Covid vaccines - thread banned users in First Post

Fighting Tao · 26-01-2022 8:03pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118536982#Comment_118536982

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

Fighting Tao · 26-01-2022 8:10pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118536939#Comment_118536939

Also a side effect of covid. It’s great to see the EMA on top of issues reported. Therefore it is probably safe to say that they deem the vaccines very safe compared to catching covid and so still let them be used. The link also says that the vaccines are overwhelmingly safe. So what is your point?

Fighting Tao · 26-01-2022 8:26pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118537216#Comment_118537216

Post before yours, in case you missed it. It covers your post quoted here.

Fighting Tao · 26-01-2022 8:58pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118537353#Comment_118537353

No one ever said they’re 100% safe, however they carry much less risk than catching covid. I’d be quite sure that other posters have gone through this with you previously. Obviously it hasn’t sunk in.

hometruths · 26-01-2022 9:03pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118536394#Comment_118536394

In Scotland from 15th January - 22 January the rate of covid in the unvaccinated per 100k was 297.18 and in the double vaccinated per 100k it was 568.49. That is a fact.

My interpretation of that fact is that the rate of covid in the unvaccinated per 100k is lower than that of the vaccinated.

Nobody knows for sure why the rate is lower in the unvaccinated - the authors of the report have offered some possible suggestions. You find the explanations for this surprising fact plausible, I do not.

I am not misinterpreting or misrepresenting anything. The bottom line is nobody knows.

The test results data is saying inarguably that the unvaccinated are getting infected at a lower rate than the vaccinated. The explanations as to why this is the case is limited by maybes, mights and more likelys but there is no definitive explanation.

I have ignored your link to CDC data saying that unvaccinated people are 5 times more likely to catch covid because nowhere in that link does it, or can it, explain why the data published by Public Health Scotland shows that the unvaccinated rate of covid infection per 100k is lower than all vaccinated statuses. It's totally irrelevant. Just like link to data in Jersey was yesterday when we were discussing the UKHSA data.

hometruths · 26-01-2022 9:05pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118536426#Comment_118536426

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.

What i am taking from the table is that in Scotland from 15th January - 22 January the rate of covid in the unvaccinated per 100k was 297.18 and in the double vaccinated per 100k it was 568.49.

That is a fact.

Fighting Tao · 26-01-2022 9:18pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118537410#Comment_118537410

I quote this text that you deliberately left out: “The rates in Table 13 should not be used as a measure of vaccine effectiveness due to unaccounted for biases and risk factors.”

There is also the antigen bit that you ignored too.

robinph · 26-01-2022 9:28pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118536879#Comment_118536879

You had covid over Christmas. Why didn't you get the booster before Christmas?

The cases of omnicron that you claim don't exist in hospital due to secret information from your brother also can't have been established before Christmas. Also can't have even been established when you first popped up in the thread telling us about how you wouldn't be getting the booster.

These are just two things you have invented after you started posting about not getting the booster because you think it's unsafe. So what was your initial reasoning for not getting the booster back in November / December or whenever you were offered it?

hometruths · 26-01-2022 9:33pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118537465#Comment_118537465

The bit about antigen tests is utterly irrelevant because the data in the table I posted only pertains to PCR tests.

I did not deliberately leave it anything out. That text does not change the fact that in Scotland from 15th January - 22 January the rate of covid in the unvaccinated per 100k was 297.18 and in the double vaccinated per 100k it was 568.49.

The caveat about biases and risk factors may change how people interpret the data but it does not change the fact that the data shows that the rate of covid in the unvaccinated per 100k is lower than every other vaccination status, and has been consistently so for some time.

astrofool · 26-01-2022 10:25pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118536385#Comment_118536385

Those collecting the data point out the limitations from case counts because they're afraid that idiots will misinterpret the data.

Idiots do so anyway.

The CSO did similar with their statistics covering the period of the pandemic rather than years as they usually do, the people who put together the reports are usually very clever and I think it's funny that they essentially troll the anti-vaxxers by making sure to include the disclaimers as clearly as possible so that the anti-vaxxers arguments turn into sand very quickly.

Do you not get embarrassed that someone knew someone like you would try and do this and pre-empted it? Does it not make you doubt yourself to a high degree? The fact you posted it as a gotcha that blew up in your face is pretty funny, time for a bit of introspection.

King Mob · 26-01-2022 10:46pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118537529#Comment_118537529

Why is the caveat there in the first place?

Why does it say that you cannot use the data in the way you are using it?

Be honest did you read this caveat before you posted your link?

Or did you read it, but then ignore it?

hometruths · 26-01-2022 10:49pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118537760#Comment_118537760

Do you not get embarrassed that someone knew someone like you would try and do this and pre-empted it? Does it not make you doubt yourself to a high degree? The fact you posted it as a gotcha that blew up in your face is pretty funny, time for a bit of introspection.

You've lost me? Where did this blow up in my face?

King Mob · 26-01-2022 10:51pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118537511#Comment_118537511

I note that he still hasn't and won't say what his imaginary brother actually does as a consultant.

He's clearly not willing to say because either he's making it up and can't think of a plausible answer.

Or he knows that his he specifies what his brother does it will expose that he is stretching the true and his brother in no position to actually have any such knowledge.

I also notice that he seems to have changed his story already. Now he's claiming his brother said that "the people are from the last wave" not "the people all have delta".

King Mob · 26-01-2022 10:53pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118537353#Comment_118537353

Yes there are safety concern about all medicines. No medicines are 100% safe. No one claims otherwise.

You guys are claiming that the vaccines are more dangerous that other medicines and other vaccines and that their true dangers are being covered up by a global conspiracy that you can't explain or show.

hometruths · 26-01-2022 10:58pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118536394#Comment_118536394

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

Correct, certainly all the data I have seen thus far would indicate that vaccines are doing a great job on this, particularly against death.

So let's hope the latest data from Scotland on mortality can be explained by behavioural differences, and not an early indicator re greater prevalence of death from Omicron in the double vaccinated.

For the last 4 weeks the mortality rate per 100k in the double vaccinated has been significantly higher than the rate in the unvaccinated.

astrofool · 26-01-2022 11:05pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118537866#Comment_118537866

The authors knew that idiots would try and misinterpret the data and made sure that it was very clear what the data couldn't be used for (i.e. insinuating that there are more cases in the vaccinated). Someone who was putting together that study realised this and put it in very clear English.

The fact that you don't see that is mind boggling, I'm sure it must extend to other information you read as well, as I said above, a bit of introspection wouldn't hurt.

(the fact this needed explained twice is also worrying, even trolls would have tried to deflect to something else by now, I mean, did you really think that was the case given all we know about vaccines and the virus, was it really a point you were going to try and argue and believe you found an angle that no one else has stumbled upon yet, what, 3600+ posts in)

hometruths · 26-01-2022 11:16pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118537939#Comment_118537939

The authors knew that idiots would try and misinterpret the data and made sure that it was very clear what the data couldn't be used for (i.e. insinuating that there are more cases in the vaccinated).

I am not insinuating that there are more cases in the vaccinated. I'm stating it as a fact as that is exactly what the data shows.

In Scotland from 15th January - 22 January the rate of covid in the unvaccinated per 100k was 297.18 and in the double vaccinated per 100k it was 568.49. That is a fact.

The authors state that the data should not be used as a measure of vaccine effectiveness. They very clearly state you should ignore the latest data on case rates and look elsewhere for measures of vaccine effectiveness, advice which you are obviously very happy to take. Fair enough.

But none of that changes the fact that in Scotland over the last four weeks, the case rate per 100k has been significantly lower in the unvaccinated than every other vaccination status.

That is not an insinuation. It is a fact.

King Mob · 26-01-2022 11:21pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118537988#Comment_118537988

But the source of your data directly states that the data cannot be used to reach that conclusion.

Is the disclaimer wrong?

astrofool · 26-01-2022 11:48pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118537988#Comment_118537988

You can at most say that for that week there were more confirmed cases via PCR testing, that's the beginning and ending of it.

But again, we know that, there's a disclaimer saying as much. You're so far down the rabbit hole here, causing hassle for your family by being unvaxxed and will probably be paying extra for tests when you travel all while billions walk around care free.

But anyway.

Let's assume that it's cases all up, just for fun, by what mechanism do more people get infected when they have antibodies then if they don't (remembering that we still see disproportionate unvaxxed in hospital and ICU despite the unvaxxed being about a decade younger on average). This is your chance to take for some scientific insight, something that others have missed that you have stumbled upon, explain.

King Mob · 27-01-2022 3:43am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118538561#Comment_118538561

No, we never argued this.

We have stated repeated that all medicines have some risk.

We've repeatedly argued against your claims that the vaccines are more dangerous than other medicines or vaccines or that they are secretly more dangerous than officials are saying.

You have repeatedly lied and claimed that the vaccines are not safe and are not effective.

These things are simply not true.

Have you given up your claims about your fantasy brother now?

King Mob · 27-01-2022 3:45am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118538567#Comment_118538567

Please quote a source that says directly and clearly that the contracts were not renewed die to safety concerns.

If not please explain what leads you to believe this is the main reason?

Are you going to invent another sibling who works for the EMA and gave you yet more secret information?

King Mob · 27-01-2022 4:23am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118538593#Comment_118538593

Lol your posts are becoming more and more manic and more filled with the same accusations you admitted were false previously.

Please quote a source that shows the EMA are not renewing because of safety concerns.

You and your pals have a habit of misrepresenting and lying about things and using your own assumptions and inferences in place of facts. I think that this is another case of this.

I don't think you can provide anything to show they are not renewing due to safety because this is a conclusion you are reaching all by yourself. (Or are just repeating from your Twitter grifter.)

So prove me wrong. Show me up.just provide a source that says what you claim directly and clearly.

You won't though. You'll dodge. You'll whinge. You'll throw out more false and childish accusations. You will declare you're going to bravely ignore me again.

You'll do everything except the one thing that would prove you right and me wrong.

Why is that you think?

Has the real reason sunk in yet?

robinph · 27-01-2022 5:05am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118538567#Comment_118538567

So which particular safety concern emerged between the summer when you presumably had already had shot 2 and December by which time you were offered a booster jab to suddenly make you so terrified of getting a third jab of something that you'd already had twice?

Just trying to figure out exactly what it was that spooked you. You happily took two jabs, had no ill effects and survived those and are even still here now after having caught some variant of covid over Christmas so the vaccines did their job. But something now has you terrified of getting a third jab.

It's not omicron as that didn't exist. It's not any reduced effects of vaccine on omicron. It's not anything that your alleged brother told you about delta cases as that hadn't happened.

What spooked you so bad before last December?

Fighting Tao · 27-01-2022 8:09am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118537529#Comment_118537529

When the authors of a report provide disclaimers that even people uneducated in the area should be able to understand, including you, why are you doing the opposite of the disclaimers?

King Mob · 27-01-2022 8:44am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118538676#Comment_118538676

Cause that wouldn't support the conspiracy theory.

Cause he didn't know the disclaimer was in there because the tweet he took it from didn't show it, just the image he keeps posting and he can't just cop to this.

sydthebeat · 27-01-2022 9:20am

https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/human-regulatory/overview/public-health-threats/coronavirus-disease-covid-19/treatments-vaccines/vaccines-covid-19/safety-covid-19-vaccines

The latest EMA update about approved vaccine safety:

The European Medicines Agency (EMA) monitors the safety of COVID-19 vaccines authorised in the European Union (EU) extremely carefully. This enables the detection of any rare side effects that may emerge once many millions of people are vaccinated.

More than 735 million doses of vaccines have been given to people in the EU and European Economic Area (EEA), as of early January 2022.
The authorised COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective. They were evaluated in tens of thousands of participants in clinical trials and have met EMA’s scientific standards for safety, efficacy and quality.
The safety of COVID-19 vaccines is continuously monitored and evaluated.
Monthly safety updates give an overview of the PRAC’s regular safety evaluation.
The vast majority of known side effects of COVID-19 vaccines are mild and short-lived.
Serious safety problems are extremely rare.

snowcat · 27-01-2022 9:25am

https://www.bmj.com/content/376/bmj.o142

Most affected were the 358 individuals who received both doses of the vaccine in the same cycle, experiencing a 2.32 day (98.75% CI 1.59 to 3.04) delay to their next period. Among this group, 10.6% experienced a change in cycle length of more than 8 days, which is considered clinically significant,4 compared with 4.3% in the unvaccinated cohort (P<0.001). In all groups, cycle lengths returned to normal by two cycles after vaccination.

Ill put in here as I would get thread banned if I put it anywhere else..I heard Luke O'Neill on Pat Kenny a few months back saying there was no possible way a vaccine could affect the Menstrual cycle.

sydthebeat · 27-01-2022 9:29am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118538804#Comment_118538804

What's that got to do with vaccine safety?

Does it suggest vaccines are unsafe somehow?

King Mob · 27-01-2022 9:41am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118538804#Comment_118538804

Now be honest, did you read the entirety of that paper?

The findings from both these studies are reassuring: changes to the menstrual cycle do occur following vaccination, but they are small compared with natural variation and quickly reverse.

Fighting Tao · 27-01-2022 9:51am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118538560#Comment_118538560

Typical. Taking things out of context. Usually a conspiracy theorist/anti-vaxxer method when they have run out of arguments. Trolls be trolling.

Covid vaccines - thread banned users in First Post

Comments