Covid vaccines - thread banned users in First Post

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119856580#Comment_119856580

The article you linked to explains the figures, the basis for them, the different methodologies and ranges for how the original figures were arrived at, the other models and revised models.

False information can be dangerous. You have entirely failed to show how the information presented above was dangerous, or why it was invalid or unreasonable for them to present the information.

You're not even trying, just rewording. It is obvious the argument has run its course when all you have left are semantic word games and goalpost shifts.

There is no point re-hashing it here further. People can read the article below and make up their own minds whether it is reasonable to call the scientists involved here as engaged in spreading dangerous misinformation. For my part, I have zero doubt that such an accusation is without foundation or merit and is entirely disingenuous.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-01526-0

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119856810#Comment_119856810

I think Nature's about to become as unreliable as Natural News again suddenly...

Dohnjoe

On flat-earth forums I've seen discussion threads that have been going on for years. Obviously it doesn't mean the world is flat, but proponents of nonsense believe that the existence of a debate, any debate, means there must be some truth to their beliefs. It's just down to stamina and volume after that.

Same thing happens with this anti-vax stuff. Ironically the old anti-vaxxers have stopped going on about the measles vaccine, that's disappeared, they seem to have passed the baton to this new breed of Covid anti-vaxxers. Who'll probably milk this for the next few years until the next generation takes over with something else.

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119856834#Comment_119856834

Once this fad passes it will most likely go back to childhood vaccines. When there's another another health emergency that involved vaccines, they'll jump on that.

There might be some rumblings about mRNA vaccines as they enter more common usage, cause new things are scary to some people, but this won't have the same selling power as it won't effect as many people.

There might be some flare up about covid vaccines if there's any lawsuits down the line and like with swine flu, they'll claim to be vindicated in their claims about millions of infertility cases and 10s of millions of deaths cause there's few cases of vaccine injuries that get pay outs.

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119856750#Comment_119856750

I don't believe Nature is an unreliable source, and I never declared it to be so.

You linked two studies on Nature showing that online misinformation spread by antivaxxers had a negative effect. The specific negative effect mentioned in the studies was that the misinformation leads to vaccine hesitancy which in turn is a barrier to the level of vaccine uptake necessary to achieve herd immunity. This is the same justification in the article DohnJoe linked.

I pointed out that one of the studies was authored in February 2021 by an academic who I have quoted on this thread before, in a paper BMJ showing that coercive vaccine policies are driving vaccine hesitancy. The goal of vaccine induced herd immunity was believed to be realistic in early 2021, and in the context of information available at the time I'd have no issue with the message of the paper. But I am not aware of anybody who is presently arguing that is a realistic ambition with the current vaccines.

You need two things for vaccine induced herd immunity:

a) a vaccine that prevents infection and transmission

b) a sufficiently high level of vaccine uptake

If we don't have (a), as far as vaccine induced herd immunity is concerned, (b) is irrelevant.

So we're at a stage where people are arguing that anti-vaxxers claiming the vaccine does not prevent infection or transmission is dangerous misinformation that will prevent us from reaching the level of vaccine uptake required for herd immunity.

Yet nobody is arguing that even with 100% vaccine uptake we will reach vaccine induced herd immunity.

It is totally illogical.

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119856866#Comment_119856866

Ok. Nature is again a reliable source and you accept the conclusions of the studies I posted.

I fully expect this to flip again when it suits you.

The rest is just you waffling and grasping at straws and I am going to ignore it.

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119856810#Comment_119856810

The article you linked explains precisely why it is dangerous and scaremongering:

The mistakes matter because the WHO’s study swiftly received worldwide media attention as an official estimate of the true number of lives lost as a result of the pandemic. The project is also politically sensitive: some critics used the first set of incorrect estimates to challenge Germany’s pandemic policy. And India’s government disputes the WHO’s estimate of 3.3 million to 6.5 million deaths in the country, which is some 10 times greater than India’s official COVID-19 death toll.

When governments are implementing population wide lockdowns and vaccine mandates in order to reduce the death toll from Covid, using accurate death toll figures to justify these policies is important.

In my opinion. And as you say, others can make up their own mind.

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119856895#Comment_119856895

Lol. More you claiming stuff says something it doesn't.

The passage you quote does not say dangerous and it does not say scaremongering.

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119856834#Comment_119856834

Ironically the old anti-vaxxers have stopped going on about the measles vaccine, that's disappeared, they seem to have passed the baton to this new breed of Covid anti-vaxxers. Who'll probably milk this for the next few years until the next generation takes over with something else.

There is definitely some changes in the new breed on both sides of this vaccine debate.

As I mentioned before one of the most striking things is this new breed of anti-vaxxers includes a lot more experienced and (previously) respected academics and scientists from renowned institutions such as Harvard, Stanford, Oxford etc.

I didn't pay a lot of attention to the anti-vax debate pre-Covid but what I do remember is that it seemed to be mainly one way traffic of highly educated experts dismissing the claims of layman loons. There seems to be a lot more layman experts dismissing the claims of highly educated loons with the Covid vaccines.

The other noteworthy change is the motivation of those condemning the anti-vaxxers.

Pre Covid vaccines those condemning the anti-vaxxers couldn't have cared a jot for the well being of the anti-vaxxers themselves, the condemnation was because people choosing not to vaccinate can put others at risk, because there's a chance they can catch and spread an infectious disease to others.

But some of the most vocal of this new breed, such as yourself, are concerned for the welfare of the anti-vaxxers themselves given their increased chances of severe disease/death.

That's quite a shift in philosophy in the new normal.

patnor1011

Another study out which put a little more light on this indiscriminate killer virus which is spreading like wildfire (this will never get old)... Study is focused on what happened before mrna injections become available and IFR and survivability rate.

https://brownstone.org/articles/how-dangerous-was-covid-anyway/

Yeah, yeah I know... Twitter, grifters, facebook, conspiracy blogs, but science, what'bout Hong Kong, and baringtons declaration I hope I covered it all.

Dohnjoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119858889#Comment_119858889

It's the same quackery, just rehashed.

Sure I'm concerned for anti-vaxxers, especially the older crowd, they are quite vulnerable to disinformation. It's literally putting their lives at risk, even you couldn't argue that away with pedantry. So why do you work so hard to defend "anti-vaxxers"?

Some posters here are so extreme you could argue they are the best defense against anti-vaxxers on this forum. All we need to do is keep them writing.

patnor1011

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119859200#Comment_119859200

Dunno, without any intention of insulting you, I am quite confident that that professor Ioannidis know more about it than you. Or anybody from your circle of friends.

Dohnjoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119859250#Comment_119859250

Most of the Irish population are vaccinated, the vaccines are safe and have significantly reduced hospitalizations and deaths from the virus.

That's not a personal opinion.

patnor1011

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119859324#Comment_119859324

The study is not about any of that. It is focused on CFR before mrna become available. Coincidentally it is also the time when virus was more dangerous than current variants.

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119859175#Comment_119859175

Yes. You are once again linkdumping something you found on twitter.

As before I doubt you actually did anything to check any of the claims made.

Also again I notice you avoid calling the vaccines vaccines.

Dohnjoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119859480#Comment_119859480

So if I look that guy up, he will represent scientific consensus correct? He's not going to be some respected individual who has since developed controversial views that have drawn scientific criticism?

Because I am getting really tired of finding out that every expert the anti-vaccine movement discovers and wheels out is in fact someone with highly questionable views. Another Luc Montagnier or Swedish anti-mask libertarian.

I can wheel out an endless line of individual engineers and experts who believe 9/11 was an inside job, some of them have produced lengthy studies you couldn't even begin to wrap your head around..

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119859200#Comment_119859200

So why do you work so hard to defend "anti-vaxxers"?

I detest the revisionism etc. I think it has profoundly damaging consequences. Like you I am disturbed by misinformation and I wish to question it.

I'm not worried in the slightest about the 5G misinformation, that's a minority of total nutjobs I personallly don't share your concern for. and their impact is meaningless compared to what I consider the more damaging misinformation - eg the vaccines is working as always intended, it was never intended to prevent infections etc etc.

On top of that I detest the ongoing censorship and denigration of academics and scientists who are challenging some of the supposed consensus. Whatever way you look at it, debate has been deliberately stifled on this subject. This is far from the same old quackery and it strikes me as far more anti scientific than any of the anti-vax nonsense proceeding Covid.

I've read a number of your posts on covid vaccines from late 2020, and my views were very similiar to yours were then: anti vax misinformation was a danger to all of us.

Now it is clear that the vaccines don't prevent infection or transmission sufficient for vaccine acquired herd immunity is not possible my views have changed.

It's now the illogical pro vax misinformation that is a danger to all of us, because when/if we get a vaccine that is capable of providing herd immunity the public confidence simply won't exist in order to achieve the necessary uptake.

Unfortunately a lot of the posters on this forum are too blinkered to comprehend this. I'm not sure if you are or not, but would welcome a good faith discussion exchange of views on it, and we both might learn something.

But if it is going to be more of the "But somebody who believes the earth is flat agrees with you, therefore you are wrong" sort of discussion then there is little point.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119859175#Comment_119859175

Why do you keep trying to use phrases mRna injections? If you end up in hospital, are you going to say no medicines by injection? Well?

As for the study... has it been peer reviewed? And why does it cut off at age 69?

Also to reiterate, it was never just about IFR but how many people covid sent to hospital and ICU. The reason why the fatality rate wasnt worse for under 70s was due to ensuring there was hospital capacity to treat those who needed it.

The fatality rate is only one piece of the equation. The others being the hospitalisation rate. And the number of infections.

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119859573#Comment_119859573

Except that you've been provided studies that directly show the impact of anti vaxx misinformation.

You've not shown anything to support the idea that this supposed "revisionism" and "pro vaxx" misinformation has had any impact.

You struggle to even show these things exist and have to bend over backwards with extremely silly bad faith interpretations to make them up.

Additional when antivaxx misinformation is pointed out to you, such as claims that VAERS shows the vaccines to be dangerous or that the vaccines are causing infertility, you dodge, ignore and avoid. You never seem to want to address these things and don't even want to label them as misinformation.

Your whinging here as always is complete hypocrisy.

Fighting Tao

But the revisionist in @hometruths ignores how vaccines protect more than the elderly by lowering the number of hospitalisations because without his/her revision their narrative falls apart and makes them look like an eejit. @hometruths is self flagellating again right now.

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119859549#Comment_119859549

Here some of his highlights for your info. More on his bio page at Stanford University: https://med.stanford.edu/profiles/John_Ioannidis

Academic Appointments

• Professor, Medicine - Stanford Prevention Research Center
• Professor, Epidemiology and Population Health
• Professor (By courtesy), Statistics
• Professor (By courtesy), Biomedical Data Science
• Member, Bio-X
• Member, Cardiovascular Institute
• Member, Stanford Cancer Institute
• Affiliate, Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment

Administrative Appointments

• Co-Director, Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford (METRICS) (2013 - Present)
• Editor-in-chief, European Journal of Clinical Investigation (2010 - 2019)
• Member, Stanford Cardiovascular Institute (2010 - Present)
• Member, Stanford Cancer Center (2010 - Present)
• Affiliate, Stanford Center on Longevity (2012 - Present)
• Affiliated faculty, Woods Institute for the Environment (2011 - Present)
• Member, Stanford Diabetes Research Center (2018 - Present)
• Professor of Statistics (by courtesy), Stanford University School of Humanities and Sciences (2011 - Present)
• Professor of Health Research and Policy, Stanford University School of Medicine (2011 - Present)
• Professor of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine (2010 - Present)
• Professor of Biomedical Data Science (by courtesy), Stanford University School of Medicine (2016 - Present)
• Director, Stanford Prevention Research Center (2010 - 2016)

Honors & Awards

• ERA Chair holder, European Commission (2023-)
• QUEST fellow, Berlin Institute of Health (2022-)
• Inaugural Harwood Prize for Intellectual Courage, AIER (2022)
• President Elect, Association of American Physicians (to serve as Vice President 2022-2023, President 2023-2024) (2022)
• Albert Stuyvenberg Medal, European Society for Clinical Investigation (2021)
• Elected corresponding member, Accademia delle Scienze (Bologna) (2021)
• Haldane lecture, Wolfson College, Oxford University (2021)
• Honorary doctorate (medicine), University of Edinburgh (2021)
• J Arliss Pollock Award and Memorial Lecture, American Society of Neuroradiology (2021)
• Morris/Paffenbarger Exercise is Medicine® Keynote Lecture, American College of Sports Medicine (2021)
• Roy and Diana Vagelos inaugural lecture, World Hellenic Biomedical Association (2021)
• C.R. Stephen lecture, Washington University St. Louis (2019)
• Gordon Award, National Institutes of Health (2019)
• Honorary PhD, University of Tilburg (2019)
• Honorary President, Medical and Surgical Society of Corfu (2019)
• Elected member, National Academy of Medicine (2018-)
• David and Rosemary Adamson Lecture on Excellence in Reproductive Medicine, ASRM (2018)
• Einstein fellow, Berlin Institute of Health, Einstein Stiftung and Stiftung Charite (2018)
• Epiphany Science Courage Award, Novim (inaugural award) (2018)
• Gonatas memorial lectureship, University of Pennsylvania (2018)
• Elected Councilor, Association of American Physicians (2017-2022)
• Annual Distinguished Investigator, University of Connecticut School of Medicine and Health Center (2017)
• Chanchlani Award for Global Health, McMaster University (2017)
• David-Sackett-Preis, Deutsche Netzwerk Evidenzbasierte Medizin (2017)
• Honorary PhD (health sciences), University of Athens (2017)
• Snively visiting professorship, UC Davis (2017)
• Anatomy Lesson lecturer, University of Amsterdam and Academic Medical Center (2016)
• Harris lectureship in science and civilization, Caltech (2016)
• Levine lectureship, Yale (2016)
• Lifetime Achievement Award, Hellenic Society for Pharmacological Science (2016)
• Snyder Lectureship, University of Utah (2016)
• Elected member, European Academy of Sciences and Arts (2015-)
• Elected member, American Epidemiological Society (2015-)
• Honorary PhD, Erasmus University Rotterdam (2015)
• Litchfield Lectureship, Oxford University (2015)
• Medal for Distinguished Service, Teachers College, Columbia University (2015)
• Honorary member, FORTH (2014)
• Honorary professor (omotimos), University of Ioannina (2014)
• Elected fellow, European Academy of Cancer Sciences (2010-)
• President, Society for Research Synthesis Methodology (2009-2010)
• Elected member, Association of American Physicians (2009-)
• European Award for Excellence in Clinical Science, European Society for Clinical Investigation (2007)

Boards, Advisory Committees, Professional Organizations

• Chair, Scientific Advisory Board, Usher Institute for Population Health Sciences and Informatics, University of Edinburgh (2015 - Present)
• Faculty Fellow, Stanford Center for Innovation on Global Health (2015 - Present)
• Member, Scientific Advisory Board, Berkeley Initiative for Transparency in Social Sciences (2014 - Present)
• Member, Scientific Advisory Board, Center for Open Science (2013 - Present)
• Member, Scientific Advisory Board, International Epidemiology Institute (2012 - Present)
• Member, Scientific Advisory Board, Reproducibility Initiative (2012 - Present)
• Senior Advisor for Knowledge Integration, NCI, NIH (2012 - 2016)
• Member, Methodology Committee, PCORI (2011 - 2013)
• Executive Board Member and Center Director, Human Genome Epidemiology Network (2004 - Present)
• Vice President, Board of Directors, Hellenic Center for Infectious Disease Control (2000 - 2001)

Professional Education

• Fellowship, New England Medical Center, Tufts University School of Medicine, Infectious Diseases (1996)
• Residency, New England Deaconess Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Internal Medicine (1993)
• DSc, University of Athens School of Medicine, Athens, Greece, Biopathology (1996)
• MD, University of Athens School of Medicine, Athens, Greece, Medicine (1990)

Just another one of those new breed anti-vaxxers we were talking about earlier

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119859623#Comment_119859623

Except that you've been provided studies that directly show the impact of anti vaxx misinformation.

Yes. Indeed. And as I've pointed out those studies say the impact is a reduction in our chances of achieving vaccine acquired herd immunity.

And you curiously ignored the fact that the bigger impediment to achieving vaccine acquired herd immunity is the lack of a vaccine sufficiently capable of preventing infection and transmission.

To remind you once again of my earlier post:

You need two things for vaccine induced herd immunity:

a) a vaccine that prevents infection and transmission

b) a sufficiently high level of vaccine uptake

If we don't have (a), as far as vaccine induced herd immunity is concerned, (b) is irrelevant.

So we're at a stage where people are arguing that anti-vaxxers claiming the vaccine does not prevent infection or transmission is dangerous misinformation that will prevent us from reaching the level of vaccine uptake required for herd immunity.

Yet nobody is arguing that even with 100% vaccine uptake we will reach vaccine induced herd immunity.

It is totally illogical.

Dohnjoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119859573#Comment_119859573

You aren't disturbed by misinformation. You never challenge any of the more extreme anti-vaxxers here. When questioned why you don't, you respond along the lines of "they can believe what they want" or some cop out.

So it doesn't bother you.

Dohnjoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119859657#Comment_119859657

Cool, there are millions of experts and scientists in the world, with billions of qualifications between them. We all know why you've "chosen" that guy. Note how you both did it and systematically do it throughout the thread. This is because people with extreme beliefs will always find experts who side with their beliefs. Conveniently ignoring the thousands that don't.

Let's take 5 seconds to have a look

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/what-the-heck-happened-to-john-ioannidis/

Aaaannnd there it is, like clockwork.

If you want me to list out the qualifications of the engineers who believe 9/11 was an inside job, it's really very impressive, there are quite a few of them. These guys know a hell of a lot more about engineering than you, so they must know what they are talking about

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119859679#Comment_119859679

You're missing what I've been saying - just hand waving about all misinformation is noisy nonsense. The discussion needs more context and specific examples.

Of course I am not concerned by every bit of misinformation. In some cases I'm not concerned because I don't share your view that it is damaging. In other cases I don't share your view it is actually misinformation. I appreciate this works both ways, I am sure there are examples of stuff I consider to be misinformation that you do not.

But this is a common trope on this thread - you never challenged so and so when they said such and such so you have no credibility. It's total nonsense.

But are you prepared to give me a specific example of the type of extreme misinformation you think I should have challenged?

If so I will give you my views on that specific example of misinformation, but it is totally pointless to just refer to misinformation in general.

Dohnjoe

1. Act contrarian about vaccines, play the "just concerned" act
2. Wheel out individual controversial expert from anti-vax feed
3. Cherry-pick ambiguous study from anti-vax feed
4. Do this alongside people who believe space flight is faked without blinking
5. On a conspiracy forum
6. Rinse
7. Repeat

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119859678#Comment_119859678

Yes. I've told you I'm not going to acknowledge any of that waffle. You can stop badgering me about it.

You accept that studies are legitimate.

They show the impact of anti-vaxx misinformation.

You cannot show anything to support your notion that "pro vaxx misinformation" causes any sort of impact never mind more of one than caused by anti vaxx misinformation.

And notice how you avoid the fact that you refuse to even address or identify anti vaxx propaganda when it's presented to you.

I will therefore go forward with the assumption that you don't believe that the claims about VAERS and infertility are misinformation.

If that's not the case all you need to is to state you believe that they are misinformation.

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119859718#Comment_119859718

In the 5 seconds I had a look I saw that the article says "John Ioannidis is one of the most published and influential scientists in the world", but recently has "been publishing dubious studies that minimize the dangers of the coronavirus"

Do you know anything about what was dubious about his views or is that 5 second look enough to ensure with certainty that one of the most published and influential scientists in the world can be dismissed as some sort of fringe extremist.

Dohnjoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119859727#Comment_119859727

So you aren't concerned about anti-vax disinformation at all? or you are about "some" of it? Or how does it work?

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119859679#Comment_119859679

It's very easy for him to dismiss the 5G stuff as the only misinformation since the posters who were claiming that stuff are long gone. That stuff is too extreme and obviously embarrassing so there's no issue throwing those anti vaxxers under the bus.

But when it comes to the anti vaxxers still on the thread and peddling more subtle more acceptable misinformation, that's when the avoiding and sudden bouts of blindness come in.

Especially since they are the only people agreeing with him.

Honestly it's kind of shocking none of them have tried to claim this affliction of temporary selective vision impairment is a side effect of the vaccines.