Covid vaccines - thread banned users in First Post

patnor1011

In Taiwan people think they may not be that safe and effective. They actually think that currently more people die from vaccines than from covid

https://youtu.be/3_k1pJzKSFA

Fighting Tao

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119893474#Comment_119893474

It reminds me of the Carl Sagan quote:

”You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe.”

Dohnjoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119893717#Comment_119893717

Myself and others have asked for your conspiracy and you never provide details

As for your question, context is important. You gaslight that the world was "told" vaccines would pretty much stop Covid, end infection. That isn't what happened. A portion of people thought they would stop Covid, another portion believed they would heavily curb it, others cautioned that the effect could be quite limited. That includes experts. Personally I thought they would be somewhere in the middle.

The mantra is the vaccines are safe and effective.

They are. You just have this absolutist fundamentalist definition of effective.

John Ioannidis (JI): "We know that the vaccines that have been used are very effective, in the range of 95%. However, nothing is 100% in reality."

Dohnjoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119893827#Comment_119893827

And we're on a forum where that is constantly on display.

If I believed something, and it turns out every nut and quack on the planet also believed it, I'd start to question myself. Some people are incapable of that.

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119893846#Comment_119893846

Don't worry no need to provide details, I've read your posts on this site from that time and back then you had the same views as I did. That vaccine refusers were a problem because they posed a risk to others with increased infections and transmission. You showed very little concern for the welfare of the individual anti vaxxer.

And two years later we both agree that we're all going to get Covid whether vaccinated or not.

Where we differ now is I don't see vaccine refusers as a problem because they are not a danger to others.

You still see vaccine refusers as a problem because you've developed a concern for their welfare.

The trigger for our pivots was the same - the real world performance of the vaccines.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119893730#Comment_119893730

It was your claim that they weren't effective. You seem unable to provide an explanation of what that means. Strange basis on which to make such a claim.

Given that you are unable to define what is meant by 'effective', and it seems to be a vague word open to strawman definitions, I will use more precise terms.

Similarly you do not define what safe or unsafe is? 100% safe 100% of the time? Or 'safe' by the standards of existing medicines and treatments? So yes, they are safe. There are side effects which are either extremely rare or temporary\mild and the side effects risks are dwarfed by the risk from covid.

They provide significant protection severe disease and death against all variants. This wanes slightly but is durable as it depends on the immune system's memory cells. Against earlier variants, they provided significant protection against infection and transmission in the period after vaccination while antibodies were present. In terms of transmission, how much of that is down to stopping you from being infected in the first place versus making you less infectious is unclear - but the effect is measurable.

I make these statements on the basis of the data in the Lancet Swedish study, and it is borne out in multiple other studies.

For infection versus Omicron, this has already been covered in recent posts with reference to Journal factcheck and Qatar study cited already on this thread.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119893803#Comment_119893803

I watched the video.

Nowhere does it say "They actually think more people die from vaccines than from covid."

Nowhere does it say "People think they may not be that safe and effective."

Perhaps you can point us to the time in the video where it is claimed?

They merely talk about deaths after being vaccinated. That is all. The video makes no claims of any causative link.

How many people are vaccinated in a week in Taiwan? How many die normally?

Dohnjoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119894027#Comment_119894027

The vaccine refusers (anti vaxxers) were a problem. They disproportionally used up hospital beds and resources at a time when such resources were very stretched. They were and are more likely to transmit the virus to others.

Even without the benefit of hindsight, it was the correct thing to do. Even moreso considering we didn't fully know exactly how much the vaccines would curb the spread of the virus and it's mutations, and what impact anti-vaxxers would have on that spread. To imply the world did have perfect knowledge of that is false. Your conspiracy you won't detail is along those lines.

As for my own sympathy for anti-vaxxers. It's still someone's family or relative. I can understand the frustration of someone trying and failing to get through to a brainwashed family member. Obviously I have more sympathy for the victims of that disinfo, rather than those who actively distribute it. It's especially grim to see the older generation, who are perhaps not so savvy, falling for the disinfo.

You gleefully feed into the anti-vax quackery here, and indeed no one will ever convince you otherwise, but that's not the point. There's never anything wrong with tackling this kind of stuff.

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119894034#Comment_119894034

Against earlier variants, they provided significant protection against infection and transmission in the period after vaccination while antibodies were present.

And how are they doing now against infection and transmission? Against the current variants?

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119894111#Comment_119894111

To imply the world did have perfect knowledge of that is false. Your conspiracy you won't detail is along those lines.

I haven't implied this. I have said repeatedly my issue is not with the fact that the knowledge we had in December 2020 turned out to be wrong. No problem with that at all, not even surprising given they were flying the plane as they were still building it.

My issue is with people who instead of acknowledging that the expectations of December 2020 were wrong, try and claim that there was an entirely different set of expectations all along

i.e "Nobody expected the vaccines would prevent infection, people took it on the advice that it would prevent severe disease and death."

Because that's just BS.

Dohnjoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119894669#Comment_119894669

My issue is with people who instead of acknowledging that the expectations of December 2020 were wrong, try and claim that there was an entirely different set of expectations all along

Is worth hundreds and hundreds of posts to you. A conspiracy theory you can't explain. And full proper anti-vax mode.

That's not "an issue", it's something far more extreme.

All out of misplaced bitterness because you perceived there was some singular belief about vaccines in 2020 that was wrong. Despite multiple people explaining how there were several beliefs on how the vaccine would perform. Despite experts you've lauded describing the vaccines as highly effective.

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119894986#Comment_119894986

And oddly enough one of the reasons I have so many posts on the subject is because I spent 100s of posts arguing with somebody who was claiming that the vaccines were approved to prevent severe disease rather than prevent symptomatic infection which rather proves my point.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119894640#Comment_119894640

The Qatar study showed that versus Omicron:

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2203965?query=featured_home

So this is the baseline.

Overall, the analysis suggested—consistently with prior studies—that mRNA vaccines and boosters work fairly well in protecting against symptomatic omicron infection, though their protective effect wanes rapidly and disappears within six months or so.

Previous infection with a variant other than omicron was associated with an approximately 50% reduced risk of infection. No difference in the protection of previous infection against BA.1 and BA.2 was discernable. Two-dose vaccination and no previous infection had negligible effectiveness against BA.1 and BA.2, but most persons received their second dose more than 8 months earlier... Booster vaccination was associated with an approximately 60% reduced risk of infection. No difference in the protection of booster vaccination against BA.1 and BA.2 was discernable. However, most persons received their third dose less than 45 days earlier, perhaps explaining the relatively high effectiveness.

It is still to be established whether the 'bivalent' vaccines fare better against BA.4 and BA.5 but it appears that the baseline is still valid based on antibody studies.

https://edition.cnn.com/2022/10/26/health/updated-boosters-omicron-imprint/index.html

https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/news/adapted-vaccine-targeting-ba4-ba5-omicron-variants-original-sars-cov-2-recommended-approval

So, my summary - recent vaccination reduces your chances of infection versus Omicron, however there is still significant risk of infection and the protection wanes. So, in comparison with the situation in 2021, given the reduced protection versus infection and reduced general severity of Omicron, it can be seen why the emphasis has switched from vaccine mandates and importance of vaccination to protect others, plus the high vaccination rate TO vaccination to optimally protect against severe covid in the more vulnerable.

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119895281#Comment_119895281

however there is still significant risk of infection

Great, we can agree on the fact there remains a significant risk of infection post vaccination.

In. my opinion this clearly indicates the vaccine is not effective at preventing infection.

Your opinion may differ, and that's ok.

Dohnjoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119895204#Comment_119895204

No one is forcing you.

This is your personal view and conspiracy theory, a theory you won't detail.

It's a conspiracy theory forum, it's full of people who systematically reject facts, etc.

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119895749#Comment_119895749

It is not my personal view that vaccines were specifically approved to prevent symptomatic infection as opposed to severe disease.

That is a fact.

But you're correct that there are plenty on here who systematically reject that fact.

Fighting Tao

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119896220#Comment_119896220

So if it’s a fact then you can easily provide evidence. I strongly suspect that you are not understanding what was said at the time and missed out phrases like “can lower”, or “reduce the chances of” before “symptomatic infection”.

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119896256#Comment_119896256

I've provided an abundance of evidence already, phrases like "insufficient data" in relation to severe disease, and "prevent" before infection are verbatim quotes from the approval documents.

No point rehashing this, as DohnJoe says there are plenty on here who systematically reject facts.

Fighting Tao

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119896418#Comment_119896418

You did not provide evidence of the claim I asked you about and you are now dodging the question.

Dohnjoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119896220#Comment_119896220

It is your opinion.

Multiple vaccines were approved by multiple authorities and bodies for a variety of reasons. Their performance against different variants during trials and the real world has varied depending on many factors.

You seem to have distilled all of that down into a subjective, absolutist position. Like someone taking an ounce of truth out of a sea of context, and then ignoring the sea.

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119896758#Comment_119896758

I am not dodging anything.

You asked about my claim that vaccines were specifically approved to prevent symptomatic infection as opposed to severe disease.

And this is what I've provided evidence for in the past.

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119896943#Comment_119896943

And are you able to cite the trial data upon which this variety of reasons was approved?

Because we've been down this road before and despite this being claimed by you and multiple other posters, not one of you has been able to a) specify the other reasons for approval and/or b) cite the trial data for those reasons.

Fighting Tao

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119897289#Comment_119897289

Point me to the posts then. You mentioned that it was back in December 2020. Seeing that the first doses were given late 2020 I find it difficult to believe that all the experts were saying that they’d definitely stop symptomatic cases.

sydthebeat

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119888802#Comment_119888802

@323

You posted this two days ago.

You were challanged immediately to post the source of the table.

Why have you been so cowardly in not responding to this challenge? Is it because you know it's complete lies and BS?

so here once again is your challenge

Post the source of that table or admit that it's lies

Dohnjoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119897318#Comment_119897318

Hundreds of posts and many posters have repeatedly addressed your questions, but you systematically reject it all. Which you can endlessly do because this is your subjective personal view and your conspiracy. One which you don't detail.

As long as you don't break this forum's rules, you can do that forever. As mentioned a few times we have a 9/11 truther who's been doing that for well over 5 years now. It's kind of a thing on this forum.

All I can do is point out the obvious, and address the usual anti-vax stuff that follows your conspiracy (when I could be bothered)

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119897537#Comment_119897537

I didn't claim that "all the experts were saying that they’d definitely stop symptomatic cases."

I claimed that the vaccines were specifically approved to prevent symptomatic infections as opposed to severe disease..

i.e the trial data showed they were highly effective in preventing infections.

The EMA studied the trial data and approved specifically to prevent infection.

The trial data on efficacy against severe disease was insufficient. Hence it cannot be claimed that the vaccines were approved specifically to prevent severe disease.

Big Bag of Chips

It's kind of a thing on this forum.

Imagine that.. In a forum named "Conspiracy Theories"

From The Forum Charter:

• The general purpose of this forum is to provide a thriving and constructive place for ladies and gentlemen to discuss topics of a controversial nature: topics in which there is an allegation that they involve some degree of misinformation and/or coordinated deception - ie. Conspiracies

ALSO

• There should be a reasonable give-and-take in terms of how strongly someone expresses a belief in the truth (or falsity) of something, and how others react to it. The goal here is open-minded, open-ended conversation, not derision and ridicule of contributors for asking questions or questioning information.
• Please remember that there are many forms of evidence. As well as cold hard facts, there is anecdotal evidence, circumstantial evidence, and any number of other things. Some people value these differently to others. Just because you don't find something to be convincing as evidence doesn't mean that it isn't evidence, nor that someone else can't find it convincing.

Posters not willing to accept the basic function of this forum are free to stop posting here. If you wish to continue posting then you must accept that you are very likely to read posts that you don't believe or agree with. People who strongly don't believe in a conspiracy do not need to post here to convince conspiracy theorists of the error of their ways.

Again from the Charter:

• Trying to spend 100 odd posts convincing 1 or 2 specific users that your views are more valid than theirs is what causes the most issues. You have to accept that not all people are willing to alter their beliefs to suit you - and they have the freedom to hold those beliefs (short of soapboxing). Remember: many users read, but do not post, and may be interested in reading your opinions - so the opinion of 2 or 3 other prolific posters is rarely meaningful, and should neither be seen as a victory or a threat.

Dohnjoe

Indeed, it's not really about convincing an individual (next to impossible here), more it's about challenging their views.

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119898352#Comment_119898352

Yes but simply contradicting me by saying the vaccines were approved for a variety of reasons, is not really challenging views is it? You say you don't need to specify what these reasons are because it has been explained to me already, but I systematically reject it.

This has been your line for months. "It has been explained to you, but you cannot or will not, understand" But not once have you actually made a specific reference or link to these explanations from other posters.

Or similarly, you state that I don't understand what I am reading, but you never actually specify what it is I don't understand or how I am wrong.

For example when here you say I don't understand. I reply to highlight the schtick:

And again. It’s like bingo.

not one poster has been able to cite a single source or link to anything to demonstrate that the primary function of the Covid vaccines was intended to be anything other than to prevent symptomatic cases of Covid.

Your argument is simply I don't understand.

And what do you know? Rather than just take the opportunity to blow my argument out of the water by either citing a source or linking to something disprove this claim, or even quoting another poster who has linked to something, you reply:

Yes they have.

As mentioned you don't understand or you don't want to understand. Keywords in bold.

It's a contrarian technique.

And as sure as night follows day you will now once again pass up the opportunity to blow my argument out of the water by linking to these sources.

I'm not trying to convince you of the fact that the specific purpose the Covid vaccines were approved for was to prevent Covid infections rather than reduce the severity of infections. It is as unnecessary as it is impossible.

And I welcome you challenging my views with something approaching an argument, but what you are doing is simply telling me I don't understand your argument, without even telling me what your argument is.

The more this goes on the more it is indicative of a very powerful narrative that has been created, and clearly not by accident. So there's your conspiracy theory.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119899494#Comment_119899494

Or... there is no conspiracy.

What the trials really showed was that vaccination triggered an immune response. In the trials this was detected via tracking infections and this is the basis under which it was formally approved.

But it would be contrary to (immunology) expectations for this to not have an effect versus severe disease. They did not know for sure but it was a reasonable expectation borne out in reality.

Can you show us on what basis this expectation would be unreasonable?