Covid vaccines - thread banned users in First Post

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119364336#Comment_119364336

I don't think you can talk about intention without talking about the intent of the people who designed it and commissioned it.

The vaccines have been administered to billions of people worldwide on the grounds of public health advice after regulators approved the emergency use.

What is important is the conclusions of the risk/benefit analysis for human use that led to their approval, not what some pharma employee intended.

In any case I've quoted the chief medical officer of Moderna earlier thread specifically addressing this by saying the data on whether or not the vaccine prevented severe disease was unimportant, as the primary function of the vaccine was to prevent Covid infection, serious or not.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119364372#Comment_119364372

Why is it important? Only because you say so.

You have dodged or ignored all the points I have raised about :

* How the vaccines would be perceived from the context of spring 2020 when they were commissioned and designed.

* How they performed against early variants at preventing infection.

* How it is entirely reasonable expectation from immunologists - not mere 'luck' - than a vaccine which generates a strong immune response would maintain this with durable protection against severe covid.

You can stick to your opinion but you have offered zero evidence as to why it is important.

You have failed to show what decisions should have been made differently, based on the knowledge that was available at the time.

You have failed to show any fault with the original decision, so what does it have to do with conspiracy theories about covid vaccine safety???

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119364437#Comment_119364437

You can stick to your opinion but you have offered zero evidence as to why it is important.

Posted this ages ago which explains why I think it is important:

However when the vaccices started to underperform the platform shifted. We had a divergence from the vaccines will protect you (full Stop) to the vaccines will protect you from serious illness and death. (We sort of expected that!). 

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.

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119364455#Comment_119364455

But that claim doesn't make any sense given how you ignore, coddle and even support the false claims and deliberate misinformation spread by the conspiracy theorists here.

Most recently you defended Natural News, a crank website that is notorious for spreading fear uncertainty and doubt about the vaccines.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119364455#Comment_119364455

As far as you are concerned. If that's your opinion you can hold to it, but don't pretend you have any evidence to justify it.

As far as I'm concerned, and multiple other posters on the thread, you have entirely failed to substantiate how this 'spin' or shift in focus undermines claims about safety (fullstop) or the efficacy (at approval time or indeed versus early variants). Semantic games, nothing more.

How can it undermine ALL claims about safety and efficacy? It is your claim, you are raising it as a matter of concern, but have failed to provide any evidence how it does this.

The regulators and health authorities and experts were not just robotically rolling out the vaccines based on out of date data, but at each point assessing the rollout to different age and risk groups based on the latest available data.

Which are basically the points I made in my previous post, which you entirely failed to respond to.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119364437#Comment_119364437

drunkmonkey

THE German Ministry of Health has been forced to correct previous information that stated: “one in 5000 people is affected by a severe adverse reaction after a Covid vaccination.”

UPDATE 7.30 pm (July 20) – In a corrected statement by Germany’s Health Ministry, the Paul Ehrlich Institute, Federal Institute for Vaccines and Biomedical Drugs, the rate for a severe adverse reaction after a Covid vaccination is actually 0.2 reports per 1,000 vaccine doses.

The new figures seemingly increase the number of vaccination injuries per person.

According to @PEI_Germany, the reporting rate for serious reactions is 0.2 reports per 1,000 vaccine doses,” the amended Twitter post read.

https://euroweeklynews.com/2022/07/20/severe-adverse-reaction-covid-vaccination-germany/

That's a pretty high number of serious events per injection. Crickets from the media as expected.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119365875#Comment_119365875

Have you actually read the reports on the Paul Ehrlich website?

It is the reporting rate of suspected adverse events.

It is their version of VAERS.

It needs to be cross checked against the background rate for the adverse events.

https://www.pei.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/EN/newsroom-en/dossiers/safety-reports/safety-report-27-december-2020-31-march-2022.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=8

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119365875#Comment_119365875

Whats the point of the correction? Surely 0.2 in 1000 is much the same as 1 in 5000?!

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119365946#Comment_119365946

Good of the Germans to put a number on suspected deaths in which vaccine was a factor:

In about one percent of the suspected case reports (n = 2,810 cases), death was reported at varying time intervals to COVID-19 vaccination. 116 cases were assessed by the Paul-Ehrlich-Institut to be consistent with a causal link to the respective COVID-19 vaccination (probable or possible causal relationship).

drunkmonkey

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119366017#Comment_119366017

The correction was for saying per vaccine when it should have said per dose.

The 0.2/1000 or 1/5000 odds shorten the more you've had.

drunkmonkey

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119365946#Comment_119365946

What's the background rate for those adverse serious events? I didn't read in the report their data needed to be cross checked with it.

patnor1011

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119366017#Comment_119366017

0.2 reports per 1000 vaccine doses is different than one person in 5000 when vaccinated people are at what now? Dose number 4 gearing up for number five?

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119366556#Comment_119366556

Pat, you're running away from your previous points.

We can take that to mean that you guys consider that Natural News is indeed a valid source.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119366348#Comment_119366348

Read the report for mentions of 'expected' and 'background' and 'safety signal'.

And this is from Page #8:

In about one percent of the suspected case reports (n = 2,810 cases), death was reported at varying time intervals to COVID-19 vaccination. 116 cases were assessed by the Paul-Ehrlich-Institut to be consistent with a causal link to the respective COVID-19 vaccination (probable or possible causal relationship). A comparison of the total number of reported suspected adverse events with a fatal outcome occurring between one day and six weeks after COVID-19 vaccination with the number of deaths that would be statistically expected in the same time period (data from the Federal Statistical Office of Germany) did not indicate a safety signal for any of the five COVID-19 vaccines used so far in Germany. This result agrees with literature data. No fatalities have been reported for the vaccine Nuvaxovid and therefore Nuvaxovid is not listed in the following tables.

This also applies to booster vaccinations. Since the time between vaccination and first symptoms and/or time of death was not included in all reports, an additional analysis was carried out under the assumption that all deaths, even those occurring at an unknown or very long time after vaccination, occurred within a 30-day timeframe. Again, none of the five approved COVID-19 vaccines (data not presented separately) showed a risk signal for increased post-vaccination mortality.

And some more key points:

The reporting rate after booster vaccinations with Comirnaty or Spikevax was lower than after primary immunisation.

No new risk signal has been identified since the last safety report, which contained data through 31 December 2021.

https://www.pei.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/EN/newsroom-en/dossiers/safety-reports/safety-report-27-december-2020-31-march-2022.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=8

patnor1011

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119366577#Comment_119366577

Sorry I probably misgendered you my apologies for that. Is "we" your preferred pronoun?

This is yet another pearl of your own imagination running wild assigning some thoughts and ideas to someone else posing as some sort of a speaker of what exactly? Do you guys have some fanclub as you seems to constantly going on with "we".... (unless it is your chosen pronoun and in that case I apologize for misgendering we(you)).

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119366110#Comment_119366110

Keep reading.

What did the next sentence in the report say?

It is on Page 8.

https://www.pei.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/EN/newsroom-en/dossiers/safety-reports/safety-report-27-december-2020-31-march-2022.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=8

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119367108#Comment_119367108

Ok. So then you believe that Natural News is a false source?

You keep dancing around making a definite statement about it. Again demonstrating the inherent dishonesty in your position.

But I am not going to hold my breath for a direct answer. I know better than to expect one.

As such I will continue under the assumption that you believe that Natural News is a legitimate source.

If you want to object to that, then please state your position on this.

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119367109#Comment_119367109

Weird how these guys keep missing the sentences after the ones they quote. Or the second half of sentences...

Almost as if they're just reading partial quotes because of some kind of limit to the amount of characters that can be posted...

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119367109#Comment_119367109

The next sentence, in the following paragraph says:

A comparison of the total number of reported suspected adverse events with a fatal outcome occurring between one day and six weeks after COVID-19 vaccination with the number of deaths that would be statistically expected in the same time period (data from the Federal Statistical Office of Germany) did not indicate a safety signal for any of the five COVID-19 vaccines used so far in Germany. 

Which is great news! But I was just pointing out that it was helpful of the Germans to put a number on those deaths that they thought did involve the vaccine. I haven't seen any other country do that. The sentence above does not contradict the point that the Germans believe the vaccines were a factor in 116 deaths.

While we're on the subject, the sentence above merely says that in any given six week period you'd expect a comparable amount of deaths to occur in the general population.

But for those who died following vaccination, it's not any random 6 week period - for those people something significant happened at the beginning of that six week period.

And interestingly the number of deaths reported as an adverse event due to vaccination are weighted towards day 1 of that period - i.e immediately following vaccination. The same is true in the US.

drunkmonkey

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119367188#Comment_119367188

We didn't miss anything they started there was a severe report for every dose given 1/5000, most people have had 2, that's 1/2500 a lot have had 3, that's 1/1250.

They only reason they tweeted the information in the first place is to encourage more reporting.

The rate of myocarditis is way too high as can be seen in the report Odyssey presented.

The report also only covers 30 days but they cut off the reporting as the events are growing the more the time frame grows, why would they do that?

Are all myocarditis reported in the first 30 days, I find that unlikely. Where's the follow up for the earlier reports, their own graph even shows their lack of information on outcomes.

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119367446#Comment_119367446

I don't know man.

You tell us. Why would they do that? Where's the follow up for the earlier reports?

Why should we care what you find likely or unlikely when you guys use Natural News as a source?

drunkmonkey

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119367475#Comment_119367475

Natural News? The German Ministry of health is the source.

Why would they do that? Why would they change 1/5000 to 0.2/1000, why when reporting myocarditis they say 350/100000 instead of 3.5/1000.

Those are incredible high numbers per single injection given.

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119367633#Comment_119367633

Yup. But in the previous page you guys were holding up Natural News as a legitimate source.

You haven't answered my questions either.

You tell us. Why did they do those things?

Why did they "cut off the reporting as the events are growing the more the time frame grows"?

There's no point trying to argue you out of this belief fed to you, so why bother?

Instead, outline what your explanation is rather than just asking the same vague and open ended your twitter grifter uses to market to you without stepping on the toes of your worldview.

bad2thebone

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119363671#Comment_119363671

I don't know where you're pulling the name calling thing from and making it about you, but that's something for you to reflect on.

As for nonsensical links, there's a lot but they can't all be wrong.

As for problems of the vaccines, read back on all my post's here and you'll see my observations. I think they're ok for elderly and immunocompromised individuals. But healthy people, there's no advantage only the fact you're basically wearing a lifejacket on dry land to stop people who are wearing life jackets on a boat.

Make your own mind after that, I'm not going to repeat myself over and over.

It's pointless.

DoctorEdgeWild

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119367781#Comment_119367781

As for the nonsensical links, there's a lot but they can't all be wrong.

They can be. If I send you ten links saying I am an elephant, they are still all wrong.

bad2thebone

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119367801#Comment_119367801

But you can also identify as an elephant, car, man, woman these days and it'll be encouraged,so where the **** are we going lol

It's all mad Ted

EyesClosed

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119367781#Comment_119367781

OK so you don't have an answer on what the problem with the vaccines are?

bad2thebone

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119367888#Comment_119367888

Don't try this sealioning with me.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119367334#Comment_119367334

But I was just pointing out that it was helpful of the Germans to put a number on those deaths that they thought did involve the vaccine.

But that's not what they're saying, you're twisting the words to mean something that you think it means.

They're not saying "we think this many deaths involved the vaccine as a cause of death".

They're saying. “this many people died during that time period. Compared to the usual number of people who die during that period, there is no statistical significant safety concerns associated with the vaccines”.

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119367952#Comment_119367952

Nonsense.

The Germans are saying precisely how many deaths they think the vaccine was a probable or possible cause.