Will you be taking a booster?

But it's a double-blind randomised trial, so why would you expect the exposure to be significantly different?

I'm no statistician, but I suspect the wide confidence intervals are purely a consequence of small numbers of symptomatic cases.

The real (and unavoidable) limitation of the trials was the short duration before approval was applied for, but it's a pandemic so understandable that the vaccines were approved as soon as they were shown to be safe and effective in the short term.

Relatedly I've been thinking about starting a thread on "things I believed which proved to be false" but I'm not sure it would go well. :-)

I quibble a bit with "just". It's critical to understanding why clinical trial outcomes may not be matched in the real world.

The randomised bit means that the participants are randomly distributed across vaxxed/unvaxxed cohorts, which ought to ensure no exposure bias from things like age (if you put all the old people in one group you would expect their exposure to be lower due to risk aversion). I guess smaller trials use matching to ensure fair distribution of certain attributes.

The double blind bit is also critical to exposure because people who know they have received a vaccine would be expected to be less risk-averse

The reality of vaccinations as I see it is that regardless of who said what, they have rightly allowed us to feel safer, and that promotes unsafe behaviour due to risk compensation. This is why the unvaxxed have some justification in blaming the vaxxed for putting them at risk.

The reason people would be pro vaccine is because if you get a vaccine and booster you are going to ease the pressure on the health service. The thing to remember is we don't need a large percentage of the population to require hospital treatment at the same time before the system is overwhelmed.

Also remember the vast vast majority of people even in the older age groups don't require hospital treatment as a result of Covid. High risk is a relative term. I think in Feb 20(before wide spread vaccination) only 1 in 5 of over 65s who had a confirmed case needed hospital treatment. Or put it another way 80% didn't and that's ignoring asymptomatic people so the actual % of over 65s requiring hospital treatment was even lower.

However even if .1% (5,000)of the country require hospital treatment at the same time the health service is put under massive pressure. The purpose of vaccines is to limit the number of people who require hospital treatment to manageable levels. Vaccines work on a societal level if enough people get infected it will inevitably increase hospitalisations. Vaccines and associated boosters enable us to reach a form of herd immunity in a safe manner (ie no large influx of patients into hospital at the same time)

Having to take boosters is not unusual. We have it with the flu every year and a new flu vaccine at that. I don't see any widespread conspiracy theory associated with the flu vaccine even though its new (to adapt for the particular strain)every year.

Anthony Fauci, Joe Biden and CDC director Rochelle Walensky, to name a few, have all said at one time or another that you "will not" get covid if you're double vaccinated.

And while, sure, simplifying things for explanation's sakes is a thing, outright lying in order to get someone to do something you want them to do is a bit different from that.

My point was and remains that "nobody has ever said" mRNA injections is just not true.

You were referring to people on this forum being pro vaccine and from my point of view being critical of that. I was explaining why people would be pro vaccine and pro booster.

I'm aware that you think that, and I'm comfortable with it.

You already posted proof of Biden saying "you're not going to get Covid if you have these vaccinations" and of Walensky saying "our data from the CDC today suggests that vaccinated people do not carry the virus, don't get sick, and that it's not just in the clinical trials, but it's also in real-world data."

This meets the criteria of demonstrating that "nobody has ever said that vaccines prevent transmission" is untrue, which was my claim.

Anyone desperate to see other examples of people claiming the vaccines prevent transmission can do the legwork themselves. There are plenty out there.

I was just explaining the effect it had on 'this one person' so if the effect that she had happened to her then it's quite possible it will happen to a few others. The effectiveness the booster vaccine had on this one person was a very bad exerience to say the least. I didn't think it was a problem to explain a persons experience of the booster vaccine. There is no malevolence in my previous comment or any of my comments but yet, my comment was Deleted. I think its time to pack up this boards.ie trash-can. Reddit it is.

No. No message at all, zero.