Advertisement
We've partnered up with Nixers.com to offer a space where you can talk directly to Peter from Nixers.com and get an exclusive Boards.ie discount code for a free job listing. If you are recruiting or know anyone else who is please check out the forum here.
If you have a new account but can't post, please email Niamh on [email protected] for help to verify your email address. Thanks :)

Covid vaccines - thread banned users in First Post

1118119121123124357

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 23,346 ✭✭✭✭ King Mob


    I don't think you understood his post or what irony means I think.

    Could you point out where dohnjoe or anyone not a conspiracy theorist has called for opinions to be disallowed from the forum?

    Could you point out where dohnjoe or anyone not a conspiracy has said some ideas cannot be questioned?

    Could you point out where anyone has claimed that conspiracy theorists are part of a conspiracy?


    Or better yet, could you go back and address some of the points you've left dangling?

    Particular points like:




  • Registered Users Posts: 14,447 ✭✭✭✭ Dohnjoe


    Agreed, the irony and hypocrisy is off the scale.



  • Registered Users, Subscribers Posts: 4,620 ✭✭✭ hometruths


    Wednesday is Scottish weekly data publication day:

    Showing once again that across all vaccination statuses the unvaccinated are contracting covid at the lowest rate, and quite significantly lower at that.



  • Registered Users Posts: 5,728 ✭✭✭ Fighting Tao


    I didn’t look at the chart and I’m taking your word for it. So think about it. Vast majority of population is vaccinated. Small minority is not. Therefore it makes sense that most people catching covid are in the large majority. Your post is not a gotcha, it’s showing your lack of comprehension of basic enough maths.



  • Registered Users Posts: 23,346 ✭✭✭✭ King Mob


    Hi. Sorry. Why are you ignoring the points I made earlier?


    Is it because tou cannot address them honestly and are now trying to deflect away from them?


    If so. I think that perfectly demonstrates the points about you conspiracy theorists we were just making you lazily objected to.

    Similarly I think when you are now challenged on this new tangent you're deflecting to you will start ignoring things and try to deflect to another new topic.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Subscribers Posts: 4,620 ✭✭✭ hometruths


    Why not just look at the chart, instead of demonstrating the truism "“Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.”?



  • Registered Users Posts: 23,346 ✭✭✭✭ King Mob


    Also could you explain this please:

    Data and rates presented in this section are not a measure of vaccine effectiveness

    Vaccine effectiveness is a scientific method used to measure how well a vaccine protects 

    people against outcomes such as infection, symptoms, hospitalisation and death in the 

    ‘real-world’. Unlike case rates, vaccine effectiveness analysis accounts for potential biases 

    in the data and risk factors such as age, sex, prior infection, co-morbidities, socio-economic 

    status, and time since vaccination. This method is the most robust way to measure if a 

    vaccine is working.

    The data and rates presented in this section do not account for these biases and risk 

    factors and should not be used to measure vaccine effectiveness. We include links to 

    vaccine effectiveness studies below.

    There are likely to be systematic differences and biases between the vaccinated and 

    unvaccinated groups, such as behaviour, vulnerability and previous infection, that are 

    unaccounted for when comparing rates. As most of the population is vaccinated, these 

    differences become more evident and could create bias in case/hospitalisation/death rates 

    between vaccinated and unvaccinated population. For example, people who are vaccinated 

    may be more likely to follow other government guidance such as regular testing and 

    reporting for COVID-19, which makes them more likely to be identified as a case than 

    unvaccinated people, resulting in higher case rates in the vaccinated population.

    Why are you misrepresenting this report so blatantly?

    Did you not actually read it?

    Or did you read it and just ignore this part?



  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 23,317 Mod ✭✭✭✭ robinph


    Possibly those who are unvaccinated still haven't been getting tested?

    The people ending up in hospital are mostly unvaccinated though, so that suggests your interpretation of the chart may be wrong :

    In the last week from 15 January to 21 January 2022, in an age-standardised population, the rate of acute COVID-19 related hospital admissions in individuals that received a booster or third dose of a COVID-19 vaccine was between 3.0 to 4.4 times lower than in individuals who are unvaccinated or have only received one or two doses of a COVID-19 vaccine 



  • Registered Users, Subscribers Posts: 4,620 ✭✭✭ hometruths


    Not sure how the amount of people ending up in hospital could effect my interpretation of a chart simply showing the number of cases and nothing to do with hospitalisations?

    The point on unvaccinated people being less likely to get tested is often made but does not stand up to scrutiny.

    Particularly in the context of this chart, the last two weeks of which cover a period in which vaccinated people did not have to have a PCR in order to end self isolation whereas unvaccinated people did have to.

    The entire chart also covers a period in which vaccination certs were in force. To access pubs etc the unvaccinated needed a recovery cert, only available from a positive PCR result. So they were incentivised to get tested, whereas the vaccinated had no such incentive.



  • Registered Users Posts: 14,447 ✭✭✭✭ Dohnjoe




  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 14,447 ✭✭✭✭ Dohnjoe



    Getting a Covid jab is 200 times safer than taking aspirin.




  • Registered Users, Subscribers Posts: 4,620 ✭✭✭ hometruths


    Your fact check articles are entirely to do with the relative incidence of omicron vs delta in the vaccinated in early December - stats from the ONS showed that the vaccinated, if they caught covid, were more likely to catch omicron than delta, compared to the unvaccinated - ie vaccines were working significantly better than against Delta than Omicron.

    Some people misrepresented this as the vaccinated were more likely to catch covid full stop. This is the misrepresentation being fact checked in the links you posted.

    The chart I posted makes no distinction between omicron and delta - it simply publishes the number of positive covid tests per 100k of population of the various vaccination statuses.

    Therefore, as a means of discrediting what I posted, your fact check articles are totally irrelevant regarding the data I posted.

    However as a means of confirming what I posted, the fact check articles are very relevant.

    In December when those ONS stats were taken, the number of Omicron cases were still in the minority. Delta remained the dominant variant.

    As the articles confirm the vaccinated were catching Omicron at a faster rate than the unvaccinated. Given the speed at which Omicron was spreading, there was a good chance that when it did become the dominant variant, the vaccinated would be catching covid at a faster rate than the unvaccinated.

    What the table I posted shows is exactly what has come to pass.



  • Registered Users Posts: 5,728 ✭✭✭ Fighting Tao


    Whenever you stop being rude you should read the text after the table they you missed. The bit about taking an antigen test. You may have missed it accidentally.





  • Registered Users, Subscribers Posts: 4,620 ✭✭✭ hometruths


    How is the bit about taking an antigen test relevant to your point about the majority being vaccinated ergo the majority of positive tests would be vaccinated?



  • Registered Users Posts: 23,346 ✭✭✭✭ King Mob


    But the article you posted specifically states that the data you are using cannot be used to reach the conclusion you are reaching.

    In addition, it does not at all state your conclusion. That's something you are inferring (though let's be honest, Some conspiracy grifter on Twitter is inferring and you're just repeating what you are told.)

    And then your article directly states the opposite of what you're claiming.


    You will of course not address this.

    You will not address anyone's points.


    You will not explaithe conspiracy you are suggesting that somehow involves the Scottish health system and fact checking websites.


    Do you not ever wonder why you can't address this stuff?



  • Registered Users Posts: 5,728 ✭✭✭ Fighting Tao


    Most people are vaccinated, therefore more would get a PCR test.

    Since so many anti-bassets like to think they are sticking it to the man, they are less likely to voluntarily go for a PCR test and rely on antigen tests instead.

    The document basically says that he figures don’t show the real story because asymptomatic people can use an antigen rather than PCR test. It also says that the table can’t be used for gauging vaccine effectiveness.

    I’m trying to figure out what point you are trying to make by posting the table and omitting significant text. I think you are ignoring the text deliberately and thought you would get away without posting it and try to pull the wool over peoples eyes. It kind of makes you look foolish.



  • Registered Users, Subscribers Posts: 4,620 ✭✭✭ hometruths


    As mentioned above the unvaccinated are incentivised to get a PCR test whereas the vaccinated are not. The idea that they are sticking it to the man by using an antigen test is not really credible.

    The point I am making is that the Scottish data, just like the England and Wales data is showing that the unvaccinated case rates per 100k are lower than all other vaccination statuses.

    That is in an inarguable fact. You can point to various reasons to try and explain this, but all of them are assumptions based on mights and maybes. The fact remains.

    And this is a very surprising fact for vaccines that were approved for emergency use on the basis of 90%+ effective protection against symptomatic disease.



  • Registered Users Posts: 14,447 ✭✭✭✭ Dohnjoe


    Your views are entirely to do with your personal interpretation (or misinterpretation) of specific data from the UK, stats which are covered in disclaimers and explainers that you "don't get". On top of that, for some strange reason, you completely ignore information contradictory to your interpretations from another region, e.g. the US.

    If asked about vaccine effectiveness against e.g. Delta, you have no issues that I've seen

    Likewise if asked about vaccine effectiveness against hospitalization and death, you have no issues

    So on aggregate, there's no issue with the vaccines.

    But for some reason you insist on attacking (never supporting) them and the only angle of attack you seem to have found currently is specifically UK stats on vaccine effectiveness against Omicron infection, and only by "not getting" the disclaimers on the data.

    Okay..

    All just seems very similar to the same issues as we had with the VAERS data in here. The data is there, but some people decided they "didn't get" the disclaimers surrounding the data, allowing them to misinterpret it, which they did. By a stunning and remarkable coincidence these posters are always against the vaccines.



  • Registered Users Posts: 5,728 ✭✭✭ Fighting Tao


    It’s not a fact though if that’s what you are taking from the table. The disclaimer identifies issues with the data that you are ignoring.

    Have you read the document, or are you regurgitating what someone on Twitter/Bitchute says? It does identify vaccine effectiveness from their own data.



  • Registered Users Posts: 14,447 ✭✭✭✭ Dohnjoe



    Entrenched non-negotiable "can't explain it to me, so it can't be real" view forming in 5.. 4.. 3.. 2..



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 5,728 ✭✭✭ Fighting Tao


    Awaiting next deflection point because no one can identify real safety issues with vaccines.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,117 ✭✭✭ Phishnet


    Same [email protected]#te being spewed from the lemmings I see.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,117 ✭✭✭ Phishnet


    I have had omicron, (or could it be delta etc) so I will rephrase it for some posters on here who are a bit dim witted (not you of course). I tested positive via a pcr test at Christmas. I am doubly vaccinated for travel purposes. I will not be getting a booster as having recovered fully from covid I have good immunity for 6 months (fact) at least. This is why unvaccinated people get a six month covid pass on a positive pcr test. On the other hand, the booster vaccine wanes after 8 to 10 weeks. Is someone taking the piss!

    My brother (consultant) informed me that most of the poor souls in ICU are from the previous wave of covid. Hospital numbers are coming down, ICU numbers are coming down. The bin men are still only collecting rubbish and not human bodies. It’s over.




    By the time covid presents itself again this winter all our vaccinations, including those who have got boosters will have waned to such an extent that it will be like we were all unvaccinated and the circus will be back in town. That the truth of the matter, time to face up to the facts and the science.



    The truth is sometimes the hardest pill to swallow. Take your medicine.



  • Registered Users Posts: 14,447 ✭✭✭✭ Dohnjoe


    You aren't addressing the points. You are just going down the same identical route as other posters on this forum with zany beliefs who accuse anyone of debating with them of being "trolls" or "shills", etc.



  • Registered Users Posts: 14,447 ✭✭✭✭ Dohnjoe


    You are double vaccinated. Your risk of dying from Covid is substantially lower than someone who is unvaccinated. If you get a booster, then the risk you will die compared to someone who is unboosted, is lower.

    Alternatively, if you are unlucky enough to catch Covid, the flipside of that is, during the next few months you will have decent immunity.

    It's like you think there is some "scam" going on, that you are somehow being cheated by the virus. You aren't. Double vaxxed and booster reduces the risk vs just double vaxxed. Why you are going so nuts about it is unclear.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,117 ✭✭✭ Phishnet


    I have had covid, my immunity is now very high against the virus. Why would I get a booster vaccine that wanes significantly after 10 weeks while I currently have immunity for the next six months (this is why unvaccinated people who have recovered from covid get a six month covid cert). Please explain that to me?

    My read is that if you have got covid you have very good immunity for the next six months at least. Why supplement me with a booster that last only 8 to 10 weeks before allowing me to transmit and get the virus. There is no logic to your proposition.



  • Registered Users Posts: 14,447 ✭✭✭✭ Dohnjoe



    You have a hybrid case, you are double vaxxed, but have just had Covid. There are quite a few people in that situation (I know a few). You are probably good for the next while, but it's up to you to keep checking with proper medical advice. Remember, we don't have magic instant knowledge on everything and every combination, but at the moment it looks like your immunity will be relatively strong for the next few months.

    A booster is obviously recommended for anyone not in that situation.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,117 ✭✭✭ Phishnet




  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 5,728 ✭✭✭ Fighting Tao


    No idea what you are on about troll….and a hypocritical anti-vaxxer troll at that.



Advertisement