Covid vaccines - thread banned users in First Post

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119518736#Comment_119518736

People aren't getting coerced into a flu vaccine.

And if a flu vaccine is not preventing the infection very well, this disappointment is publicly acknowledged.

Nobody just pretends it's working amazingly well as indicated.

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119518823#Comment_119518823

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?

This is just nuts, another example of trying to redefine or twist definitions to suit an argument with the benefit of the hindsight of the vaccines actually work in the real world.

The meaning of "for the prevention of Covid-19" in the context of this sentence is crystal clear:

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.

It does not mean to prevent death or hospitalisation from Covid 19. It means to prevent Covid 19 - mild symptomatic cases as well as fatal cases.

Relentlessly trying to argue otherwise is just more of the crazy revisionism, and the following point is worth repeating:

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.

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119518955#Comment_119518955

But I've shown that your issue here isn't a concern as no one I know has had their trust in the vaccine eroded by this.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119518955#Comment_119518955

The vaccines prevent coronavirus disease.

They have also shown measurable significant effectiveness at preventing Covid-19 infection.

Noted that this is multiple times you have run away from the core points put to you.

You have failed to show that any of the individual statements are false. Evidence you introduced onto the thread discredits any such claims. So I don't need to clutch at straws, just quote that study:

for mRNA-1273, with a vaccine effectiveness of 96% (94 to 97; p<0·001) at 15–30 days and 59% (18 to 79; p=0·012) from day 181 onwards

And Qatar Omicron study:

The effectiveness of three doses of BNT162b2 and no previous infection was 52.2% (95% CI, 48.1 to 55.9)

So no crazy revisionism. We don't need to. Facts are stubborn things.

sydthebeat

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119518955#Comment_119518955

??

the vaccine does prevent infection though......

better against the original strains it was designed for, but it also prevents infection against omicron when tested against unvaccinated people.

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119519041#Comment_119519041

The vaccines prevent coronavirus disease.

They have also shown measurable significant effectiveness at preventing Covid-19 infection.

So the effectiveness at preventing the disease caused by coronavirus is not measurable but the effectiveness at preventing Covid-19 is measurable?

How does that work?

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119519112#Comment_119519112

Well for starters if you are not infected, you cannot get the disease. So implicitly it is already true.

If you have a positive PCR test but no symptoms you do not have the disease. Since the expansion of PCR testing, many of the real world studies have been tracking positive PCR as proof of infection. That underestimates the effectiveness of the vaccine at preventing disease.

If all you have are nasal respiratory symptoms, it is debatable whether you have the disease of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) but that's an aside on my part.

So if you couple that with the measurable prevention of what the trials deemed as severe covid...

It shows the overlapping \ complimentary claims made by the authorities are all true, to a measurable extent, without any contradiction.

They prevent infection, they prevent disease, they prevent severe disease, all of these claims are true with increasingly measurable effectiveness as you go along the chain.

kernkraft500

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119518911#Comment_119518911

I'm curious, you say they aren't being coerced, yet you took vaccine mandates to work as being coercion, there are plenty of them around the world, particularly in health and social care settings for the flu vaccine.... why the disparity?

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119520721#Comment_119520721

I think you missed the point I was making, perhaps predictably.

The disease caused by the coronavirus is Covid 19. It's the same thing. The coronavirus is a virus not a disease. Covid-19 is the disease caused by the virus.

So the answer to your question:

How do we define coronavirus as a disease?

Is we don't. It's a virus.

And the answer to your question:

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

Is an emphatic no. or

Thus, this is just total waffle:

The vaccines prevent coronavirus disease.

They have also shown measurable significant effectiveness at preventing Covid-19 infection.

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119520868#Comment_119520868

When did I say "they aren't being coerced"? Not sure specifically what you are referring to.

In the past I've never really had a problem with specifically targeted vaccine mandates eg for travel, or even in health and social care settings. All examples I can think of were for vaccine preventable diseases. i.e a vaccine mandate for a vaccine preventable disease in a health care setting is OK. Currently covid is not a vaccine preventable disease.

What I took objection to in this thread is the general claim that there has been no coercion or pressure surrounding the covid vaccines. That's blatantly absurd.

As is the idea that mandatory vaccinations are not coercive because they are not compulsory.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119520872#Comment_119520872

Total waffle! From someone who tries to reduce it to a game of semantics when caught out in a baseless claim.

So I'll return to the point before you tried to derail it:

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.

And, all the studies have shown measurable protection against severe covid.

That is the reality of what the vaccines do, something you are unable to dispute. If you want to dispute that, your claims will be challenged.

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119521062#Comment_119521062

Remember also that this tangent was because he was repeating his claims that the vaccines had no effect based on this personal study of his friend group.

Which was a deflection from the claims that they were approving the new variant vaccines "on mice data" and that this was an issue.

Which in turn was a deflection from the claims that the vaccines had a clear link to a reduction in fertility.

Which was a deflection from the claims that the vaccines were causing excess death...

kernkraft500

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119518911#Comment_119518911

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119520938#Comment_119520938

see first quote...

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119521317#Comment_119521317

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119521062#Comment_119521062

Fair enough I see what you mean, I was thinking of covid vaccines. As said above I don't believe anybody is getting coerced into flu vaccines, are there any examples of mandatory flu vaccinations?

Or strong resistance against being asked to get a flu vaccine for work or travel?

None that I know of.

kernkraft500

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119521357#Comment_119521357

plenty of examples, it's fairly popular in medical and social care settings in the US, and is up to over 30% after COVID. First hospital to mandate it was early 00's.

In Europe, not so much unless enforcing other countries travel restrictions (i.e. checking Yellow Fever certs when travelling to SE Asia)

First hospital to mandate flu vaccination reports on challenges, success | CIDRAP (umn.edu)

Very popular example from 2009/2010 in Detroit, termination of employment if not vaccinated without valid reason... stickers and masks for unvaccinated employees

Local Hospitals Mandate Flu Shot - CBS Detroit (cbsnews.com)

Controversy Surrounds Flu Shot Mandate - CBS Detroit (cbsnews.com)

Hamilton Medical's Flu vaccine mandate 2013

HAMILTON MEDICAL SYSTEM, INC (hamiltonhealth.com)

Shasta Counties Seasonal flu mandate (vaccine or mask)

Shasta County

If you use a thing called google, you'll find loads of examples, but unfortunately you have your COVID blinkers on.

Which brings me back to the Mandate and compulsory argument... this is where is has been highlighted previously (pre Covid, so not revisionism).... while you'll see it used synonymously in the press and HR releases.... in a legal document if you use compulsory, there is no out, a person has to get it even if they have a medical exemption.... this would be coercion, and there is a HUGE market in the US medical solicitors circles with regards to this. you get HR drawing up statements which include "compulsory" which may be illegal.

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119522117#Comment_119522117

I'm well aware there have been numerous examples of flu vaccine mandates for work in healthcare settings etc.

Is there any example of mandatory vaccination as was proposed in Austria? i.e every citizen must get vaccinated. I doubt it.

More importantly were there any example of significant resistance to these vaccinations? I briefly read your first link and noted:

The Washington State Nurses Association filed a grievance over the policy, and an arbitrator ruled in the nurses' favor, agreeing with the union's stance that the new requirement should have been negotiated as part of the union's bargaining agreement with the hospital. Despite the ruling and that unionized nurses aren't currently required to be vaccinated, nearly 96% of them received the vaccine last flu season.

So 96% got it even though they could have ignored, and few more got religious and medical exemptions. It doesn't really surprise me that nurses in a hospital don't have a big issue with getting a flu vaccine.

This isn't really comparable to the covid vaccine coercion.

kernkraft500

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119522197#Comment_119522197

ah, changing goalposts now

nothing to add on the Detroit hospital mandate? That's what you mentioned earlier, about no examples of not getting the flu vaccine stopping people working.

Austria went full China everyone knows that, and actually pulled the compulsory vaccines before the deadline for fines.

The only existing European example of a compulsory order I can think of for COVID, still being enforced is Greece for over 60's. They have a point though as their public health care system is falling apart and they have numerous studies of over 60's with COVID clogging up their system.

edit: Yes there is significant resistance to flu vaccine mandates in the US, always has been, that's why there's a huge legal sector for this specific topic (remember, compulsory and mandatory aren't the same thing in legal terms).

edit 2: yes I agree those examples of mandates don't really add up to coercion, as they are mandates... however, the point was you previously mentioned mandates were coercive, so thank you for clearing up that you agree a mandate isn't coercion.

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119522284#Comment_119522284

What goalposts am I changing?

I took your advice re google and found an interesting paper in the BMJ on this - Good reasons to vaccinate: mandatory or payment for risk? 

The author Julian Savulescu is a bioethicist, a professor at Oxford:

Professor Julian Savulescu is a philosopher who researches the ethics of various new or emerging technologies, including new methods of reproduction and enhancement of physical and cognitive performance through drugs or genetic manipulation. He is director of the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, and is or has been a co-director on many large research projects, looking at topics from geoengineering to vaccines.

To say he is qualified on the subject would be an understatement.

The entire is well worth a read on the ethics of whole question specifically relating to covid vaccines, but most relevant to this (rather pointless) discussion is Figure 2 "summarises the range of coercive policies that can constitute mandatory vaccination."

One of the coercive policies listed is a loss of employment.

So according to Professor Savulescu, I was wrong about the flu vaccine; people were coerced into getting it. As they were with covid.

If you are interested in the various points the paper raises and wish to discuss it, great, I think it's very interesting and might add to the thread but if we're stuck arguing that mandatory vaccinations are not coercive then it's totally pointless.

kernkraft500

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119522492#Comment_119522492

we're not stuck on anything.... pointing to a medical paper which is an ethical thought piece doesn't change the fact in legal terms, compulsory and mandatory are considered different things.

I completely get the point of the paper, but its a perfect example of where mandatory is used synonymously instead of compulsory, which is fine as everyone reading it from a medical standpoint gets the jist of it and the overall message trying to be conveyed....but from a legal standpoint it wouldn't stand up to scrutiny as the context mandatory is used is incorrect.

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119522573#Comment_119522573

And now you're arguing that describing mandatory vaccinations as coercive in an paper from a recognised expert in a medical journal is fine because everyone is considering it from a medical standpoint and "gets the jist of it and the overall message trying to be conveyed", but somehow describing mandatory vaccinations as coercive in an online forum is not fine because "from a legal standpoint it wouldn't stand up to scrutiny".

That's an odd position to take to be honest.

kernkraft500

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119522669#Comment_119522669

I'm not arguing that at all actually, and never said it was fine...

What I said was, and which you quoted me on, was that the jist of the message from the article is conveyed and could be understood, i.e. implementing measure of constriction could be construed as coercion..

However, from a legal standpoint, the article is using incorrect terminology, but as it's not a legal document, it's fine to use synonyms.

There's a big difference.

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119522720#Comment_119522720

So is Professor Julian Savulescu right or wrong to claim that the threat of loss of employment is coercive?

kernkraft500

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119522789#Comment_119522789

from a legal standpoint, they are incorrect when they blanket describe a mandated vaccine, which if not taken results in termination of employment as coercion.

If the employee has signed up to a role which has a vaccine mandate, and they refuse to take the vaccine and lose their job.... that's not coercion...

If an employee has signed up to a role with no prior vaccine mandate and it is introduced with no mitigating factors for an out (i.e. face masks or change in role), or if there is a compulsory program introduced (outside of governmental setups) that is coercion, and leaves many employers open to be monetarily raped through legal routes.

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119522845#Comment_119522845

Before performing any medical intervention, a doctor is required to obtain informed consent, ensuring that a) the risk/benefits are understood, b) patient has the capacity to give the consent and c) that patient has not been coerced in any way.

Legally, the doctor should not proceed with the intervention if they have cause to believe any of the above are not satisfied, even if a patient signs a consent form.

What would happen if a patient said I don’t understand the risk reward, it doesn’t look favorable to me, I only want to get vaccinated so I don’t lose my job.

Would the doctor go ahead and vaccinate the patient?

there is no right or wrong answer to this that can we argue over for the next 50 pages, I just think it is an interesting hypothetical scenario and curious as to what you think.

kernkraft500

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119522958#Comment_119522958

realistically, the doctor wouldn't be giving the vaccine, it would be a nurse or trained authorised person who would be working on the pretext that the person in front of them is a consenting adult, and if they mentioned something like that in front of them, they would be under no legal obligation not to give them the vaccine if they decided to proceed, even if it was "to just keep their job".

However, most would refer you back to have a chat with your doctor if you had any worries, and I'd advise a chat with a solicitor if they though it was coercive.

Depending on their work contract, it may or may not be out of their hands.

Fighting Tao

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119522958#Comment_119522958

You can’t have many more straws to grasp. With the lack of understanding of so much around vaccines you’d be a prime candidate to do primary research and go for a covid vaccine. It would be far more beneficial than using it as a fake concern. You’ll see firsthand what the process is.

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119523285#Comment_119523285

It is the healthcare worker who administers the intervention who has the responsibility to ensure the patient gives informed consent - it is their legal responsibility to check the consent is valid. They cannot work "on the pretext the person in front of them is a consenting adult".

But one of the reasons I asked about a doctor, (many GPs give the vaccine) is I take your point, in practice most of the healthcare workers in clinics would go ahead without a second thought, irrespective of the legal requirements.

I think most GPs would at least pause to ponder the question of whether or not the consent is valid in line with the HSE consent policy.

For consent to be valid the service user must not be acting under duress and their agreement should be given freely, in other words they must understand that they have a choice. Use of threats to induce consent such as withdrawal of any privileges is not acceptable.

Duress refers to pressures or threats imposed by others. 

https://www.tusla.ie/uploads/content/National-Consent-Policy-August-2017.pdf

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119523321#Comment_119523321

I've been to a vaccination centre twice, once to receive my primary dose, which I did, and secondly to receive my secondary dose, which I did not receive in the end. Largely because one of the doctors at the centre was not prepared to offer a medical opinion on whether or not it was safe for me to receive the vaccine. He was very happy to allow me to go ahead and get it if I wanted to, but when I pressed him for his advice of whether or not I should get it, that was a different story. He erred on the side of caution and told me to come back another day.

Fighting Tao

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119523510#Comment_119523510

Wow. So the doctor relied upon informed consent. You could also walk free from the vaccination centre without getting the vaccine, so no coercion took place either. You managed to blow two of your issues out of the water yourself. Congratulations.

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119523534#Comment_119523534

And the whole bus clapped too I bet.