Covid vaccines - thread banned users in First Post

Dohnjoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119198269#Comment_119198269

The experts who made the vaccines were happy for themselves, and their families and friends and colleagues to be "lab rats". That's because they understand what they are dealing with.

Unlike those individuals who don't and portray them as "Dr Evil" type characters in conspiracies they can't explain. In a pandemic they don't understand with a virus they can't grasp, with measures and restrictions they rail against for reasons they can't articulate.

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119200707#Comment_119200707

As repeated, multiple times, the table was only included for completeness as the paragraph including the measured affected against severe disease with a high CI was already posted twice at that point

🤣

It's also the last time I'll post completeness of data to one of your requests and everyone can laugh at you as you spin off into random directions of misunderstanding.

🤣

So now we're at only posted for completeness?! You knew it was not the data relating to severe disease all along?! Whereas previously it was:

the data posted shows the effect from the trials along with the confidence intervals you misunderstood,

and:

then posted all of the section so you wouldn't lamp off and get other things wrong (which you did anyway), then posted the table with the data for that section,

Erm - the data in the table is from a completely different section! I think you still have not realised this.

and on you go...

... very happy that you posted the title as the main intention was to try and stop you claiming random other things, which you have anyway.

Remember, you won't admit anything, you will go as far as your messed up understanding will go and then concede by bouncing off to other topics, the entire point of showing the data is that we all know how much of a fool you have been, and that has stayed pretty consistent throughout.

Now, back to the data, and note that I specifically highlighted the 66.4% for you, so not sure what you're doing there, but that effect was observed during the phase 3 trial against severe disease, so we had data from day 1.

🤣 remember each of these posts is a reply to me pointing out you had posted the wrong data, yet you are unable to understand it, all while quoting figures that you specifically highlighted that are not in the table!!!

I tried again to spell out your mistake, spoon feeding you as it were:

This data is nothing to do with severity - it is all cases of Covid. You cited this data as backing up what was said in section 3.3, this data relates to section 3.2.

Even after it has been pointed out to you I am now not sure if you even realise that you're using the wrong data to back up your argument, which is a measure of your understanding of this. But it blindingly obvious.

And your response to this?!!?:

And we're now into an argument about the table being used which clearly shows the numbers involved (and the data and CI, the only thing unlisted is the upper and lower bounds which I had already quoted).

And again I pointed out your mistake, and again hilariously you made an even bigger fool of yourself:

Note the 66.3 (the decimal .3 might be off, you can argue if it isn't .3) in the table, the upper and lower bound are listed in the paragraph above, also quoted.

So although you noticed that the figures we're different, you'd didn't actually stop to wonder why?! And after I pointed it out to you, you still didn't realise, your response was:

For my next trick, hometruths will get some more approval data wrong in a way everybody but hometruths understands!

🤣

And now eventually you've realised the error, instead of acknowledging it you say: "the table was only included for completeness"

LOL! You say you only posted it for completeness, but even after all this I think you actually still have no idea what the data you posted actually indicated!!

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119201528#Comment_119201528

Dude. You aren't convincing anyone. Not even conspiracy theorists.

Why do you keep wasting your time?

Dohnjoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119198373#Comment_119198373

According to you, an internet poster on a conspiracy theory forum, it "isn't enough".

According to most vaccine experts, it is sufficient.

Call me crazy, but when it comes to choosing between the opinion of a lay-person from the internet OR the global consensus of vaccine makers, experts, their regulators - I know which way I go

But then again I don't have a narcissism disorder that leads me to believe I know "as much as or more" than the experts :)

bad2thebone

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119201639#Comment_119201639

Exactly you have a different narcissistic disorder which is overt rather than covert. Still seeking attention when I clearly said I'm tired of addressing my opinions on the vaccines. And shilly put it in black and white how they're researched etc and someone else said a lot more money than usual went into them than usual vaccine research therefore speeding up the process of development and research.

Everyone has a bit of narcissistic tendencies it's natural, but if we were sitting on a table and we laid out our narcissistic tendencies on said table I'd pick my mine over your's :)

Dohnjoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119201809#Comment_119201809

Missed the point entirely. You don't "know more" than the consensus of vaccine experts. I "don't know" more than them either. This thread is full of lay-people who think they do, and make life decisions based on that view. Are you vaccinated? No.

Also I suspect you aren't tired of expressing your opinions on vaccines, because I somehow don't think someone is holding a gun to your head forcing you to post in a thread on vaccines.

bad2thebone

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119201851#Comment_119201851

Ok so, we both have to rely on the expert's.

I can always have a look here now and again, but seriously I'm definitely tired of discussing them.

Shilly laid it out quite clearly and in fairness is stuck. There's easy ways to explain something, and putting principles before personality can be quiet hard here at times. But I prefer to part a discussion with better terms than when it started. I get it now.

It's been explained to me, and when I'm done with something like discussing the vaccines I'm done.

Could be worse I could be a flat earther, holocaust denier or into all that 911 and JFK stuff. But they're not my thing.

Unsolved mysteries and unexplainable phenomena are more down my street.

astrofool

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119201528#Comment_119201528

You have to have been dropped on your head or something because this obsession is unhealthy for anyone.

Just because I'm patient with those of low IQ, here's the severe effects summary and table for you to go an misinterpret using the same numbers and data as I posted earlier:

Vaccine efficacy for Severe COVID-19 cases, Final analysis Among participants without evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection before and during vaccination regimen, the estimated VE against severe COVID-19 occurring at least 7 days after Dose 2 was 66.4%, with 1 and 3 cases in the BNT162b2 and placebo groups respectively (Table 12). The posterior probability for the true vaccine efficacy greater than 30% is 74.29%, which did not meet the prespecified success criterion of >98.6% for this endpoint due to the small number of severe cases observed after Dose 2 in the study. Consequently, statistical testing of subsequent secondary endpoints (i.e., the additional secondary endpoints related to severe disease with pre-specified control of overall type 1 error) ended. However, descriptive summaries for the additional endpoints were provided

Here's the data table covering it:

And here's the final data table and analysis if you want to take a look as well (and I might as well be p*ssing in the wind here, but I'm not posting all of it because it's quite big, if you want to post more of it and actually do something consequential with the data, feel free):

And some more analysis of the confidence intervals:

In the evaluable efficacy population, subjects without evidence of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, the estimated VE against severe COVID-19 occurring at least 7 days after dose 2 was 66.4% (95% CI: - 124.8%: 96.3%). The posterior probability for the true VE greater than 30% is 74.29% (7 days) and 74.32% (14 days), which did not meet the pre-specified success criterion for this endpoint, therefore no reliable conclusion can be drawn at this stage. While data on severe COVID-19 are limited, the experience with other vaccines (rotavirus and influenza vaccines with known efficacy against mild disease but better efficacy against severe disease) coupled with the high observed vaccine efficacy observed for BNT162b2 on all COVID-19 cases in populations with any comorbidity gives reassurance that the vaccine is likely to prevent severe disease. However, a precise estimate of its protective effect is presently lacking. The final study report may include additional data to the extent that the study is continued in a randomised fashion with a placebo group.

So again, safe, works, where are you going to go now? Or continue the weird obsession schmittel/phishnet/hometruths ?

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119202647#Comment_119202647

exactly. Point proven. Different data than those in the table you posted earlier claiming it was the table showing efficacy against severe covid.

astrofool

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119202730#Comment_119202730

The number was 66% in both cases, all you've proven is that severity was evaluated completely disproving your original argument.

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119203044#Comment_119203044

The number was 66% in both cases, all you've proven is that severity was evaluated completely disproving your original argument.

Eh?! The 66.4% estimate of vaccine efficacy is a totally different number than the 66.7 referenced in the first table you posted. Sure they both start with 66 but so what?!

astrofool

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119203214#Comment_119203214

One was the lower bound value for a 94.7% efficacy for those over 65 with a 95% CI, the other was the effectiveness against severe disease.

Again, the point that has gone over your head entirely is that 66% was for severe disease, you said this wasn't evaluated, it was.

Still obsessing? Are you stuck on repeat mode or something?

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119203243#Comment_119203243

One was the lower bound value for a 94.7% efficacy for those over 65 with a 95% CI, the other was the effectiveness against severe disease.

Yes we covered that yesterday 3 or 4 times, when I had to point out the difference between those two numbers to you because you thought they were the same number. I posted:

So you say note 66.3 because 66.7 is listed in the table?!!

And you don't realise that the 66.7 refers to Covid in people 65 years and older, nothing to do with severity!!

So 66.3 is neither a noteworthy number in any context, nor in the data that you posted, which in itself has no relevance to the point you are making.

If you're going to try and spin the trial results, and least spin the right numbers.

And your laughable response?

I did it from memory as the graph was on the previous page and then literally said feel free to argue about the .3 if I have it wrong if you want to, I even highlighted the number for you directly (unless you feel the 0.4 difference is in any way significant, or want to show your misunderstandings of confidence intervals again).

And you've gone and done that:

Note the 66.3 (the decimal .3 might be off, you can argue if it isn't .3) in the table

So you are saying you do agree now that the 0.4 difference between these two completely different numbers representing two completely different things is in any way significant?!! 🤣🤣

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119203462#Comment_119203462

So the issue now is not vaccine safety, but that one figure in one paper is off by 0.3?

shillyshilly

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119204071#Comment_119204071

yes, because if that is found correct, the whole charade comes crumbling down, millions of scientists will be found out, big pharma held accountable... etc....

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119204275#Comment_119204275

And they would have gotten away with it if it weren't for those meddling conspiracy theorists...

astrofool

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119203462#Comment_119203462

You've spun out again.

Let's go back to the basics.

What is your argument about vaccines now? You've proven all your previous theories wrong already.

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119204445#Comment_119204445

What is your argument about vaccines now? You've proven all your previous theories wrong already.

Sure. Let's go back to basics. This is this basic point I made some 70 odd pages ago:

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

When it became abundantly clear that this was not working as intended, but they were having good effect in preventing serious illness and death, very few vaccine proponents acknowledged this. It was spun as if the primary function all along was to reduce serious illness and death, and anybody who thought they were taking the vaccine to prevent them getting Covid just didn't understand how vaccines worked.

And what was the reaction to this? A whole pile of posters telling me I was wrong, it was made clear from day 1 that the primary function of the vaccines was to reduce the severity of Covid, and if I didn't realise that I just didn't understand how vaccines worked.

Now most of these other posters have since dropped that argument since once they actually read the approval reports it was clear the misconception was theirs rather than mine. That is because the opinion in the approvals reports is unambiguous: 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).

Yet you think you know better than the experts and in your opinion "the data on severity was extremely comprehensive and proven in massive trials".

You have totally failed to provide any credible evidence of this opinion that is the opposite of what the approval reports stated.

Of all the straws you have clutched at here to try and prove your argument, the most ridiculous is that the lower confidence bound of the estimated efficacy against Covid in patients over 65 is only differs from the estimated efficacy against severe Covid by 0.3!!! You haven't a clue!

And every post you make refusing to acknowledge the approvers opinion that 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 try to argue otherwise that the efficacy was in fact proven by extremely comprehensive data simply further reinforces my original theory:

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

Most people I discuss this with are under the same common misconception as you are - from day 1 that the primary function of the vaccines was to reduce the severity of Covid - and most are able to say "I was mistaken" whenever they see the opinion in the approval reports.

But for whatever reason you are unwilling or unable to do this. I don't really care why, nor do I care if you wish to continue making a fool of yourself - I have a rich source of foolishness in your posts to work with helping you do just that.

Every post you make refusing to acknowledge your clear error that you didn't even realise what data you were posting to prove your theory, just shows that the only thing extremely comprehensively proven here is your utter stupidity.

Fighting Tao

I think the matrix is stuck in a loop.

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119204973#Comment_119204973

And remind us why you're posting this stuff here and not the covid or medical forums?

sydthebeat

 When the vaccines were first rolled out the clear expectation was that the primary function was to prevent catching Covid.

the vaccines DO help prevent catching covid

this has been explained to you previously but you choose to ignore it.

astrofool

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119204973#Comment_119204973

What are you talking about? Do you understand the English language? No one, certainly not me, has said this, you have completely and utterly misunderstood everything again, it has to be deliberate at this point.

Of all the straws you have clutched at here to try and prove your argument, the most ridiculous is that the lower confidence bound of the estimated efficacy against Covid in patients over 65 is only differs from the estimated efficacy against severe Covid by 0.3!!! You haven't a clue!

Here's a genuine question that I've stated the answer to multiple times:

Why did I include the sentence you were hiding, the entire paragraph and then the table with data relating to the paragraph (but not the severity data which was supplied in a separate table above)?

Given that I have stated it clearly multiple times, you should be able to provide a coherent answer here that isn't the babblings of a raving lunatic.

A whole pile of posters telling me I was wrong, it was made clear from day 1 that the primary function of the vaccines was to reduce the severity of Covid, and if I didn't realise that I just didn't understand how vaccines worked.

You have just been posting data points after data points proving this, you have proven yourself wrong.

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119206580#Comment_119206580

Here's a genuine question that I've stated the answer to multiple times:

Why did I include the sentence you were hiding, the entire paragraph and then the table with data relating to the paragraph (but not the severity data which was supplied in a separate table above)?

Given that I have stated it clearly multiple times, you should be able to provide a coherent answer here that isn't the babblings of a raving lunatic.

I've answered all of this already. You posted:

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.

Why did I include the sentence you were hiding, the entire paragraph and then the table with data relating to the paragraph (but not the severity data which was supplied in a separate table above)?

The sentence I've highlighted in bold is one you accuse me of hiding. I am not hiding it. I've answered before that whilst the data showed an estimated efficacy of 66.4% the large and negative lower bound CI is why the approvers said this was unreliable.

Why did I include the sentence you were hiding, the entire paragraph and then the table with data relating to the paragraph (but not the severity data which was supplied in a separate table above)?

Why did you include the entire paragraph? I've answered this before too. And I said I've no idea why you posted the rest of the entire paragraph to prove your claim that the data on severity has been extremely comprehensive proven. The rest of it is nothing to do with severity. It certainly doesn't prove your argument. It's totally irrelevant.

Why did I include the sentence you were hiding, the entire paragraph and then the table with data relating to the paragraph (but not the severity data which was supplied in a separate table above)?

This is the table with data and CI explanation that you posted:

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):

I've answered this multiple times, it's kind of amusing that it's still going over your head - it's not the data relating to the paragraph you quoted. Why did you post it? I've no idea. But as I have said repeatedly, at first I thought it was because you were being deliberately disingenuous but now I think it is more to do with stupidity.

Is that coherent enough for you?

shillyshilly

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119206904#Comment_119206904

It wasn't fully clear, could you run through it again?

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119207029#Comment_119207029

The short answer is I've no idea why he posted the sentence I was apparently hiding, the entire section of 3.3. Uncertainties and limitations about favourable effects and a table of unrelated data to demonstrate that at approval stage the data on severity was extremely comprehensive and proven in massive trials.

Do you?

shillyshilly

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119207060#Comment_119207060

I was being facetious... I don't really care what you post as you try and twist it into something it's not, even though it gets explained to you numerous times.

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119207085#Comment_119207085

I've been very consistent on this. The approval report says:

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).

I say I interpret that to mean no reliable conclusion can be drawn on the efficacy of the vaccine against severe COVID-19, based on the available limited data.

And you think I'm twisting it into something it's not?!

Another poster interprets the same thing to mean that the efficacy against severity was proven based on extremely comprehensive data.

And you think not only he's not twisting it into something it's not, but also that he has explained this to me multiple times?!

How you arrived at that conclusion is not fully clear, could you run through it again?

Nardeant

Statistics statistics but you yourself, one of you gave these vaccinations

Hoop66

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119207165#Comment_119207165

Sure. You're fixated on the idea that everyone thought that the Covid vaccine would prevent symptomatic Covid, but no one actually thought that. People* accepted that it would reduce your chance of catching Covid, that it would help reduce the severity of symptomatic Covid and that it would help to reduce the transmissability of Covid. Which it did.

You are wrong to fixate on this and you are doing it to try, unsuccessfully, to cover up the fact that you don't understand the data you are citing.

Hope this is helpful.

*normal, non-fuckwit people.

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119207302#Comment_119207302

I appreciated you're trying to be helpful when you say:

You are wrong to fixate on this and you are doing it to try, unsuccessfully, to cover up the fact that you don't understand the data you are citing.

But what would be more helpful if you point out the data I am citing that I don't understand and why?