Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Covid vaccines - thread banned users in First Post

1226227229231232251

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,141 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    Hong Kong shows what happens when Omicron hits an unvaxxed vulnerable population.

    Why would 'shoeboxes' matter?

    Omicron already emerged so how a petri dish effect comes into it only you seem to understand - but it aint science.

    The reason why we dont have other examples to point to is because of the scale and success of the vaccine rollout.

    Either you expose your vulnerable to covid at some point - and see many of them die. Or you protect them until you have vaccinated them.

    It is obvious you have no way to rebut HK as proof of this other than poor attempts at deflection like 'legendary'.

    It is not a legend.

    It happened.

    And people died from Omicron who could have lived had they been vaccinated.

    "To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,721 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    For reference, and to contrast the complete lack of definition of the made up term "extreme pro vaxxer"...


    You are not an anti vaxxer because you don't want to get the vaccine.

    You are an anti vaxxer because you believe and spread a wide variety of false and debunked claims about the vaccine. You are an anti vaxxer because you repeatly use dishonesty to defend those beliefs. You are an anti vaxxer because you keep linking to propaganda mills like natural news and epoch times as well as grifters to support your claims.

    You are an antivaxxer because you oppose vaccines to an irrational level and to the point that you refuse to call them vaccines.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,141 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    Frankly it is embarrassing to be called an extreme pro vaxxer.

    Clearly I am a super mega stage 4 xTreme pro vaxxer and any labels not addressed in my proper title will be treated with disdain.

    * I have tried reasoning with posters on labels but sometimes, sarcasm is the only course to highlight the hollowness of a position

    "To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,721 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    You only say that cause you haven't been given the all clear like I have.

    I'm officially not an extreme pro vaxxer according to our resident labelers.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,343 ✭✭✭dwayneshintzy


    This is a completely nonsensical view of what happened in HK. Small apartments had nothing to do with the disaster that started back in January; people did not spend a year in isolation either.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,242 ✭✭✭hometruths


    Hong Kong showed that age and lack of natural immunity is the biggest factor in vulnerability to Covid deaths - not vaccination status.

    They were hit worse by Omicron because they had largely managed to shut out Covid completely before that.

    If anything Hong Kong's experience suggests the Swedes had the right idea, not that the vaccines are manna from heaven.



  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,242 ✭✭✭hometruths


    Your activity on this forum suggests to me you're motivated more by being extremely anti conspiracy theories rather than extremely pro vaccines.

    Years of mocking posters for their opinions on UFOs, JFKs death, 911 etc has left you ill prepared to debate arguments backed up by stats and data from sources such as medical journals.

    Hence you're reduced to wittering on about links found on twitter or extremist websites in order to deride and ridicule of contributors asking questions or questioning information.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,721 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    But this is just your own personal biased opinion that's the result of consuming social media supplied misinformation.

    Are you moving away from your previous link dump already?


    If so, you might wanna read the next one in full before dumping it. And I'd recommend skipping the stage of posting the odd local news source and just post the study directly. Your tactic doesn't prevent people from reading them and seeing how you are misrepresenting them.



  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,242 ✭✭✭hometruths




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,721 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    And of course, you're misattributing arguments to me that I don't make.


    Yes, I keep pointing out that you anti-vaxxers use twitter and extremist sources, because you keep using twitter and extremists sources.

    Why shouldn't I point that out?



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,141 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    People died in Hong Kong who would have had much better chance at survival if vaccinated.

    Hong Kong showed that Omicron has the potential to cause significant deaths in an unvaxxed population. It shows that Omicron alone would not have spared us, had people not been vaccinated.

    How do you acquire this natural immunity, other than running the risk of infection?

    And in that process, you expose your vulnerable to risk of death and hospitalisation from covid.

    Which is how Sweden ended up with significantly higher excess deaths than their peers and near neighbours in Scandinavia.

    Genius plan.

    Oh, and Sweden were to the forefront in rolling out vaccines.

    "To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,141 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    The links are being posted from twitter and extremist websites onto this forum. Of course, it would suit you to try to lay down ground rules that it is out of bounds to note this.

    And in many cases, the claims made on those websites do not match the contents of the original stats and data.

    "To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,721 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    The claims made by Hometruths rarely match the contents.

    Just look at the last few examples.

    Claimed that one study showed "extreme pro vaxxers" were on the decline. Reduced to claiming that the study doesn't support anything and is just "interesting" Claimed that the study didn't show that 21.6% of people didn't say their confidence in vaccines had increased.


    I don't think any of us need to prepared to debate anyone on stats and data when they can be debunked by simply reading what they clearly don't.



  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,242 ✭✭✭hometruths


    Irrespective of the content linked your repeated argument to dismiss the poster is "I think you found that on twitter or an unreliable source".

    You do this because you are unable to make a sensible argument against the content actually posted.

    Your MO is not to argue the point being made, and not even to dismiss the evidence for the point made, it is to dismiss what you think is the source of the source of the evidence for the point made. It is nonsense.

    Or if somebody expresses an opinion, you simply say their opinion is not valid because it is the result of consuming social media supplied misinformation.

    Your inability to actually discuss or debate why their opinion might be wrong is transparent.



  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,242 ✭✭✭hometruths


    I don't use twitter and I have not posted a single link to an extremist website on this site.

    The point I am making is content from sources like the BMJ are dismissed lazily with a "you probably found that on twitter or an extremist website"



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,721 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Lol Nope. that's not what I'm arguing. More misattribution.

    You also ignore the fact that I do often address and counter the claims you make, you just also ignore it when I do that.

    For example, in your previous linkdump from social media, you started by claiming the point was that the study showed or had something to do with "Extreme pro vaxxers".

    But then, I explained in detail and directly how the study cannot say anything about that. You ignored this because your "MO" is to ignore things you can't address under the guise of "wanting to preserve discussion".

    You then also changed what your point was to be something about vaccine messaging causing the decline in confidence. Right up until you were challenged on this and changed your point again.


    This is all aside from the reason I bring up the fact you got this from some social media.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,141 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    Strange, apparently you have been reading the thread, and missed all the posts with stuff sourced from dodgy websites and random twitter feeds. And not once have you challenged or engaged with them... You seem to have blinkers on.

    You also seem to have had those same blinkers on because multiple posters have challenged not just the source, but the content of these articles, including ones posted by you. Usually with reference to the contents of the underlying study. In the last 48 hours, you will see lots of such posts.

    So your statement is demonstrably false and self - serving. You have may have convinced yourself of this falsehood, but it is a self deception.

    "To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,721 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    No one has "dismissed content from sources like the BMJ" except for your anti-vaxxers. More misattribution.

    I distinctly remember posting a study from the BMJ that showed the vaccines were responsible for saving millions of lives. You guys dismissed this among general ignoring and accusations of fraud.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,488 ✭✭✭Fighting Tao


    I think your question just shows how logic fails conspiracy theorists and anti-vaxxers. It’s a question that if answered proves that the whole Hong King argument they are trying to push is basically bullshit and just regurgitated from elsewhere without any little bit of thought.

    Some people just can’t think about and question logically but they insist they can and it results in a weird situation where they end up flogging themselves repeatedly and they seem to enjoy it. Case in point with Hong King, and Hometruths and Snowcats insistence that studies state things that they don’t, even so far as one poster contacting a study author only for the poster to be told that that they are misinterpreting the study. This wasn’t good enough for the poster so they still argued their claim. It reminds me of self flagellation. The pain of looking foolish is a pleasure.



  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,242 ✭✭✭hometruths


    Again this is all total nonsense.

    For example:

    Claimed that the study didn't show that 21.6% of people didn't say their confidence in vaccines had increased.

    No I did not claim that.

    You claimed that study showed vaccine confidence increased by 21.6%.

    Which is total garbage. I simply pointed out your misunderstanding that there is a difference between 21.6% people saying their confidence in vaccines has increased and claiming vaccine confidence increased by 21.6%



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,721 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Lol. More desperate word games to try and avoid points.

    This is also your "MO".

    You ignore the majority of points to nitpick at one to distract from the long list of factual errors, mistruths and lies you try to tell.

    And of course, this is complete hypocrisy on your part. Whinging about people misattributing arguments to you, while then claiming people did and said things they don't.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,721 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    It took a good two pages just to get him to admit that Natural News was not a good source. And even then it was kind of a sideways backhanded admission.

    Conspiracy theorists are not permitted to disagree with each other. They can't point out that their fellows sources are obviously dodgy, because their own sources are equally as dodgy, just with different reputations and openness about their dodgy nature.

    Likewise they can't acknowledge that there is misinformation being spread on the thread because that too would draw the obvious comparison.



  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,242 ✭✭✭hometruths


    Likewise they can't acknowledge that there is misinformation being spread on the thread because that too would draw the obvious comparison.

    Unfortunately the whole topic of covid and the vaccines is riddled with misinformation from all angles. And for sure it is present on this thread.

    For example the claims that spreading misinformation about vaccines is dangerous because it reduces our chances of sufficient uptake to reach herd immunity because of vaccine hesitancy is, ironically enough, pure misinformation.

    We will not reach herd immunity thanks to the vaccines because the vaccines do not prevent infection or transmission.

    It's nothing to do with vaccine hesitancy caused by misinformation. To claim otherwise is pure misinformation.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,721 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    But I posted several studies that discuss the effects of misinformation against vaccines and shows what impact it has.

    You are now rejecting and dismissing these studies despite the fact they are peer reviewed and published in journals such as Nature. More hypocrisy.

    You are also now trying to deflect back to your particular bug bear that's been addressed over and over and over and is also based on misattributed arguments.


    And this of course is aside from the points I was actually making in my post which you do not address at all. You don't even acknowledge them.

    Hilariously hypocritical.



  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,242 ✭✭✭hometruths


    What is the official line on vaccine induced herd immunity at the minute? Is it possible to achieve?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,721 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Lol. No man. You don't get to dodge the vast majority of my points then badger me for the answer to some random off topic question.


    According to you, the studies I provided from Nature are all misinformation and you are dismissing them. Ok. Cool. As I said, this makes you a massive hypocrite for whinging at us for supposedly doing the same thing about stuff being published in the BMJ (which again, no one did.)

    My point is made.



  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,242 ✭✭✭hometruths


    It is not off topic.

    The point I am making is that there is all sorts of flavours of misinformation relating to covid and covid vaccines.

    For example clearly the idea that the vaccines are a mechanism to implant the global population with 5G for mind control is utter nonsense and total misinformation without a shred of credible evidence.

    But saying that covid vaccines will not achieve herd immunity because they do not protect infection or transmission is less clear. There is very credible evidence for this statement but it is often dismissed as misinformation, or at least has been in the past.

    I am just wondering what the consensus line on this is at the minute? I presume those on here who are constantly hand waving about the dangers of misinformation being spread unchecked will be able to enlighten us?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,721 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    OK. So you believe that Nature is an example of a source providing misinformation.

    And as such you are dismissing the studies I posted from there.



  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,242 ✭✭✭hometruths



    No, I didn't say that.

    I wondering what you think about the claims regarding herd immunity as you posted two studies from there.

    I am also wondering what anybody else thinks about the claims of herd immunity. Is it currently misinformation or not?

    The point I am making is that a lot of what was considered misinformation 12 months ago is currently considered credible. And vice versa.

    So vague handwaving about spreading misinformation is totally pointless. What misinformation are you specifically worried about?



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,721 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Ok. So then you agree that the studies i posted are not misinformation. Cool.

    Weird that you tried to claim they were misinformation previously.

    Also weird you're still badgering me to answer your silly question.



  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,242 ✭✭✭hometruths


    It's not a silly question. If we learn something new that contradicts what was previously thought to be true, then we need to update what we consider to be misinformation. Pretending otherwise is silly.

    One of the studies you posted is a perfect example of what I am talking about and is most certainly not misinformation, or at least it wasn't at the time it was published - February 2021.

    Back then the vaccines were all about herd immunity and the worry was low uptake would mean we wouldn't reach herd immunity. Now we know that was a pipe dream. So yes, to make that claim today is misinformation.

    I am familiar with one of the authors and find him to be very credible - Alex de Figueiredo of the Vaccine Confidence Project - and indeed have cited his work in the BMJ here before about extreme pro vaccine advocates and coercive covid vaccine policies damaging the long term confidence in all vaccines.

    Ironically enough he subsequently got banned from Twitter for spreading misinformation about vaccines. Or at least what Twitter deemed to be misinformation.

    But I believe Twitter has since updated its guidelines and some, if not all, of what he got banned for is now consensus.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,721 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    But it is a silly question as you're only asking it as a distraction from all of the points and questions you are dodging. I told you I'm not going to respond to it any more than you are going to respond to the hundreds of questions of mine and others you've ducked.

    As you agree, the studies I posted are not misinformation and you accept their findings. Discussion done.



  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,242 ✭✭✭hometruths


    I would be a lot more hesitant than you are to label something as misinformation.

    But I do think posting this sort of thing in November 2022 as evidence of the dangers of misinformation is laughable:

    It is estimated that a novel COVID-19 vaccine will need to be accepted by at least 55% of the population to provide herd immunity, with estimates reaching as high as 85% depending on country and infection rate. Reaching these required vaccination levels should not be assumed given well-documented evidence of vaccine hesitancy across the world, which is often fuelled by online and offline misinformation surrounding the importance, safety or effectiveness of vaccines.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,303 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe



    The 400 pages of this thread really demonstrates there are no coherent conspiracies, and reinforces that there will always be a determined group of individuals who will attempt to malign vaccines in any way possible, regardless of benefits.

    Polls have also demonstrated that a vast majority of anti-vaxxers still wouldn't get shots even if there were no side effects whatsoever, and that very little will change their minds.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,721 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    No. I'm pretty confident in labeling things from sites like Info Wars, Natural News and Epoch Times as misinformation.


    But ok, you're back to dismissing the studies I posted again. Cool.



  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,129 Mod ✭✭✭✭robinph


    Misinformation - deliberately making stuff up that is clearly false but then lying about the source of the information.

    Science - our understanding of things change over time as we learn more about stuff.


    If the theories about when herd immunity might be reached has changed over the last couple of years that is not misinformation.

    Claiming that vaccines have been designed to kill us all off, implant 5G, or something else is misinformation... Or lying.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,721 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    There are no coherent conspiracies because the grifters the anti-vaxxers follow on twitter and other social media don't provide one.

    If they provide one they run the risk of possibly contradicting themselves or stepping on the toes of specific beliefs. They'd also be in danger of making disprovable predictions or statements that get proved to be false. They might also just sound silly if they lay out a theory in clear terms

    it's much easier and much more profitable for them to Just Ask Questions and make insinuations for their audience to fill in the blanks with their prefered narrative.

    And here, since conspiracy theorists are only repeating what they see on twitter et al, that's all we get. Few conspiracy theorists seem able to actually formulate their own theories. The few who do I believe reach the same conclusions as the grifters and know better than to solidly outline things.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,721 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Lets not forget claims like the idea that the vaccines aren't vaccines. That the VAERS and similar data is showing the vaccines are dangerous. That the vaccines will change people's DNA. That the vaccines are killing millions of people. That the vaccines are causing infertility and miscarriages. That the vaccines are causing cancers. That the vaccines are causing news presenters and sports players to drop dead. That the vaccines are a part of a global scheme to remove the concept of ownership inside of 7 years...



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,303 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Aspirin is 200 times more dangerous than these vaccines. Have a headache? We take an aspirin.

    Anti-vaxxers are simply that, anti-vaccine. A cemented personal belief and stance. Manifests itself in many ways, whether its someone claiming there are magnets inside the vaccines, someone else who relentlessly attacks the treatment by cherry-picking studies, others carrying on an act of "just asking questions" constantly, others who are "really concerned" about the kids, and so on

    Vaccines aren't perfect, it's just a type of treatment, their benefits (greatly) outweigh any drawbacks. That doesn't compute with fanatics who must attack vaccines in some way, any way possible. They are unable to do otherwise and very little will ever change their beliefs.

    All we can do is highlight their systematic behaviour and faulty thinking.



  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,242 ✭✭✭hometruths


    Given your concern for the consequences of unfettered misinformation, who are you protecting from the consequences?

    Despite the utterances of early 2021, we now know that concerns about uptake required for herd immunity is not an issue.

    Are you protecting anti-vaxxers from themselves? Or is it something else that troubles you about anti-vaxxers spreading misinformation?



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,303 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe



    Anti-vaxxers, a considerable number of them, have unnecessarily died from Covid as a result of consuming false and misleading information about vaccines. A lot of that comes from social media.

    I know two anti-vaxxers, they were both convinced by online garbage. Some of the propaganda and methods used to spread this disinfo are potent. I have driven past old people holding anti-vax placards on the side of the road. These are older, at risk, vulnerable people, who are refusing to get vaccinated against Covid because they have, very sadly, also bought into the anti-vax stuff.

    It's dangerous disinformation, it's straight-up costing lives.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,218 ✭✭✭snowcat


    Amazing they are still alive :-). I know a few stroke victims in their 40's and 50's and 2 who unfortunately passed in the last year. All very sudden and unexpected. One of those excess deaths i guess due to the heatwave.

    https://www.spectator.com.au/2022/11/covid-karmas-gonna-get-ya/



  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,242 ✭✭✭hometruths


    Gosh, you have much more first hand experience of the damage wrought than I do. I don't know any anti-vaxxer fanatics personally. I only know one unvaccinated person, but wouldn't really consider him an anti-vaxxer. He certainly doesn't preach to anybody about his vaccination status. He's more of an each to their own type of person.

    I don't actually know any extreme pro vaccine fanatics either, i.e anybody who preaches about the importance of getting vaccinated. Again all the vaccinated people I know would be of the each to their own ilk. I do know quite a few who would have strong views about giving their kids the covid vaccine, if it were to be mandated, but given that is not likely to happen it does not appear to bother any of them.

    And I'd totally agree that the elderly would probably be better off getting vaccinated than spreading dangerous disinformation, but I would not consider demonising them on account of their individual choices.

    Maybe I'd think differently if there were hordes of angry anti-vax senior citizens with placards in my neighbourhood, but oddly enough I've never seen any of this sort of thing. Plenty of old people around these parts though.

    Must keep my eye out for these pensioner protesters, assuming they are still alive.

    Though I suspect given that 99.9% of people over the age of 65 in Ireland are vaccinated, this might be a factor in the rare sightings of this particular breed of anti-vaxxer, so I won't hold my breath.

    Good for you though, tirelessly tackling inaccurate information on behalf of the 0.1%.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,303 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    It's not amazing. Over 6 million people have died from Covid, and vaccines reduce the chance of death from the virus (by up to 90% depending on variant). It's simple maths.

    The virus has killed a disproportionate amount of people who didn't bother to take the vaccine, were too scared to or worst of all, were anti-vaxxers.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,303 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Good for you though, tirelessly tackling inaccurate information on behalf of the 0.1%.

    The inadvertent acknowledgement. And thanks.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,218 ✭✭✭snowcat


    I is amazing. 6 Million people? On paper maybe. When you have 92 year olds succunbing to a viral illness with cancer and several other comorbitities it becomes a bit of a joke. Its the same as giving the mRNA vaccine to a 92 year old, and when they die from it you have a choice of putting it as a natural death or as a vaccine death. The vaccine fanatics will say she was on the way out anyway. Which may be true but it was the same with Covid.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,488 ✭✭✭Fighting Tao


    Any evidence that death certs are being falsified?



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,218 ✭✭✭snowcat


    Not to mention that most of the world had covid even pre vaccines and 99.99% survived so 6 million in a population of 8 billion is fairly statistically meaningless



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,218 ✭✭✭snowcat




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,488 ✭✭✭Fighting Tao


    Yeah, I did think you were making up nonsense again. Thanks for confirming.



  • Advertisement
Advertisement