Covid vaccines - thread banned users in First Post

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119515939#Comment_119515939

The credibility of my claim is in the fact that even the various government health authorities around the world no longer claim prevention from infection is a benefit of vaccination. It's all about the prevention of severe disease and death now.

hometruths

To take the CDC as an example:

About COVID-19 Vaccines

COVID-19 vaccines available in the United States are effective at protecting people—especially those who are boosted— from getting seriously ill, being hospitalized, and dying. As with other diseases, you are protected best from COVID-19 when you stay up to date with the recommended vaccines.

Not even a mention about being effective at preventing infection or transmission. To be fair, at least they are now honest about it, that's some progress.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/stay-up-to-date.html

Fighting Tao

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119515970#Comment_119515970

Who’d have thunk it. Scientific opinion changes when a new variant arose and didn’t follow the rules of the previous variants, therefore using evidence.

King Mob

And notice now how we're once again shifting topics back to the nonsense nitpicking about "well they said it would prevent the virus" etc etc.

Always seems to happen when the previous claim falls apart...

Fighting Tao

It’s actually hilarious because the link posted is called “Stay Up To Date”. Science kept up to date and an anti-vaxxer doesn’t like it. New variant, science investigated, and so things changed.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119516121#Comment_119516121

Exactly. And they try to retcon the change to discredit information that was sound 12 or 18 months ago, for different variants.

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119516107#Comment_119516107

this is a yet another example of why posters ignore you.

the shift to a discussion on the prevention of covid was entirely of your making. I posted a quote that not everybody agreed with the logic clinical trials no longer being required for emergency use approval.

you replied inferring I had misrepresented something by not including other quotes in the article and then mentioned they were all about effectiveness, ultimately leading to your question “at what point will you accept the vaccines are safe and effective”

if i don’t answer the question you say I am dodging hard questions.

if I do answer the question you say I am shifting topics.

hence why it is simpler to ignore you.

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119516121#Comment_119516121

No problem with keeping things up to date, science changes, advice changes etc. Indeed that has been my point all along. I'm just expecting a bit of consistency and honesty about the changes.

For example the CDC emphasise that the vaccine benefit is in reducing severity and preventing death.

Yet the FDA say it is "for the prevention of COVID-19" full stop.

Why the inconsistency?

Fighting Tao

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119516439#Comment_119516439

The FDA homepage links to here when click on covid vaccines: https://www.covid.gov/

Please point out where in the page it states that the Vaccine is for the prevention of covid-19 because surely it would be there if the FDA insist on stating it.

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119516913#Comment_119516913

FDA page on covid vaccines: https://www.fda.gov/emergency-preparedness-and-response/counterterrorism-and-emerging-threats/coronavirus-disease-2019-covid-19

On that page you will see a list of links to each vaccine currently authorised by the FDA:

• Comirnaty and Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine
• Spikevax and Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine
• Janssen COVID-19 Vaccine
• Novavax COVID-19 Vaccine, Adjuvanted

On the Pfizer vaccine in the first paragrpah they say: The vaccine has been known as the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine, and the approved vaccine is marketed as Comirnaty, for the prevention of COVID-19 in individuals 12 years of age and older.

On the Moderna vaccine in the the first paragraph they say: The vaccine has been known as the Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine, and will now be marketed as Spikevax, for the prevention of COVID-19 in individuals 18 years of age and older.

The Janssen vaccine has a bit more preamble because it's restricted to certain individuals, and they're not as keen on it any more, so it's not until the third paragraph that they say,: On February 27, 2021, FDA issued an EUA for the Janssen COVID-19 Vaccine to prevent COVID-19 in individuals 18 years of age and older.

Finally on the Novavax vaccine, in the first paragraph they say: Novavax COVID-19 Vaccine, Adjuvanted is available under EUA to prevent COVID-19 in individuals 12 years of age and older.

Are you really going to try and argue that the FDA are not stating the vaccines are for the prevention of Covid 19?

Fighting Tao

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119517263#Comment_119517263

Eh, are you claiming they haven’t prevented any covid cases?

Its really looking like you are trying to pick any little detail under the guise of safety because every point you’ve made so far has been countered and usually it comes down to you deliberately quoting out of context or not understand the language used. In this case you seem to think that no covid cases have been prevented by the vaccines.

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119517299#Comment_119517299

So you attempt to counter my point that the CDC and the FDA are giving conflicting information on the benefits of the vaccine by saying:

Please point out where in the page it states that the Vaccine is for the prevention of covid-19 because surely it would be there if the FDA insist on stating it.

And then when I point out where precisely where the FDA are stating the vaccine is for the prevention of covid-19 you say:

every point you’ve made so far has been countered and usually it comes down to you deliberately quoting out of context or not understand the language used.

Total nonsense. In this instance, where have I quoted either the CDC or FDA out of context or not understood the language used?

Fighting Tao

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119517498#Comment_119517498

I was talking in general on this thread.

Does every word have to match up between different government organisations? In the 2 statements you are comparing, is either incorrect?

How does it feed into a conspiracy, and what is the conspiracy?

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119517525#Comment_119517525

Curious how vaccine fanatics are so obsessed with precise language when trying to argue that mandatory vaccinations are not coercive because they are not compulsory, yet think that totally contradictory statements on the benefits of the vaccines from the CDC and the FDA is nothing to worry about because you can't expect every single word to match up!

Yes I do think they at least should be singing off the same hymn sheet when it comes to advising the public what the benefits of the vaccines are.

The CDC are clearly emphasising the benefits of the vaccine to be reduction in severe disease and death, whereas the FDA are clearly stating that the benefit is the prevention of infection. It's totally contradictory.

If you care about the concept of informed consent, this sort of stuff is important.

Fighting Tao

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119517605#Comment_119517605

Here you go again with your “vaccine fanatics”. It’s as if people who disagree with nonsense you post really touch a nerve with you.

It’s not contradictory as they are not opposites. Both are valid claims.

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119517629#Comment_119517629

Ok, it's totally inconsistent.

Here's the information that is required by the FDA to be given to all recipients of the vaccine - https://labeling.pfizer.com/ShowLabeling.aspx?id=14472&format=pdf

The whole point of this document is to:

This Vaccine Information Fact Sheet contains information to help you understand the risks and benefits of COMIRNATY (COVID-19 Vaccine, mRNA) and the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine

Understanding the risks and benefits is the fundamental tenet of informed consent, so an individual can decide for themselves if the risks outweigh the benefits.

The Vaccine Information Fact Sheet has this to say on the benefits:

WHAT ARE THE BENEFITS OF THE VACCINE? The vaccine has been shown to prevent COVID-19. The duration of protection against COVID-19 is currently unknown.

That's it. Nothing else. But of course perhaps there is no need to mention anything else because if it works as indicated, you're not going to get COVID so you're not going to worry about hospitalisation or death.

And it's not just in the US that we see this conundrum. It's everywhere. Our government is at it. The HSE inform us of the benefits of vaccination on their website:

Protection from COVID-19

Anyone who gets COVID-19 can become seriously ill or have complications. Getting vaccinated is the best way to protect yourself and others.

You can still get COVID-19 after vaccination. But being vaccinated can reduce how serious your symptoms will be.

What do you know? it's all about reducing how serious your symptoms will be.

But oddly enough the regulators that authorise the drug in Ireland, the EMA, they're all about preventing infection in the first place.

I just find this mixed messaging does not inspire confidence.

Fighting Tao

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119517770#Comment_119517770

So there is no conspiracy or safety issues, just different complimentary messages from different government agencies in the US that have different remits. Glad we cleared that up.

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119516313#Comment_119516313

Lol. Perfect example.

I did indeed point out that all of the people in the article were only talking about effectiveness and had no issue with safety.

Remind us why you ignored this point?

hometruths

Who'd have thought it - Canada's regulators have this to say on the vaccine - https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/regulatory-decision-summary-detail.html?linkID=RDS00856:

COMIRNATY is therefore recommended for authorization under Food and Drug Regulations for drugs for use in relation to COVID-19 and is indicated for active immunization to prevent coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)

Yet if you consult the general information pages about the vaccine on why you should get vaccinated, this is the story https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/publications/healthy-living/canadian-immunization-guide-part-4-active-vaccines/page-26-covid-19-vaccine.html:

Why

The COVID-19 pandemic has caused significant morbidity and mortality, as well as social and economic disruption in Canada and worldwide.

COVID-19 vaccines have been shown to be very effective at preventing severe disease, including hospitalization and death due to COVID-19.

No mention of it being effective at preventing infection in the first place.

This is not a surprise, it's the same everywhere, because the dogs in the street know that the vaccine is not up to much in preventing Covid. The mystery is why the regulators are yet to acknowledge it.

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119517834#Comment_119517834

Why would the different remits explain why they are not saying the same thing about the benefits of the vaccine?

Fighting Tao

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119517904#Comment_119517904

Preventing severe disease encompasses preventing covid and if you get covid, a severe version of it.

To explain further, if it prevents you from getting covid then you can’t get it severely. However, as there is still a low chance of getting covid while vaccinated it is effective at prevent getting a severe case.

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119517937#Comment_119517937

still a low chance of getting covid while vaccinated

It's exactly this sort of Emperor's New Clothes, pretending the vaccines are doing a better job than they are, clutching at straws to defend their performance, that causes so much more skepticism about the vaccine than an army of hard core anti-vax grifters could ever hope to achieve.

I'm amazed that a lot of the regular posters on here have yet to grasp that.

Fighting Tao

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119517925#Comment_119517925

I really don’t know how to dumb it down enough but I’ll try.

A software developer creates a system as requested by a business team. There is a presentation to users about the system and the software developer talks about all the great stuff the code is at in the background, how selecting option x will make y screen appear. However, the business person talks about the what the system is and the functionality provided. They have different remits even though it’s the same system.

Fighting Tao

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119517971#Comment_119517971

You obviously struggle with the English language when you can’t see past your bias to what the words are actually saying. I have explained it you and there is no one pretending that vaccines are doing something they are not apart from you who is misunderstanding at best, misrepresenting at worst.

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119517992#Comment_119517992

Ok just to make sure I am not misunderstanding you.

Do you think there is a low chance of getting Covid if you are vaccinated?

I am happy to admit I think there is a high chance of getting Covid if you are vaccinated, based on both the fact that every single person I know who has been vaccinated has had Covid, and everybody I ask says the same thing - everybody they know has had covid.

This tallies with everything you see around you, and I suspect is exactly the explanation why the HSE don't bother trying to push the claim that vaccination will prevent infection.

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119518073#Comment_119518073

Lol. Very scientific method there.

But in reality, you yourself already posted a study that outlines how effective the vaccines are:

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119515939#Comment_119515939

Are you saying now that this data is incorrect based on your very scientific personal study?

Fighting Tao

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119518073#Comment_119518073

So you jump from US government agencies to me. Typical to try and shift the conversation.

I explained what you were struggling with. If you are still struggling, due to your bias then I’m not sure anyone can help.

Anecdotal evidence is unreliable, and one persons experience is not enough to prove anything scientifically. Studies have already been posted to prove your anecdotes incorrect.

King Mob

Since we're going back to the idea that unverifiable opinions about personal social groups are as valid as scientific evidence...

I can't think of a single example of anyone in my friends or family who have decided not to get vaccinated because of overstatements about the effectiveness of the vaccines.

Don't know anyone who was hanging on the words of Canadian regulatory bodies, saw there was a mismatch between the statements, then used that as a basis to decide that their trust in vaccination had eroded to the point that they refused to get one.

The only person I know who refused the vaccine did so because of a belief that Bill Gates put something in the vaccines as a form of population control.

kernkraft500

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119517263#Comment_119517263

they do the same for flu... do you kick up as much a fuss when the swine flu vaccine doesn't work on a bird flu strain

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119517904#Comment_119517904

If you want to dig that far into semantics. What is the 'disease'? What is an 'infection'?

How do we define coronavirus as a disease?

Can a vaccine be described as preventing disease but not infection?

https://study.com/academy/lesson/disease-and-infection-differences-control.html

And it is false and baseless to state "the vaccine is not up to much" or "The vaccines do very little to stop infection or transmission".

The report you provided from Sweden showed significant measurable effectiveness at preventing infection against the variants in circulation during the study.

The Qatar study showed significant measurable effectiveness - albeit of several months duration - versus Omicron from boosters.

So you have failed to show what is false in the differently emphasized \ wordings of different authorities.