Covid vaccines - thread banned users in First Post

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119606304#Comment_119606304

The point is the official death toll is nonsense.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119606243#Comment_119606243

Strange the expert authors of the report mentioned nothing alarming about the vaccine having negative effectiveness.

"Both the BNT162b2 vaccine and previous infection were found to confer considerable immunity against omicron infection and protection against hospitalization and death."

Not alarming at all.

So please show us with reference to the text and actual underlying data how you have spotted this alarming trend and the expert authors missed. How have you established this. And dont just point to the graph. Actual data.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119606785#Comment_119606785

The official death toll is nonsense, but attributing all excess deaths to COVID in an Indian context is nonsense too.

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119606243#Comment_119606243

Is this another case of you claiming something the study doesn't actually state though? Cause that happened with the last few examples and you ran away without addressing those points.

Also again how can it be alarming when you guys have described the deaths from covid as "a pittance."

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119606913#Comment_119606913

Here we go again.

"Don't just point to the evidence of negative effectiveness, show us something else, the graph doesn't state negative effectiveness if they don't say so in the text."

Total nonsense.

Once again the graph clearly shows negative effectiveness. To attempt to argue otherwise is ridiculous.

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119607588#Comment_119607588

Yup. Here we go again because you're using the same tactic.

Can you point out where in the study it says directly that the vaccines were negatively effective? Cause last time you tried this, you couldn't point out where they said it.

Can you explain any rational reason why the study wouldn't mention this in the text and would then go on to state: "Both the BNT162b2 vaccine and previous infection were found to confer considerable immunity against omicron infection and protection against hospitalization and death. The rapid decline in protection against omicron infection that was conferred by vaccination and previous infection provides support for booster vaccination."

Cause last time you couldn't provide any rational reason and ran away from the point.

Again, it's just you using your untrained, biased opinion to interpret a graph to claim a study says something it doesn't.

It fools no one man. Maybe snowcat gets duped by it. But who else?

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119607661#Comment_119607661

Again, it's just you using your untrained, biased opinion to interpret a graph to claim a study says something it doesn't.

Once again this is peak head in the sand, emperors news clothes stuff. Trying to argue black is white.

Here is the graph:

It is an undisputed fact that this graph show the measure of vaccine effectiveness over time in weeks.

I am claiming this graph shows vaccine effectiveness turns negative at 18 weeks in previously uninfected children and at about 19.5 weeks in previously infected children.

I am claiming that because it is exactly what it shows. If you thinking is simply a claim based on my biased, untrained opinion are you prepared to answer what is the measure of vaccine effectiveness in previously uninfected children at 20 weeks that the graph shows?

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119607759#Comment_119607759

Cool. So where in the study does it say that?

If the study doesn't say that, why doesn't it?

You keep avoiding these points and you know why.

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119607808#Comment_119607808

The text makes no mention of the effectiveness after 16 weeks, but yet again the graphical representations of the findings indisputably shows vaccine effectiveness up to 22 weeks.

You're avoiding the question of what is the vaccine effectiveness at 20 weeks and you know why.

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119607856#Comment_119607856

Ok. SO the study doesn't say that the vaccines are negatively effective.

Why not? Why do you only answer half the questions you're asked?

And I can't say what the effectiveness is at 20 weeks because the study doesn't say, and I'm not qualified to interpret the graph.

sydthebeat

Genuine question.

What does "negative effectiveness" mean in relation to vaccines

Is this a claim that the vaccines actually cause cases after 18 weeks??

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119607873#Comment_119607873

You're not qualified to interpret a graph with a clearly defined x and y axis?

That begs the question as to why you think you are qualified to lecture, harass and contradict others on this forum, yet you do so relentlessly.

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119607914#Comment_119607914

Lol.

I answered your question man.

You ignored mine.

You can't explain why the study doesn't mention this negative effectiveness. Just like you failed to explain why the other studies didn't mention it either.

And no, I'm not qualified to interpret statistics. There's a great number of reasons why a graph might appear to show something, but due to confounding factors, weak statistical evidence on the extreme end or other things, those numbers might not allow a study to make a conclusion based on a plain, visual reading of the graph. I'm not qualified to determine this. The people who produced the study are. They are the ones who didn't comment or mention the effect you claim is "alarming". The ONLY explanation for this is that these factors are at play. You conceded that you cannot provide any other explanation, so you have to conclude that this is the explanation.

This was the case with one of the other studies you tried this tactic with, and as always when you were backed into a corner, you ignored and ran away.

This is most likely the case here too.

Again, who do you think you're convincing?

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119607959#Comment_119607959

The graph is a visual representation the experts findings!! It shows negative effectiveness.

That is a fact.

But I am not going engage in relentless back and forth arguing black is white.

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119607912#Comment_119607912

I'm still waiting to hear why this is even an issue give that the anti-vaxxers are claiming covid isn't dangerous and killed "a pittance."

So the vaccine increases your chances of catching a virus that harmless?

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119607990#Comment_119607990

Ok. Dodging all of my points again.

But the study doesn't actually say anything about the negative effectiveness in its conclusions.

Why not?

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119607912#Comment_119607912

No. It means you are more susceptible to infection than you would have been if you had been unvaccinated.

This is obviously a problem. A very fast waning efficacy is one thing, but it should wane to 0%. i.e after a period of time it would make no difference if you had been vaccinated or not.

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119608037#Comment_119608037

But how can it be a problem? The virus only caused "a pittance" of deaths.

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119608055#Comment_119608055

Because it indicates your immune system has been impaired. That is a pretty serious side effect.

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119608315#Comment_119608315

But that's more of your biased, untrained and easily lead speculation.

Cause even if the studies you posted actually indicated that they were negatively effective (they don't) they are only talking about effectiveness against covid. NOTHING ELSE.

It does not and cannot indicate that you are more likely to catch other viruses. It does not and cannot indicate that your immune system is impaired.

At best, even if we ignore all the points you are, and pretend really really hard that you claims aren't nonsense, the best you can point to is that it increases your chances of catching a virus you claim isn't dangerous and only killed "a pittance."

So, why do the studies you keep harping on about not say anything about negative effectiveness or "impaired immune systems".

If you can't explain this, just admit it.

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119608397#Comment_119608397

It's odd that you say you are not qualified to read a simple graph, but you seem to think you are qualified to state that if an immune system were to be impaired by the vaccines it would only be impaired against covid, and nothing else.

robinph

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119607990#Comment_119607990

So what does this negative effectiveness mean? Spontaneous cases of covid happening without any exposure to other infected people?

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119608467#Comment_119608467

Again, I'm just reading the studies you post. I don't need to be qualified to read what the study actually looked at. I explained to you why I'm not qualified to contradict what the study actually says. You ignored that because you're not able to address this.

Nowhere does it say anything about immune systems being impaired. Nowhere does it say anything about them investigating increases in incidences of other infections.

You don't read the studies you post I think. It's kinda looking like you just look at the pictures. Seems there's a big issue with you conspiracy theorists not actually reading what you post.

And once again, you avoid my points because you're unable to address them.

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119608467#Comment_119608467

Also, how do you square this with the other graphs in the study?

If the study indicates that the vaccines are impairing people's immune systems (again, doesn't actually say or indicate that, it's something you're making up) how then could the study also conclude that the vaccines are effective at reducing hospitalisations from covid long after they are supposedly negatively effective?

Did you only look at the one graph?

Dohnjoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119601258#Comment_119601258

Early in the pandemic Sweden suffered one of the highest rates in Europe and had middling success overall. Compared to it's neighbours, 2020 wasn't good.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119608654#Comment_119608654

Nice edited graph there Dohnjoe. And Sweden was unique among the Nordics in packing their nursing homes with COVID patients. Now let's look at Sweden's neighbours (since you insist on narrowing it down to their neighbours) throughout the pandemic :

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119608562#Comment_119608562

It means you are more susceptible to infection than you would have been if you had been unvaccinated.

This is obviously a problem. A very fast waning efficacy is one thing, but it should wane to 0%. i.e after a period of time it would make no difference if you had been vaccinated or not.

Dohnjoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119608678#Comment_119608678

? It's a graph comparing Sweden to it's neighbours, which is clearly labelled at the bottom. Denmark, Norway and Finland.

You wrote: "What did Sweden do? Achieved one of the lowest excess death rates per capita in Europe during the pandemic despite having one of the oldest populations."

As mentioned it had middling success. How compared directly to it's neighbours, countries which share similar socio-economic situations, it didn't fare so well.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119608315#Comment_119608315

Ok, so no comment on the fact that the text of the report and expert authors make no mention of this 'alarming' data...

If you look at the underlying data Table S2, the findings are different at week 20 depending on when first dose was given. So it more likely reflects when a wave of covid hit than actual negative effectiveness. Otherwise how could first dose in January 2022 have such a different effectiveness to first dose in November 2021?

https://www.nejm.org/doi/suppl/10.1056/NEJMc2209371/suppl_file/nejmc2209371_appendix.pdf

And then you double down with a further claim.

Your claim is nonsense and is refuted by the study:

"Both the BNT162b2 vaccine and previous infection were found to confer considerable immunity against omicron infection and protection against hospitalization and death."

That is simply impossible if your claim of an impaired immune system had any basis.

Which it doesn't.

So the claim of immune system impairment is yours and yours alone. It features nowhere in the report and the expert authors of the report express zero comment on it.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119608678#Comment_119608678

Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania are not Scandinavian peer countries of Sweden.

Nice edited graph indeed.