Covid vaccines - thread banned users in First Post

hometruths_real

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119612206#Comment_119612206

you tell me.... it's your study you posted which you clearly haven't read

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119612335#Comment_119612335

That old chestnut. "You're wrong. But I am not going to tell you how or why".

hometruths_real

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119612383#Comment_119612383

no...it's a case of you not reading your own study you presented and haven't an answer so you're trying to gaslight...

The fact they're even using Cox's theory on statistical values shows it's an extrapolation of a subset of data

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119612415#Comment_119612415

I have read it, and I am asking you, given your apparent superior understanding to state what subset of data it is they are extrapolating?

Dohnjoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119610628#Comment_119610628

Also all the health officials and scientists were strongly against masks at the start of the pandemic.

This is distorted and simply not true. In the beginning there was a) uncertainty over whether pathogens would be too small and simply pass through masks rendering them useless and b) high concern for getting the limited amounts of available PPE to relevant medical staff. As time went by and we understood the virus more, we discovered it would cling to aerosols and droplets exhaled from our mouths/noses, and that masks could reduce the spread of these and thus reduce the spread of Covid. Thus consensus built. Also, as more masks and PPE were became available on a large scale there was no longer an urgency to limit them for critical medical staff.

If you happen to meet a surgeon, ask them why they wear masks in surgery, feel free to add your views about masks during the Covid-19 pandemic and see what they think.

All lockdowns achieved was to create an immune naive population that caused enormous spikes when they were lifted.

Covid spreads due to contact between people. Lockdowns reduced that contact, reducing the spread.

A better strategy

You believe you know more or better than every individual national health body in every country around the world which took various lockdown decisions? Okay, maybe you do. This also happens to be a forum for people who believe they know more than the professionals and expert consensus.

hometruths_real

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119612451#Comment_119612451

really? because everything you're arguing shows you haven't

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119612451#Comment_119612451

Yes I have read it. What I am arguing is that this shows negative effectiveness against infection from about 18 weeks onwards:

You arguing that it does not. Yet oddly enough, you are not prepared to explain why I am wrong. But don't worry, I am used to that.

hometruths_real

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119612567#Comment_119612567

it was explained already.... as usual you chose to ignore and look at the pretty picture

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119609735#Comment_119609735

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119612451#Comment_119612451

Lol. Demands answers while ignoring the questions and points put to him.

And no man, you clearly haven't read any of the studies you posted.

Otherwise it wouldn't take four or five attempts for you to admit that the study doesn't actually say what you claim it did.

And you're still not explaining why the authors of the study don't mention your "negative effectiveness."

You're still not explaining why they don't talk about this being an indication of "weakening immune systems."

You're still not explaining why the study shows that the vaccines are still effective at reducing hospitalisations, when this shouldn't be possible if it's weakened people's immune systems.

You're still not explaining why they then go on to support vaccination if they knew the vaccines weakened people immune system.

You're still not explaining why they would go on to recommend boosters when they couldn't possibly work if people's immune systems are weakened.

The only explanation for all of these things is that the study doesn't show negative effectiveness.

You're not able to provide an alternative and hence you have to ignore, deflect, run away and whinge.

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119612621#Comment_119612621

it was explained already....

Another classic chestnut.

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119612649#Comment_119612649

Yea, cause when people explain things to you, you ignore it, pretend it doesn't exist, then pull this silly shite when people point you back to where they've explained it. You keep doing this.

You can't address his points either. It's getting a bit sad now.

hometruths_real

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119612649#Comment_119612649

yep, and another piece of factual info for you to ignore because you don't understand it.

Dohnjoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119612567#Comment_119612567

It doesn't need to be explained to you. You, or anyone, can just subjectively reject all explanations on this forever. You're on a forum where people do this regularly, e.g. 9/11 truthers have kept it up for years.

The facts are independent from your personal "understanding" of them. The vaccines are overwhelmingly safe and there's no credible conspiracy here. If you want confirmation, just ask any medical professional.

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119612723#Comment_119612723

Hi Dohnjoe, what are the chances of you being prepared to state what level of vaccine effectiveness is shown on this graph at 20 weeks?

I'd be pretty confident you are not prepared to state what this graph says.

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119612765#Comment_119612765

Lol. More hypocrisy.

You're demanding people answer things while you continually dance around points and questions that you are afraid of.

Tell you what, I'll tell you what the graph shows the moment you explain why the authors of the study do not mention negative effectiveness in their conclusions.

Dohnjoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119612765#Comment_119612765

I'll go one better, here's a nice explainer for the entire study by a physician

https://insidemedicine.bulletin.com/the-debate-on-covid-vaccines-for-school-aged-children-is-over-the-vaccines-won

Here are some quotes

"Was there a difference in mortality? Yes. 7 children died of Covid during the study. All 7 were among the 614,000 children who were unvaccinated. If the mortality rate seen during Omicron were to be applied nationally and amortized over a 1-year period, Covid-19 might be the 3rd leading cause of death in children ages 5-11, and certainly in the top 5, which it currently is, nationally for the year 2022 so far.

By the way, has anyone else noticed that Covid is in the top 5 leading underlying causes of death among US children ages <1, 1-4, 5-11, and 7th among those aged 12-17? Well, it is. That’s just messed up.

Was there a difference in hospitalization? Yes. By around 3 weeks after the first dose, Pfizer’s vaccine was 80% effective against hospitalization, peaking at 88% at week 4, and then slowly falling to 76% by week 20. That’s excellent news. (Note: most children received 2 doses).

Summary: The debate is over, folks. Covid vaccines help reduce the bad outcomes in school-aged children that everyone cares about. If reducing death is what matters to you, the vaccines work. If reducing hospitalization is what matters to you, the vaccines work. If reducing infection is what matters to you, the vaccines work. Whether boosters help this age group on all of these metrics is less clear. The CDC recommends boosters for children ages 5-11, but that’s because they decrease infections temporarily. We don’t have data to show that boosters add protection against severe disease or death, in large part because the 2-dose series is just so effective for children (and even most young and middle-aged adults) in preventing those outcomes. For parents who were waiting for more real-world data before getting their school-aged children Covid vaccinations, your wait is over."

As for how you've found some a graph that goes below zero and what exactly that means, I have no idea, but I've seen tons of odd graphs and statistical models in my time. Ask over on the medical forum or mail the study directly (mail address is on the study) to explain it. Here's the email address: lin@bios.unc.edu

Unless of course you aren't genuinely interested in an explanation for that..

Unless you are determined to find things in studies that can't be explained to you by posters on a conspiracy theory forum..

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119612911#Comment_119612911

Again, a conspiracy theorist is presented with the opportunity to actually investigate something by getting out from behind the key board and do something other than scroll through twitter.

I'm pretty confident he will do no such thing though.

Dohnjoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119612940#Comment_119612940

Doesn't matter if I mail them right now, get a full explanation on all the graphs and anything else that is required in that study. This poster will just ignore and continue to search for things in studies that can't be "explained" to them ergo something something vaccines bad.

If only there was some sort of large world event to demonstrate how safe vaccines are, some scenario where basically everyone had to get vaccinated..

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119612911#Comment_119612911

As suspected, you're not prepared to state that specific graph says. But don't worry nobody else is either.

Who knew a simple x y line graph could be so difficult to interpret.

Fighting Tao

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119613011#Comment_119613011

Multiple people have.

Did the author get back to your email already?

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119613011#Comment_119613011

Lol Again, you're provided with an answer to your question. You ignore the answer. You pretend it isn't answered. And you continue to ignore the points and questions raised against you.

Why aren't you emailing the authors of the study you haven't read?

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119612997#Comment_119612997

Yea, but that didn't work either as we've still got folks who are claiming that the vaccines are dangerous.

Hometruths, snowcat et al are just demonstrating the lengths people go to edit their reality to suit their strange obsessions.

Hoop66

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119613011#Comment_119613011

You probably think you're "doing well" in these posts and in your back and forth with other posters (who have so much more patience than I would I am in awe).

You're not.

You still don't engage in good faith.

You still refuse to answer questions (because to do so would expose your lack of knowledge on the subject)

You came back with your graph, because you thought you had another "gotcha" (failing to learn from the last time you tried this).

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119613061#Comment_119613061

It's highly likely that it's not even his "gotcha."

Like most conspiracy theorists, he's probably being fed this shite from twitter or some other social media. The types who post the one image he keeps copy pasting and vague, cryptic sounding questions.

He's been asked many many times where he finds these studies and that's another question he doesn't answer because it would expose his position as the dishonest, lazy nonsense it is.

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119613061#Comment_119613061

I didn't refuse to answer questions, I ignored KingMobs, who I tend to ignore for the same reasons so many others do - summarised in @patnor1011 s post on first page of this thread.

I posted the graph because what it shows I think is very alarming. Vaccine effectiveness wanes to negative after a period of time.

I'm not really into gotcha moments. Even if I was, I am sufficiently familiar with the regulars of this thread to know they would be futile. In this thread it's always nothing to see here - insufficient data is extremely comprehensive, mandatory vaccines are not coercive, and now negative effectiveness is not negative effectiveness, it is sub zero.

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119613121#Comment_119613121

Lol. Straight out lying now. You've avoided questions from every poster on this thread.

You are also misrepresenting the arguments you're ignoring.

And you're repeating your claim that the study shows something it doesn't.

The authors of the study didn't think the graph showed anything alarming. They don't mention anything alarming. They state things that would be contradictory if there was something alarming.

You aren't able to explain why they wouldn't mention it. You keep ignoring this.

You're not ignoring it because I'm too mean. You have no issue trying to rub it in when you think you've a clever answer to one of my questions...

If someone else asks you this question, will you answer it?

I'm pretty confident you won't.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119613121#Comment_119613121

You've refused multiple times to answer any of the questions put to you by multiple posters on the thread, not just King Mob.

So where is the data in the report or appendices showing negative effectiveness with reference to actual case numbers?

At the moment, the explanation that the line goes negative as a statistical extrapolation of a trend is more convincing explanation. Because you have, despite being asked a dozen times by different posters, failed to substantiate your claim with reference to the report text or data.

You have refused to explain how the vaccine could show such different effectiveness based on month of first vaccination, especially in the light of the declared study limitations re: high risk children, and what impact that has on the overall trend. Because the children vaccinated first were not a random sample of children, they were high risk and they were the ones who have been vaccinated the longest.

You have refused to explain how the vaccine could impair immunity while showing durable effectiveness versus severe covid and death.

All these questions have been put to already. I'm correcting the record so to speak. I fully expect you to be unable once again to support your argument with anything other than to point at a graph from a report you either haven't read or understood.

Dohnjoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119613011#Comment_119613011

As described countless times this is your M.O.

This is a study, which contradicts your anti-vaccine views, so you attack it in the only way you know how, by "not getting" a certain aspect of it. Again, this is a common technique used by conspiracy theorists.

If e.g. I mail them and get an explanation, you will a) reject it with your usual pedantry and/or b) move onto your next obtuse thing you "don't get"

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119613212#Comment_119613212

Yea, but you see, in conspiracy theory land, if you ignore something because you don't like it or it upsets you, it stops existing.

So when he ignored all of your questions, they poofed out of reality. So he never actually ignored them, so he wasn't really telling a fib there at all.

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119613212#Comment_119613212

So where is the data in the report or appendices showing negative effectiveness with reference to actual case numbers?

The graph is a graphical representation of their findings from the data. The actual case numbers are supplied in the supplementary appendix.

At the moment, the explanation that the line goes negative as a statistical extrapolation of a trend is more convincing explanation. Because you have, despite being asked a dozen times by different posters, failed to substantiate your claim with reference to the report text or data.

I am struggling with the extrapolation idea because I am struggling to see what subset of data was extrapolated. I asked the poster could he explain but I didn't get very far. Do you know what data was extrapolated and why?

Why would you present a statistical extrapolation of a trend over 22 weeks in a study that had actual data from 28 weeks?

You have refused to explain how the vaccine could show such different effectiveness based on month of first vaccination, especially in the light of the declared study limitations re: high risk children, and what impact that has on the overall trend. Because the children vaccinated first were not a random sample of children, they were high risk and they were the ones who have been vaccinated the longest.

I don't know the answer to this for sure, but I suspect it is natural immunity. Every months that passes the child is more likely to have had developed some level of natural immunity by the time they are vaccinated. Equally the higher risk children who were vaccinated first would have been less likely to have natural immunity, not just because of time but because of behavioural differences.

But whatever the answer to this is, it does not contradict the fact that Graph B shows negative effectiveness after about 18 weeks.

You have refused to explain how the vaccine could impair immunity while showing durable effectiveness versus severe covid and death.

Again this does not contradict what Graph B shows, and as the study says - Estimates of the effectiveness of two doses of BNT162b2 and of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection against Covid-19–related hospitalization were higher than estimates of the effectiveness against infection, but uncertainties were greater owing to a smaller number of events

There were 7 deaths out of 887,000 children. If you are using this study to claim the vaccines are proven to prevent death in children, you'd also have to believe living in the Piedmont region causes death in children, as 6 of the 7 deaths came from that region.