Will you be taking a booster?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118404217#Comment_118404217

Not particularly. Not enough to give them a pass on using gigantic platforms to spread misinformation, at least. Your mileage may vary.

So do you believe that there is no one that you like who as a gigantic platform that has also made that mistake? If you do, then you are politicising the pandemic by highlighting three people that the GOP aren't particularly fond of.

Would you like to give a brief explanation as to why, for example, you don't like Fauci?

What you actually posted was a "fact check" article from August 2021, which takes issue with the way that people were interpreting a side-by-side of Walensky in May 2021 and Walensky in August 2021 to make a point about purposeful narrative manipulation. I happen to agree with the article (thought it strikes me as opinion rather than fact, as so many "fact check" articles do) that there is little sense taking statements that are months apart during a pandemic and blaming the people making the statements for the changing data. But in any case I wasn't making any point about what Walensky said in May 2021 as it compares to August 2021; I was only making the point that someone "official" has ever stated that vaccines prevent infection, which the article I posted more succinctly achieves without obfuscating that proof-of-point by including video material from months later. I don't think that "well here's what she said three months after she said the thing you're referring to" really counts as "context". 

I believe at the time the data showed that the infection rate of vaccinated people was 0.04%. Again, do you not believe that Walensky was simply exaggerating or misspoke? Why do you believe that you can only find one example of each of these people saying this, given how many interviews each has given, if they were doing it knowingly?

It is my opinion that in that situation, anyone who knowingly gives out inaccurate information is acting immorally.

Would you like to point to a politician that you believe has never done that?

And again, based on your phrasing, you believe that he did this intentionally, is that right? Even though you wouldn't state that when I gave you a few options previously?

It's **** stupid, obviously. But maybe if I liked them and I were a dishonest and highly political person without integrity, I'd be prepared to beclown myself on a public forum by saying that person had a "slip" and was merely referring to hypotheses that Hydrogen Peroxide (a bleach) may have some utility as an adjuvant therapy for Covid-19, at a time when no effective treatments or vaccines were available. I'm not saying that, to be clear—it's obviously a dumb thing to say—but when how much one "likes" a given official is in play, things can get fuzzy fast.

But do you believe that saying that is equally as bad as what Biden said, or worse?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118403904#Comment_118403904

No, that is why their comments are often, except in the case of Trump, clarified or corrected afterwards. Unfortunately even Presidents make mistakes, Reagan once joked that the US had launched missiles at Russia, without realising his mic was live. While the rest of the world cringed, perhaps you thought injecting bleach or shining ultra violet light inside the body, was a genuine treatment for Covid.

Put simply, only an idiot would think that after all the information given by the US administration over the past two years, that the President would think it was all wrong, and genuinely tried to misinform the nation. Hey boy, do you think he meant what he said?

MTU

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118404368#Comment_118404368

Biden hasn’t a clue. A puppet on a string is all he is.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118404380#Comment_118404380

Very good. Perhaps that take that opinion to the politics or the conspiracy theories forum.

Would you like discuss Covid at all?

MTU

loose the hard on you have for him so and discuss covid.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118404392#Comment_118404392

What would you like to discuss about Covid? Or are you just here to attack posters and backseat mod?

MTU

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118404403#Comment_118404403

You’re the one acting all paw patrol cop not me. Turn off your internet you’re posting the last few days. Get some fresh air.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118404416#Comment_118404416

So you're here to attack posters, got it. What a pleasant human being you must be.

0% of your posts are about Covid, so perhaps take your own advice and "discuss Covid".

MilkyToast

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118404368#Comment_118404368

So do you believe that there is no one that you like who as a gigantic platform that has also made that mistake? If you do, then you are politicising the pandemic by highlighting three people that the GOP aren't particularly fond of.

I'm certain that there are, but you're being purposely disingenuous in stating that I'm "politicising" anything because I didn't provide an example of a GOP-aligned person stating that the vaccines prevent transmission—which is, let's remind the reader, the point I have proven. We were never talking about general, pandemic-based mistakes.

I could go through pandemic misinformation and pluck out a few examples of GOP or GOP-aligned people posting things that are factually inaccurate, but that would not be at all relevant to the point at hand, I feel no need to atone for the "sin" of pointing out a flaw in someone's "team", and it would smack of an inability to assess people on their merits rather than on their politics. I do not enjoy that compulsion in others, and I won't be indulging in it myself.

Would you like to give a brief explanation as to why, for example, you don't like Fauci?

No, but if it makes you feel better I don't particularly dislike him either. He's just a dude doing a job. I don't know him and I don't feel any obligation to actively like or dislike people because they exist.

I believe at the time the data showed that the infection rate of vaccinated people was 0.04%. Again, do you not believe that Walensky was simply exaggerating or misspoke? Why do you believe that you can only find one example of each of these people saying this, given how many interviews each has given, if they were doing it knowingly?

It doesn't matter. My assertion was that it is inaccurate to say that "No one has ever claimed [the Covid vaccines] gave immunity from infection". That assertion has been proven, and whether the people who said it misspoke, exaggerated, or were speaking during the first week of trials when the rate of infection in vaccinated people was 0.00% and it was therefore true, doesn't matter. Someone of influence at some time claimed that the Covid vaccines gave immunity from infection.

You are free to postulate, speculate and mind read to your heart's content about the why of it. Fill your boots. But it remains irrelevant to my proven point.

Would you like to point to a politician that you believe has never done that?

I don't believe such a politician exists.

And again, based on your phrasing, you believe that he did this intentionally, is that right? Even though you wouldn't state that when I gave you a few options previously?

No, that is not right.

You asked me, hypothetically, "If what Biden said lead to more people being vaccinated, would that be a good or a bad thing in your mind?"

I stated that I believe strongly in informed consent and would consider it to be a bad thing. I would have said the same if we were talking about misinformation under-playing the effectiveness of the vaccines.

You then said: "A politician told what you believe to be a white lie and thereby saved lives."

I did not state that I believed it was a white lie.

You also said: "Regardless, it is clearly the case that Biden was merely exaggerating."

In response I said that it is my belief that knowingly disseminating misinformation (which would be the case if Biden was telling a "white lie" or "merely exaggerating") is, in my opinion, worse than being mistaken.

You have confidently stated that:

1: Biden was exaggerating.

2: I believe that Biden was telling a white lie.

I have made no judgment on whether either Biden or Walensky was purposely spreading misinformation. Because that is irrelevant to my point—that some influential people have said that the vaccines prevent infection—which is now (many posts ago) proven.

But do you believe that saying that is equally as bad as what Biden said, or worse?

I haven't thought about it a great deal. My immediate gut feeling is that it's worse, but then I suppose it depends on how many people, believing themselves to be afforded protections by the vaccines that they were not, subsequently went on to take risks they otherwise would not have taken, became infected, and suffered and/or died as a result. And how do they stack up against people who would otherwise not have gotten vaccinated but did so because they thought it would prevent infection (having heard Biden say so), who subsequently went on to be exposed or infected and have better results than they might have otherwise? That would have to be weighed against how many people were harmed because they drank or injected bleach into themselves in an effort to protect against or treat a SARS-CoV-2 infection. And then there's intent. If Biden was telling a white lie (and I don't know if he was) with the intent of getting more people to come forward for vaccination because he believed that was the best way to save lives, that is a different thing to Biden telling a white lie with the intent of getting more people vaccinated because he thinks that a higher vaccination rate would be politically expedient for him, for example. And if the latter, is that better or worse than Trump just blurting dumb **** because he's losing control and getting desperate about an upcoming election? I think that's probably a matter of opinion and pre-existing, politics-based cognitive bias.

I'm not team "Orange Man Bad" or team "Let's Go Brandon" (though I do think both are pretty funny in their own way), so I don't see it as a black-and-white, my-team-good-your-team-bad issue.

But it is still very irrelevant to my point, which is that "No one has ever claimed [the Covid vaccines] gave immunity from infection" is a factually inaccurate statement.

It is.

Work to do now, and I'm sure this is getting tedious for people coming here to chat about boosters.

Peace.

Unfortunately I have to accept blame for these two pages of stupidity, milkytoast is correct, two people did utter those words, albeit mistakenly. I should not have been absolute in my statement, there will always be examples on the internet of mistakes or some looney who can be quoted. I’m not sure that anyone but milkytoast accepts that what Biden said, was said intentionally. But yes, I do accept the words were said. Let’s hope the thread can move on from this idiocy.

MilkyToast

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118404274#Comment_118404274

Sure, Lumen, I'd agree with that. But the point I was making was that the statement that "No one has ever claimed [the Covid vaccines] gave immunity from infection" is factually inaccurate. Nothing more or less.

Aristotle doesn't like the fact that it can be demonstrated that people he likes politically have (whether through mistake, misspeaking or intentional lie) disseminated misinformation, so he's trying to drag me into a mud fight about politics and intent, which are irrelevant to the point I made (and proved).

And people who have said "No one has ever claimed [the Covid vaccines] gave immunity from infection" (which is misinformation in itself) now want to argue about my own opinions on vaccination efficacy or the intent of the people who demonstrably stated that vaccines give immunity from infection, instead of admitting they were wrong and moving on.

I'm not particularly married to the surrounding arguments about intent, effect and politics, but I'm also not going to permit people to drag this down the road of "HAH! You knew the misinformation was misinformation so it doesn't matter!" or "Well Orange Man was worse!" because those arguments are an insult to all of us, when my original point was correct and almost immediately proven.

I'll probably let it drop now, though. Art doesn't make itself, eh.

MilkyToast

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118404610#Comment_118404610

Sincerely - that's big of you to admit.

And FWIW I have no idea if it was intentional or not on the part of those who said it. That was always irrelevant to my (admittedly pedantic) point.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118404622#Comment_118404622

Lesson learned, must try harder to idiot proof posts, and of course, allow for the more pedantic amongst us.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118404556#Comment_118404556

I'm certain that there are, but you're being purposely disingenuous in stating that I'm "politicising" anything because I didn't provide an example of a GOP-aligned person stating that the vaccines prevent transmission—which is, let's remind the reader, the point I have proven. We were never talking about general, pandemic-based mistakes.

I could go through pandemic misinformation and pluck out a few examples of GOP or GOP-aligned people posting things that are factually inaccurate, but that would not be at all relevant to the point at hand, I feel no need to atone for the "sin" of pointing out a flaw in someone's "team", and it would smack of an inability to assess people on their merits rather than on their politics. I do not enjoy that compulsion in others, and I won't be indulging in it myself.

So you believe that it was a coincidence then that the three people you picked happened to not be GOP-aligned? Why did you provide three people when, as you say, you only needed to provide one? In doing so, you have acknowledged that you, unintentionally or otherwise, spread misinformation and, in doing so, would have made the GOP look stronger if your error was not pointed out to you.

No, but if it makes you feel better I don't particularly dislike him either. He's just a dude doing a job. I don't know him and I don't feel any obligation to actively like or dislike people because they exist.

So, you would therefore say that you like/dislike Biden and Trump equally then? You like/dislike all public figures equally since they're just people that you don't know doing jobs, is that right?

If two politicians have the same political beliefs and objectives, how do you personally decide which of the two to vote for?

It doesn't matter. My assertion was that it is inaccurate to say that "No one has ever claimed [the Covid vaccines] gave immunity from infection". That assertion has been proven, and whether the people who said it misspoke, exaggerated, or were speaking during the first week of trials when the rate of infection in vaccinated people was 0.00% and it was therefore true, doesn't matter. Someone of influence at some time claimed that the Covid vaccines gave immunity from infection.

You are free to postulate, speculate and mind read to your heart's content about the why of it. Fill your boots. But it remains irrelevant to my proven point.

Again, I have acknowledged that that statement is very obviously false, and I believe Lumen above gave a good answer as to different interpretation of the statement regardless. I am asking you now to expand on the significance of this statement being false, if we take your interpretation rather than Lumen's, as the statement is completely meaningless on its own.

I don't believe such a politician exists.

Then you don't believe it is of significance then?

No, that is not right.

You asked me, hypothetically, "If what Biden said lead to more people being vaccinated, would that be a good or a bad thing in your mind?"

I stated that I believe strongly in informed consent and would consider it to be a bad thing. I would have said the same if we were talking about misinformation under-playing the effectiveness of the vaccines.

You then said: "A politician told what you believe to be a white lie and thereby saved lives."

I did not state that I believed it was a white lie.

You also said: "Regardless, it is clearly the case that Biden was merely exaggerating."

In response I said that it is my belief that knowingly disseminating misinformation (which would be the case if Biden was telling a "white lie" or "merely exaggerating") is, in my opinion, worse than being mistaken.

You have confidently stated that:

1: Biden was exaggerating.

2: I believe that Biden was telling a white lie.

I have made no judgment on whether either Biden or Walensky was purposely spreading misinformation. Because that is irrelevant to my point—that some influential people have said that the vaccines prevent infection—which is now (many posts ago) proven.

No, that is not right.

You asked me, hypothetically, "If what Biden said lead to more people being vaccinated, would that be a good or a bad thing in your mind?"

I stated that I believe strongly in informed consent and would consider it to be a bad thing. I would have said the same if we were talking about misinformation under-playing the effectiveness of the vaccines.

You then said: "A politician told what you believe to be a white lie and thereby saved lives."

I did not state that I believed it was a white lie.

You also said: "Regardless, it is clearly the case that Biden was merely exaggerating."

In response I said that it is my belief that knowingly disseminating misinformation (which would be the case if Biden was telling a "white lie" or "merely exaggerating") is, in my opinion, worse than being mistaken.

You have confidently stated that:

1: Biden was exaggerating.

2: I believe that Biden was telling a white lie.

I have made no judgment on whether either Biden or Walensky was purposely spreading misinformation. Because that is irrelevant to my point—that some influential people have said that the vaccines prevent infection—which is now (many posts ago) proven.

And as I've already stated, if we take your interpterion of the statement instead of Lumen's, I have already acknowledged that that statement is, of course, incorrect.

Why are you writing so many paragraphs just to affirm something that I have already agreed with? It's very obvious, under your interpretation of the statement, that there must be at least 1 of the near 8 billion people on the planet who have said this. Why are you avoiding giving your opinion on why certain people have said it?

I am asking you now if you believe any of these did it purposefully, and I'd rather see an answer demonstrating some critical thinking skills rather than "I don't know", "I don't care" or "it's not important" responses.

believing themselves to be afforded protections by the vaccines that they were not, subsequently went on to take risks they otherwise would not have taken

What do you mean by this?

And then there's intent. If Biden was telling a white lie (and I don't know if he was) with the intent of getting more people to come forward for vaccination because he believed that was the best way to save lives

Do you believe the medical community as a whole considers that a belief, or factual?

that is a different thing to Biden telling a white lie with the intent of getting more people vaccinated because he thinks that a higher vaccination rate would be politically expedient for him, for example

As Biden told a falsehood (under your interpretation), it would therefore likely discourage rather than encourage people to be vaccinated as the president has told a lie about vaccines in order to encourage people to take them, would it not?

And if the latter, is that better or worse than Trump just blurting dumb **** because he's losing control and getting desperate about an upcoming election? I think that's probably a matter of opinion and pre-existing, politics-based cognitive bias.

And if it's the former, do you also believe that it's a matter of opinion?

But it is still very irrelevant to my point, which is that "No one has ever claimed [the Covid vaccines] gave immunity from infection" is a factually inaccurate statement.

Yes, and anyone in an Intro to Statistics class will tell you that "No doctor believes that blood is blue until you cut the vein" is also a factually incorrect statement. What is its significance though? Why are you taking "welp, I'm happy that people agree this statement is false, guess I'll be off now, bye" stance? Why are you so hesitant on expanding on it?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118404618#Comment_118404618

Aristotle doesn't like the fact that it can be demonstrated that people he likes politically have (whether through mistake, misspeaking or intentional lie) disseminated misinformation, so he's trying to drag me into a mud fight about politics and intent, which are irrelevant to the point I made (and proved).

Not at all. I have pointed out many times in the relevant forums that the politicians I support are not infallible and have often made mistakes or stated things that I disagree with.

Will you be taking a booster or talking utter bollocks on an Internet forum?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118404839#Comment_118404839

I agree, we seem to have gone off a on quite the pedantic tangent.

I have gotten my booster, how about yourself?

Lumen

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118400089#Comment_118400089

So the IRRs you quoted are from a table in the full paper (here). I have tried and failed to understand the statistical approach of that paper (which is possibly my own lack of skills), e.g. "pre-risk" isn't defined or mentioned anywhere in the paper other than in the tables. There is no peer review and it doesn't seem to be referred to anywhere reputable.

I have, however, found this one which has been peer reviewed and published in the BMJ, is more detailed and better presented. It is based on data from Denmark.

https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj-2021-068665

It's quite long and I've only really skimmed it, but there's some interesting stuff in it, particularly comparison with studies from other countries and discussion of other health outcomes than carditis, notably multisystem inflammatory syndrome (which is particularly of interest to me as my kids are 14-16 years old).

Policy implications

Uncertainty regarding the incidence and severity of myocarditis and pericarditis after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination was a contributing factor for the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation to defer recommending full vaccination of children and young people aged 12-17 years with SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines in the United Kingdom.21 Our population based findings do not support a threefold or higher overall increased risk of myocarditis or myopericarditis for the youngest age group (12-39 years) when vaccinated with BNT162b2. Among this age group, the absolute rate of myocarditis or myopericarditis was only 1.6 (95% confidence interval 1.0 to 2.6) per 100 000 individuals aged 12-39 years within 28 days of BNT162b2 vaccination. The rate in the youngest age group (12-17 years) was only 1.0 (0.2 to 3.0) per 100 000 individuals aged 12-17 years within 28 days of BNT162b2 vaccination. By comparison, the estimated occurrence of multisystem inflammatory syndrome in individuals aged 12-17 years is 27 per 100 000 individuals with serologically determined SARS-CoV-2 infection.22

Given the worldwide spread of the highly contagious SARS-CoV-2 delta and omicron variants, future infection is the undesirable alternative to vaccination against SARS-CoV-2. Taken together with the potential long term sequelae of even mild SARS-CoV-2 infection,23 and with the risk of multisystem inflammatory syndrome among adolescents (which is associated with severe morbidity),24 our finding of a low absolute risk of myocarditis or myopericarditis with BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 vaccination supports the overall benefits of such vaccination on an individual, societal, and global level.

So, having been rather on the fence (bordering on negative) about recommending boosters for them (and particularly my son), I think I'm coming round to the idea that it might be sensible.

That said, I'm struggling to see where this study has dealt specifically with third doses.

niallo27

I'm 40 myself and can't get a booster in clare or limerick until Wednesday. Seems odd.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118405270#Comment_118405270

Plenty of appointments available in both tomorrow. https://covid19booster.healthservice.ie/hse-self-referral/select-county/?flow=booster

niallo27

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118405281#Comment_118405281

Not if your over 30, try there. Unless you can book one that your under 30 and just rock up.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118405300#Comment_118405300

Ah, I somehow skipped over that you stated your age. People in their 40s have a have been able to their booster for quite some time and you can presumably get it in your local pharmacy tomorrow if you can't wait until Wednesday. Although it does seem a bit odd that they don't just let people aged 20+ book any slot.

niallo27

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118405331#Comment_118405331

You can in most of the rest of the country. Ah I'll wait till Wednesday

marklazarcovic

Moderna booster on sat morning,no effect ,main doses were Pfizer and zero side effects,today I'm in trouble,arm painful,achey body, lethargic, negative antigen.. I'm blaming moderna..not nice at all.

Hey boy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118403938#Comment_118403938

Dude

You are posting so much you don’t even remember the points you are trying to make.

You brought up politics, I didn’t. No idea why you did that but each to their own.

I won’t be getting a booster. Had covid - very few symptoms.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118406475#Comment_118406475

You have addressed nothing that I said in the post that you just quoted.

Hey boy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118404374#Comment_118404374

Again, what’s with the political chat? So you know I don’t live in the States. Somehow I support bleach according to you. I understand that the last couple of pages were confusing but you really need to sort out who said what.

MT made his/her point well. Of course all of us make mistakes. Feel better now?

I am not in the business of attacking or defending Biden although you and A are very defensive for some reason. Fair do’s but I have better things to be doing.

Hey boy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118406502#Comment_118406502

Yes because with respect you got lost. You have got confused because you are posting so much stuff. Like fair play to you for trying to moderate the entire thread but it is obviously a bit much. Peace.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118406515#Comment_118406515

Again, what’s with the political chat?

He's literally replying to your post where you were discussing politics.

Perhaps take a pause before you start typing as you don't seem to be reading anything correctly.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118403904#Comment_118403904

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118406515#Comment_118406515

Eh, you mentioned POTUS. You seem to believe Biden, even when he so obviously misspoke, I just wondered if you believed everything Trump said.

If you kept up with the last few pages of the thread, you would see it was another poster who introduced Biden/CDC/Fauci to the discussion. Keep up.