_119189945

Lol your Jedi mind tricks won't work on me neither will it work on hometruths. We've both seen through your nonchalant holier than thou tactics and double speak.

So Donjoe resort's to 911 flat earth etc , you finish off with a box in the nose and me crying. That my friend is a sure sign that you're unable to conduct yourself. You resort to a violent synopsis therefore exposing your weakness.

Scientific process, go on outta that .Hometruths has ripped you argument apart left right and center. And you're still spouting the same old same old.

You're trying to be a fact checkers like you'd see on Twitter, but a lot of those liar's are getting the shaft soon anyhow. So you resort yourself to the likes of boards.ie to make yourself sound intelligent creative and innovative. Which is funny really.

astrofool

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119190002#Comment_119190002

Here is the EMA website, knock yourself out, prove someone wrong, you won't, I guarantee it:

https://www.ema.europa.eu/

Your only recourse will be to try and cast doubt on the EMA, have fun with that :)

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119189976#Comment_119189976

You responded with an out of context quote. The trials were the largest in history, that is massive. 

You claimed that the data on severity was extremely comprehensive and proven in massive trials and offered the Pfizer trial data as evidence of that.

Despite the fact that any fool can see ten cases is not extremely comprehensive, I provided you with a quote from the EMA approval report specifically commenting on that trial data you referenced:

Based on the available limited data, no reliable conclusion on the efficacy of the vaccine against severe COVID-19 can be drawn from 7 days after the second dose (secondary endpoint).

How on earth can you call that out of context?!

And yes the trial was massive in terms of positive Covid cases, but it wasn't big enough in terms of reliable conclusions for severe cases. Why? Because severe cases are far far rarer. (A fact that in itself makes for interesting discussion, but I've no wish to deflect)

That's why the data was described by the EMA as "the available limited data" which is the total opposite of extremely comprehensive data.

However, just for sh*ts and giggles, post your source for this quote and we can then dismantle it for you and show where you have misunderstood again (like was done for the Scottish case data):

I have linked this repeatedly already: https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/assessment-report/comirnaty-epar-public-assessment-report_en.pdf

astrofool

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119190038#Comment_119190038

Oh my word. You weren't this dumb were you?

Based on the available limited data, no reliable conclusion on the efficacy of the vaccine against severe COVID-19 can be drawn from 7 days after the second dose (secondary endpoint). The estimated efficacy against severe COVID-19 occurring at least 7 days after dose 2 was 66.4%, with a large and negative lower bound CI (95% CI: -124.8%; 96.3%).

astrofool

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119190045#Comment_119190045

And I'll just post the entire uncertainties section (noting that this seems to be the only part of the report you paid attention to, ignoring the rest of the document presumably):

3.3. Uncertainties and limitations about favourable effects Based on the available limited data, no reliable conclusion on the efficacy of the vaccine against severe COVID-19 can be drawn from 7 days after the second dose (secondary endpoint). The estimated efficacy against severe COVID-19 occurring at least 7 days after dose 2 was 66.4%, with a large and negative lower bound CI (95% CI: -124.8%; 96.3%). Only a limited number of events occurred at the cut-off date of analysis (1 and 4 cases in the vaccine and placebo groups respectively). The posterior probability for the true vaccine efficacy ≥ 30% (74.29%) did not meet the pre-specified success criterion. Consequently, the efficacy against the severe disease across subgroups, notably certain populations at high-risk of severe COVID-19 cannot be estimated (elderly and subjects with comorbidities). Efficacy against asymptomatic infection is not available but, notwithstanding all the limitations, will be assessed through seroconversion of N-binding antibodies in BNT162b2 and placebo recipients who did not experience COVID-19. The pivotal study was not designed to assess the effect of the vaccine against transmission of SARSCoV-2 from subjects who would be infected after vaccination. The efficacy of the vaccine in preventing SARS-CoV-2 shedding and transmission, in particular from individuals with asymptomatic infection, can only be evaluated post-authorisation in epidemiological or specific clinical studies. Duration of protection has currently been followed up for approximately 100 days after dose 1. Data on longer term protection are anticipated to the extent that the ongoing phase 3 study can continue as planned with a placebo group. The assessment of efficacy over a period of at least 6 months is expected to determine the need and the appropriate time of a booster dose. There seems to be at least a partial onset of protection after the first dose, but this remains unconfirmed at this stage. There are very limited or no data in immunocompromised subjects and in pregnant women. Efficacy in subjects aged 16-17 years is extrapolated from young adults as no cases of disease were reported in this small group at this stage. Available data do not suffice to establish efficacy in subjects seropositive for SARS-CoV-2 at baseline, and subjects with a known history of COVID-19. However, efficacy is anticipated in this group, to the extent that they are not naturally protected against re-infection, which is presently incompletely characterised.

and I would note particularly this piece, just to back up the approval criterion were unrelated to transmission (which is obvious as they were only counting symptomatic infections during the phase 3 trials):

The efficacy of the vaccine in preventing SARS-CoV-2 shedding and transmission, in particular from individuals with asymptomatic infection, can only be evaluated post-authorisation in epidemiological or specific clinical studies

I'm also guessing you're going to try and misunderstand more parts of this paragraph, this should be funny.

bad2thebone

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119190012#Comment_119190012

I never brought up the EMA website, that has nothing to do with what myself and yourself were engaging in.

astrofool

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119190063#Comment_119190063

And just to show the data table (95% CI would mean there's a 1/20 chance that if the trial was repeated it wouldn't show substantially different numbers, with a 95% chance of those numbers varying between 90.0 and 97.9), again, this CI was included in the day 1 data for all vaccines, which is what the real world data later improved upon):

astrofool

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119190089#Comment_119190089

I am unsurprised that you don't want any data brought into your argument points.

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119190045#Comment_119190045

If you going to try and rely on this as a "Gotcha, I have explained it to you, this backs up my claim that the data on severity was extremely comprehensive and proven in massive trials" you are going to have to do better than just calling me dumb.

So go ahead. Please explain what data in the section titled "Uncertainties and limitations about favourable effects" did you interpret as extremely comprehensive and proven?