Covid vaccines - thread banned users in First Post

King Mob

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Define what you mean by accurately reporting?

A study that directly states what you are claiming and what was claimed by the propaganda video you are defending.

Show a study that states that PCR tests aren't adequate to accurately detect covid infections. I.e. a study that directly states that medical organisations are using PCR tests incorrectly.

drunkmonkey wrote: »

I said the CDC are now running two different CT's for pcr tests in the vaccinated and the unvaccinated, the vaccinated one is less sensitive so will pick up less cases, That is an honest fact.

So you claim, but you've not actually shown.
Nor have you explained why you believe they are doing this.

The dishonesty here comes from the likely probability that you are misrepresenting what is actually happening and insinuating something nefarious behind it.

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Like it's a simple enough question, should we be preforming the exact same pcr test on a vaccinated person as unvaccinated person?
You believe i'm dishonest so you can't answer the question, stop being so paranoid it's not a gotcha question

I don't know. I'm not a doctor or a virus specialist.
There could be any number of good reasons why you wouldn't need to do the same test.
Most likely there are, and you just haven't bothered to look for the reasons beyond the anti-vaccination propaganda.

Why do you believe they are using separate tests?
What has this to do with vaccine safety and the other bull**** claims about it?

drunkmonkey

Dude your insane.

King Mob

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Dude your insane.

Cool. Insults and dodging.

You have no studies to back up your claim or the claim in the propaganda video. The PCR tests are effective. The video was telling fibs.

You can't show your claim is actually true or accurate. You are misrepresenting things.

You can't even explain what you believe is really going on.

astrofool

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Dude your insane.

I see you've gone the trump route and started accusing others of crimes you're guilty of :pac:

guy2231

King Mob wrote: »

Cool. Insults and dodging.

You have no studies to back up your claim or the claim in the propaganda video. The PCR tests are effective. The video was telling fibs.

You can't show your claim is actually true or accurate. You are misrepresenting things.

You can't even explain what you believe is really going on.

Didn't the tanzanian president do covid tests on goats and fruits then sent the tests off with real names and ages and some of them were coming back positive?

King Mob

guy2231 wrote: »

Didn't the tanzanian president do covid tests on goats and fruits then sent the tests off with real names and ages and some of them were coming back positive?

I'm sure really sure what you're talking about or what it has to do with anything.
Perhaps you can elaborate?

Dohnjoe

guy2231 wrote: »

Didn't the tanzanian president do covid tests on goats and fruits then sent the tests off with real names and ages and some of them were coming back positive?

It's widely suspected he died of Covid.

Timberrrrrrrr

guy2231 wrote: »

Didn't the tanzanian president do covid tests on goats and fruits then sent the tests off with real names and ages and some of them were coming back positive?

The same Tanzanian president who said you could pray covid away?

The same Tanzanian president who died recently from (suspected) Covid?

DaSilva

drunkmonkey wrote: »

I said the CDC are now running two different CT's for pcr tests in the vaccinated and the unvaccinated, the vaccinated one is less sensitive so will pick up less cases, That is an honest fact.

This is not an honest fact, its just another of your classic PCR/CT misinterpretations of the facts. The CDC defines a breakthrough case as:
A person who has SARS-CoV-2 RNA or antigen detected on respiratory specimen collected ≥14 days after completing the primary series of an FDA-authorized COVID-19 vaccine.

No mention of CT values, they even mention positive antigen tests which do not have a CT value.

What you or the misinformation websites you visit have (wilfully imo) misinterpreted is the following statement from the CDC:
For cases with a known RT-PCR cycle threshold (Ct) value, submit only specimens with Ct value ≤28 to CDC for sequencing.

What this means is that they want to collect samples from breakthrough cases for investigation but only from cases with a CT value of ≤28 because otherwise it is hard to perform sequencing. This sequencing is probably because they want to see if breakthrough cases are disproportionally occurring with specific variants.

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Like it's a simple enough question, should we be preforming the exact same pcr test on a vaccinated person as unvaccinated person?
You believe i'm dishonest so you can't answer the question, stop being so paranoid it's not a gotcha question

Yes we should, and yes we are. I know this isn't what you want to believe so you will ignore it.

patnor1011

Seems that vaccine safety conspiracy is getting bigger. CDC is apparently going to discuss rare but higher-than-expected reports of heart inflammation following doses of the mRNA-based Pfizer and Moderna. It seems mostly young men 16-30 are prone to complication after getting second dose.

Timberrrrrrrr

patnor1011 wrote: »

Seems that vaccine safety conspiracy is getting bigger. CDC is apparently going to discuss rare but higher-than-expected reports of heart inflammation following doses of the mRNA-based Pfizer and Moderna. It seems mostly young men 16-30 are prone to complication after getting second dose.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1270339

Overall, 226 cases of myocarditis or pericarditis after vaccination in people younger than age 30 have been confirmed, Dr. Tom Shimabukuro, deputy director of the CDC's Immunization Safety Office, said during a presentation to a Food and Drug Administration advisory group. Further investigation is needed, however, to confirm whether the vaccination was the cause of the heart problem.

Vaccine safety experts are always on the lookout for a range of possible side effects following any new vaccine. Despite the increased number of reported myocarditis cases among young people, Shimabukuro said, no major red flags have been identified.

astrofool

patnor1011 wrote: »

Seems that vaccine safety conspiracy is getting bigger. CDC is apparently going to discuss rare but higher-than-expected reports of heart inflammation following doses of the mRNA-based Pfizer and Moderna. It seems mostly young men 16-30 are prone to complication after getting second dose.

The vaccine safety conspiracy that they are publishing all the data on? What is the conspiracy aspect?

patnor1011

astrofool wrote: »

The vaccine safety conspiracy that they are publishing all the data on? What is the conspiracy aspect?

I do not know, you tell me. Weren't you one of those who kept saying ad nauseum that current covid vaccines are perfectly safe?
Or when people used to claim that there is zero chance those blood clots have anything to do with AZ vaccine.

I get it. I really do, because next one sound almost logical - that benefits outweigh risk and that there will be adverse reactions, some damage and unfortunately deaths too but that is to be expected. Happens all the time with new medicines, vaccines or therapies anyway...
What I do not get, is that the very same people who are repeating this mantra used to shout that one single death from (or with) covid is one death too many.

Dohnjoe

patnor1011 wrote: »

I do not know, you tell me. Weren't you one of those who kept saying ad nauseum that current covid vaccines are perfectly safe?

Can you quote this poster claiming this?

Anti-vaxxers constantly use this tactic of projecting that people are claiming vaccines are 1,000% safe, then highlighting any injury or death related (or not) to vaccines.

Nothing is perfectly safe.

Or when people used to claim that there is zero chance those blood clots have anything to do with AZ vaccine.

Which posters. Quote them.

astrofool

patnor1011 wrote: »

I do not know, you tell me. Weren't you one of those who kept saying ad nauseum that current covid vaccines are perfectly safe?
Or when people used to claim that there is zero chance those blood clots have anything to do with AZ vaccine.

I get it. I really do, because next one sound almost logical - that benefits outweigh risk and that there will be adverse reactions, some damage and unfortunately deaths too but that is to be expected. Happens all the time with new medicines, vaccines or therapies anyway...
What I do not get, is that the very same people who are repeating this mantra used to shout that one single death from (or with) covid is one death too many.

So, again, what points are you trying to make? There is a pretty long thread on the COVID forum covering vaccines and their safety, none of this is news. I also don't think anyone has said "1 death is too many" given we have lots of flu deaths each year, the difference with COVID-19 is that we had overwhelmed hospitals and high death rates even when trying to keep the virus suppressed, if we had gone the ignore route, our death count would be multiples higher and that would be too many,

And it is ironic, that you, being one of those who won't take a vaccine, are now part of the group risking freedoms and putting those with immune disorders at risk, you have become orders of magnitude more dangerous to society than any of the COVID-19 vaccines. I'm sure you do some mental gymnastics to justify your stance, but it all falls apart pretty quickly and reverts to a "no, just because" argument.

King Mob

patnor1011 wrote: »

I do not know, you tell me. Weren't you one of those who kept saying ad nauseum that current covid vaccines are perfectly safe?
Or when people used to claim that there is zero chance those blood clots have anything to do with AZ vaccine.

...

What I do not get, is that the very same people who are repeating this mantra used to shout that one single death from (or with) covid is one death too many.

Again, you are misrepresenting people and assigning people to arguments no one has actually made.

patnor1011

astrofool wrote: »

So, again, what points are you trying to make? There is a pretty long thread on the COVID forum covering vaccines and their safety, none of this is news. I also don't think anyone has said "1 death is too many" given we have lots of flu deaths each year, the difference with COVID-19 is that we had overwhelmed hospitals and high death rates even when trying to keep the virus suppressed, if we had gone the ignore route, our death count would be multiples higher and that would be too many,

And it is ironic, that you, being one of those who won't take a vaccine, are now part of the group risking freedoms and putting those with immune disorders at risk, you have become orders of magnitude more dangerous to society than any of the COVID-19 vaccines. I'm sure you do some mental gymnastics to justify your stance, but it all falls apart pretty quickly and reverts to a "no, just because" argument.

Mental gymnastics? Do you realize that if you had covid you do not need to take vaccine?
Anyone who claim that taking covid vaccine is some high priority moral duty is delusional. Mass vaccinations during pandemic never worked before, and it is not going to work now either. Fully vaccinated people still catch, transmit and die from virus so companies who are putting them out already talk about the need of a booster. Proclamations about how un-vaccinated people become dangers to society is plain hysteria and FUD.

King Mob

patnor1011 wrote: »

Mass vaccinations during pandemic never worked before, and it is not going to work now either.

No source for this claim. It's simply unfounded opinion from some one with no training, limited knowledge and an agenda against vaccines.

patnor1011 wrote: »

Fully vaccinated people still catch, transmit and die from virus

Yes.
But the fact you are leaving out and missing is that vaccinated people have a lower chance of catching, transmitting and dying from the virus. It also lowers the chances of the virus causing people to become severely sick, which reduces pressure on hospitals.
And this chance is significantly lower.
You know this, yet you're very transparently twisting the facts. Or more likely the anti vaxx sites you're parroting are doing this for you.

patnor1011 wrote: »

so companies who are putting them out already talk about the need of a booster.

And? You anti vaxxers have been pointing out the fact that companies were saying this since the beginning of vaccine development.
What's the issue?
Many vaccines require boosters.

patnor1011 wrote: »

Proclamations about how un-vaccinated people become dangers to society is plain hysteria and FUD.

Yet claims that there's a giant global conspiracy behind the vaccines are reasonable?
Claims that the vaccines are dangerous based on obvious lying, totally justified?
Claims that the vaccines contain mircochips/infertility drugs/magnets/Satan are completely rational?

Again, you don't have any rational argument for not wanting to get the vaccine.
You don't want to get the vaccine because you've fallen for misinformation from the internet.

patnor1011

patnor1011 wrote: »

Mental gymnastics? Do you realize that if you had covid you do not need to take vaccine?
Anyone who claim that taking covid vaccine is some high priority moral duty is delusional. Mass vaccinations during pandemic never worked before, and it is not going to work now either. Fully vaccinated people still catch, transmit and die from virus so companies who are putting them out already talk about the need of a booster. Proclamations about how un-vaccinated people become dangers to society is plain hysteria and FUD.

Erm, where have you gotten this idea that if you've had it you don't need a vaccine? They'll have developed some level of immunity to some variants but they can still get it again. Point of reference is that I know people who got covid who have been vaccinated afterwards.

Fully vaccinated people have an incredibly tiny chance of developing any serious covid symptoms. This could change with future variants but at this point they're well protected.

Meanwhile the risk of adverse side effects from a vaccine are far lower than the risk posed by covid. I was also one of the first az doses for high risk people and I'm eagerly awaiting dose two in the next week or two. The evidence against taking it simply is not there.

Out of interest, do you also oppose the hpv vaccine or MMR vaccines?

trent_r2021

Is it possible to get hold of medicines like Ivermectin in Ireland? For those of us who have safety concerns about the vaccine but want to be prepared to fight COVID with alternative treatments.

Dohnjoe

trent_r2021 wrote: »

Is it possible to get hold of medicines like Ivermectin in Ireland? For those of us who have safety concerns about the vaccine but want to be prepared to fight COVID with alternative treatments.

If you are "concerned about the safety of Covid vaccines" while at the same time considering using a drug which is used to treat/prevent parasites in animals, and asking for medical advice on a conspiracy theory forum, I strongly suggest taking a break from the internet

trent_r2021

Dohnjoe wrote: »

If you are "concerned about the safety of Covid vaccines" while at the same time considering using a drug which is used to , and asking for medical advice on a conspiracy theory forum, I strongly suggest taking a break from the internet

I disagree with your assessment of the situation and I wasn't asking for advice about my internet habits. If I choose to take a substance, that is my decision to make. I wasn't asking for medical advice, I was asking about resources for purchasing something. What I was asking advice about specifically was whether it was possible to procure it in this country or not. You don't seem to know, so perhaps you should mind your own business.

King Mob

trent_r2021 wrote: »

I disagree with your assessment of the situation and I wasn't asking for advice about my internet habits. If I choose to take a substance, that is my decision to make. I wasn't asking for medical advice, I was asking about resources for purchasing something. What I was asking advice about specifically was whether it was possible to procure it in this country or not. You don't seem to know, so perhaps you should mind your own business.

Why would you expect accurate, safe information about a sketchy drug in a thread were people have been actively lying about the dangers of the vaccines?

Why not just ask your doctor?

The Nal

King Mob wrote: »

Why not just ask your doctor?

Theyre part of the cabal stupid! Randos on the internet is the only place for reliable information these days.

King Mob

The Nal wrote: »

Theyre part of the cabal stupid! Randos on the internet is the only place for reliable information these days.

Obviously they're just in it for the money.

But the randos who are selling you a sketchy drug with no oversight or training...?
Pure as the driven snow that lot.

The Nal

King Mob wrote: »

Obviously they're just in it for the money.

But the randos who are selling you a sketchy drug with no oversight or training...?
Pure as the driven snow that lot.

To be honest the family doctor who looked after me, my parents, grandparents, uncles, aunties, kids etc for decades can't be trusted anymore.

He has clearly joined the elite Marxist NWO Soros Gates Obama Biden plot along with the millions of others doctors globally.

patnor1011

Funny indeed.
With current uptake of vaccines and some time we will have more data and an idea about what long term effects may be since we are practically in trial phase anyway.
I am in no rush since current vaccines only marginally improve chance of reducing severity of a generally very mild disease.

From Lancet:
Vaccine efficacy is generally reported as a relative risk
reduction (RRR). It uses the relative risk (RR)—ie, the
ratio of attack rates with and without a vaccine—which
is expressed as 1–RR. Ranking by reported efficacy gives
relative risk reductions of 95% for the Pfizer–BioNTech,
94% for the Moderna–NIH, 91% for the Gamaleya,
67% for the J&J, and 67% for the AstraZeneca–Oxford
vaccines. However, RRR should be seen against the
background risk of being infected and becoming ill
with COVID-19, which varies between populations and
over time. Although the RRR considers only participants
who could benefit from the vaccine, the absolute risk
reduction (ARR), which is the difference between attack
rates with and without a vaccine, considers the whole
population. ARRs tend to be ignored because they give
a much less impressive effect size than RRRs: 1·3% for
the AstraZeneca–Oxford, 1·2% for the Moderna–NIH,
1·2% for the J&J, 0·93% for the Gamaleya, and 0·84% for
the Pfizer–BioNTech vaccines.


Full link
https://www.thelancet.com/action/showPdf?pii=S2666-5247%2821%2900069-0

Dohnjoe

patnor1011 wrote: »

I am in no rush since current vaccines only marginally improve chance of reducing severity of a generally very mild disease.

Is your personal opinion.

It's a disease which has resulted in the deaths of millions worldwide in a short period, is demonstrating it can have unpleasant long-term effects and variants can be up to 60% more transmissible.

The vaccines on the other hand offer protection, reduce severity of the disease, and reduce it's ability to spread

From Lancet:
Vaccine efficacy is generally reported as a relative risk
reduction (RRR). It uses the relative risk (RR)—ie, the
ratio of attack rates with and without a vaccine—which
is expressed as 1–RR. Ranking by reported efficacy gives
relative risk reductions of 95% for the Pfizer–BioNTech,
94% for the Moderna–NIH, 91% for the Gamaleya,
67% for the J&J, and 67% for the AstraZeneca–Oxford
vaccines. However, RRR should be seen against the
background risk of being infected and becoming ill
with COVID-19, which varies between populations and
over time. Although the RRR considers only participants
who could benefit from the vaccine, the absolute risk
reduction (ARR), which is the difference between attack
rates with and without a vaccine, considers the whole
population. ARRs tend to be ignored because they give
a much less impressive effect size than RRRs: 1·3% for
the AstraZeneca–Oxford, 1·2% for the Moderna–NIH,
1·2% for the J&J, 0·93% for the Gamaleya, and 0·84% for
the Pfizer–BioNTech vaccines.

Anti-vaxxers have seized on this before because "look, low numbers"

ARR is completely different from RRR.

If your risk to be put in ICU with Covid is 3% unvaccinated, but 1% when vaccinated, then the ARR is 2%.

Dohnjoe

Posting this again:

A town of 45,000 people in Brazil has just been part of a test that has demonstrated how much impact vaccines have.

The city was divided into four areas to help determine the threshold for containing the virus. The team said this was achieved after three areas, or about 75% of the population over the age of 18, had been given both doses.

When 95% of adults were fully vaccinated, they said the results showed that:

Deaths fell by 95%
Hospitalisations fell by 86%
Symptomatic cases fell by 80%

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-57309538

astrofool

patnor1011 wrote: »

Funny indeed.
With current uptake of vaccines and some time we will have more data and an idea about what long term effects may be since we are practically in trial phase anyway.
I am in no rush since current vaccines only marginally improve chance of reducing severity of a generally very mild disease.

Full link
https://www.thelancet.com/action/showPdf?pii=S2666-5247%2821%2900069-0

Look, you clearly can't understand the data and results that the lancet prints, so why are you making a fool out of yourself in trying?