Vaccine Megathread No 2 - Read OP before posting

Hotblack Desiato

Thankfully we hear from them seldom these days too.

But there's yet another reason to be thankful you don't live in Pakistan:

https://www.irishexaminer.com/world/arid-41018201.html

Militants falsely claim that vaccination campaigns are a Western conspiracy to sterilise children.

growleaves

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35971401/

You get into a "hypercatecholaminergic" state by strenuous exercise, e.g. competitive sports.

Goldengirl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120069007#Comment_120069007

Again yes very true.

Also mentioned...rare .

astrofool

New study into the long term fatality risk post COVID infection, though the Sky News headline is a bit misleading:

https://academic.oup.com/cardiovascres/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cvr/cvac195/6987834

Unvaccinated COVID patients 'at greater risk of death' for at least 18 months after infection | Science & Tech News | Sky News

This study demonstrates patients with COVID-19 to be associated with increased risks of CVD and mortality post infection (acute phase). These risks remain increased even up till a year post recovery and are associated with long-COVID. Ongoing monitoring of signs and symptoms of CVD in the short- and long-term may be beneficial in patients post infection and recovery. Further study is warranted to compare the findings in a vaccinated cohort.

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120128426#Comment_120128426

A bit misleading is putting it mildly. It's total nonsense. Odd to recognise that and post it anyway.

astrofool

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120131896#Comment_120131896

The Sky News headline is misleading, the study itself shows the long term dangers of COVID post infection when unvaccinated.

(and the authors expect to see better long term results for the vaccinated but haven't specifically studied that yet, which will be triggering for some).

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120131915#Comment_120131915

Yes, I was referring to the Sky news headline being total nonsense. Your claim that the study itself showing the long term dangers when unvaccinated is also misleading.

The study itself showed the long term dangers of Covid post infection of people who were infected in 2020.

Before vaccines were available.

Bit of a stretch to make comparisons between vaccinated and unvaccinated on that basis, as the authors acknowledge:

In addition, evaluating whether these risks differ in vaccinated cohorts and/or change(d) with the advent of the second and third wave of the outbreak and beyond, warrants further study.

Based on this study, the authors have no idea about the relative long term risks between the vaccinated and unvaccinated, nor do they claim to do so. That doesn't stop others doing so though.

astrofool

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120132040#Comment_120132040

Remember to read the studies fully and not rush to conclusions when triggered by vaccine successes:

In addition, a recent study suggested that COVID-19 vaccination may protect against the complications of COVID-19 infection.64

Association between vaccination status and reported incidence of post-acute COVID-19 symptoms in Israel: a cross-sectional study of patients tested between March 2020 and November 2021 | medRxiv

as said already:

authors expect to see better long term results for the vaccinated

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120132131#Comment_120132131

I wasn't triggered by any vaccines successes. The study has nothing to do with vaccine successes. I was triggered by nonsensical claims that it the study was about the dangers of being unvaccinated.

As said already?! Odd it didn't get picked up when I quoted your post. Must be a glitch.

astrofool

This is the nonsense of talking about basic biology and medicines, the mechanisms for how vaccines reduce long term systems are well known and understood (reducing or preventing disease that would cause damage to the the body), so the researchers aren't really studying to see if there is an effect, they are studying to see how big of an effect it has and thus frame the data that way, if they found otherwise, they have found a new branch of science and potentially a Nobel prize.

This is triggering for those that believe in magic or that medical science is after them who will try and misread graphs or find some negative effect of something, but they're idiots.

But what we factually know today based on the studies, is that those who were unvaccinated and infected are susceptible to severe diseases post infection and thanks to the separate study, the vaccinated, then infected are less susceptible to severe diseases post infection.

If you have taken an anti-vaccination stance and have been infected without a vaccination due to this stance, it is hard reading knowing you made a wrong decision and now have to live with the consequences, you will probably be fine, but others who followed the same mindset will not be.

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120132954#Comment_120132954

the researchers aren't really studying to see if there is an effect, they are studying to see how big of an effect it has and thus frame the data that way, if they found otherwise

This is total nonsense.

The researchers are comparing people who got infected with covid versus people who were not infected with covid.

It is absolutely nothing to do with the effect of vaccinations, no matter what you or Sky News claim.

The study deliberately only included in people infected in 2020 precisely because otherwise the unknown vaccination status of infections after 2020 would impair their results.

No problem if you were misled by the Sky News headline, that was presumably their intention, but it is either deluded or disingenuous to argue that this study is measuring how big of an effect vaccination has.

Cluedo Monopoly

What is the definition of unvaccinated these days?

Are people with primary dose only considered unvaccinated?

What about people that got 1 booster or 2 boosters but not the bivalent?

What about fully vaccinated people 3.5 months after last vaccine as benefits have waned?

Or people that haven't been vaccinated for 7+ months because they got Covid just before their booster became due?

Xander10

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120133098#Comment_120133098

It's a bit of a minefield. I got first booster but not being of a "vulnerable age" intend to carry out as is. I've never had a flu vac for example.

What is the position in other European countries?

Are people in other European countries using antigen tests like in Ireland or just getting on with everyday life now?

Chris_5339762

In Germany anyway, all members of the Bundeswehr do daily antigen tests as far as I've seen.

astrofool

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120133044#Comment_120133044

And you're still ignoring the other study that they referenced because it doesn't suit your narrative and you would have to own your own making bad decisions about taking vaccines. This is the flat-earther proving the earth is round moment for you, you can now face reality or not. I am betting you will choose not to face reality.

astrofool

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120133098#Comment_120133098

There's not really one definition and can't be anymore (similar to "are you vaccinated against flu?"), some countries will have conditions around entry relating to booster etc. Personally, if you're relatively young and gone through the initial program + booster, you're probably fine as the virus won't be novel for you anymore (variant excepting), if you've over 50, you probably want to ensure you're getting boosted on a yearly basis to avoid any severe disease as your immune system won't react as quickly as younger people and your B-Cell/T-Cell response will be more sluggish (the boosters will ensure you have lots of antibodies ready to attack the virus immediately if infected, but waning after ~6 months or so).

Efficacy against severe disease appears to remain constant at ~90% for those who are vaccinated, efficacy against infection drops off over 6-9 months depending on the person/age/variant.

Spudman_20000

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120134634#Comment_120134634

Should the unvaccinated be looking at a winter of severe illness and death? 😂

Good to have a control group anyway.

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120134634#Comment_120134634

The other study that they referenced?! I am ignoring it because it is totally irrelevant to the point I am making. I am not disputing the findings of the study we are discussing, nor the other study they referenced.

I simply pointed out that your claim "the study itself shows the long term dangers of COVID post infection when unvaccinated" was total nonsense.

The study you linked was nothing to do with the dangers of being unvaccinated. That's a fact.

Sure the other study they referenced is all about the dangers of being unvaccinated. But the reason they referenced this study was to acknowledge their own study explicitly could not and did not account for the effects of vaccination.

You could just face the reality of this and move on. It is really not a big deal.

astrofool

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120135765#Comment_120135765

Lol, yes, if you ignore all the facts and evidence 😅

You need to stop ratholing on my comments before you embarrass again.

the study itself shows the long term dangers of COVID post infection when unvaccinated.

This is precisely what the study showed.

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120135839#Comment_120135839

In order to precisely show the dangers of being unvaccinated you would need to also study the vaccinated.

On what grounds do you interpret this study as showing the dangers of being unvaccinated?

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120135874#Comment_120135874

True or false - the people on the study were unvaccinated?

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120135905#Comment_120135905

True

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120135905#Comment_120135905

True or false - the study itself shows the long term dangers of COVID post infection when unvaccinated?

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120136002#Comment_120136002

Thats precisely what it showed.

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120136010#Comment_120136010

Wow.

You might as well argue that the study showed precisely the long term dangers of Covid post infection when living in the UK between March and November 2020. It shows that every bit as precisely as it shows the dangers of being unvaccinated.

I'll just leave this here.

Since vaccine records were unavailable for this study, the inclusion period was restricted to the period when no vaccines were available in the UK—before December 2020. Hence, the case cohort comprised patients diagnosed with COVID-19 between 16 March 2020 and 30 November 2020.

If people feel that studies without access to the vaccine records prove the dangers of being unvaccinated, then who am I to argue with their feelings.

https://academic.oup.com/cardiovascres/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cvr/cvac195/6987834

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120136068#Comment_120136068

It proves the dangers of post covid infection when unvaccinated.

This is LITERALLY what the study shows. It is not a matter of 'feeling'.

You have resorted to word games and weasel words about 'feelings' because you know you cannot dispute what the study literally shows.

The study showing increased all risks mortality post covid infection also establishes the real dangers of long covid - something which many posters on this forum have tried to dismiss or downplay.

And you continue to blatantly ignore the cross referenced study showing reduction in such risks when vaccinated. So that is why - taken together - we speak of the dangers of being unvaccinated.

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120136170#Comment_120136170

It shows the long term risks of Covid infection, pre-vaccination. The control group is a similiarly matched uninfected cohort.

It does not, nor do the authors they claim to, show that these dangers differ with vaccination. This is an impossibility without a vaccinated control group.

To claim otherwise is patently absurd.

Are you able to cite a single sentence in the study that claims this study proves the dangers of post covid infection when unvaccinated??!!

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120136229#Comment_120136229

The people in the study were unvaccinated. Post covid infection they had significant increase in all risks mortality. So that is quite literally what the study proved and no amount of word games can alter that.

Nobody has said that specific study shows a difference. You are arguing against a strawman.

Because you continually and blatantly ignore the cross referenced study showing protective benefit of vaccines against long term symptons post covid infection.

Which is why it is valid and justified to cite the primary study as a piece of evidence on the risks of being unvaccinated.

ceadaoin.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120136322#Comment_120136322

Did they show that vaccinated people aren't subject to the same risks? If not then how can it show the 'dangers' of being unvaccinated when the same risks might also apply after vaccination? Also, it may not even apply for anyone anymore given the weaker variants and prior exposure that most people have.

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120136322#Comment_120136322

Nobody has said that specific study shows a difference. You are arguing against a strawman.

Except for astrofool:

so the researchers aren't really studying to see if there is an effect, they are studying to see how big of an effect it has and thus frame the data that way