Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.

Covid vaccines - thread banned users in First Post

1180181183185186419

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,744 ✭✭✭whippet


    I've no intention of taking another spin on your merry go round of mental gymnastics.

    I've told you before - My opinion is meaningless (yes - I am willing to accept that as an unqualified person) .. however - I do take my wife's opinion very seriously as she has 20 years of professional expertise in the area and the educational history to back it up.

    And - her opinion is totally at odds with yours.



  • Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    But why are the scientists claiming such a blatant contradiction in your opinion?

    You aren't smarter than they are, nor do you have access to better information or expertise.

    They can't be part of a conspiracy to lie about stuff, as that's an asinine and childish suggestion.

    So which is it? Why are you suddenly avoiding this question?



  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,753 ✭✭✭hometruths


    And - her opinion is totally at odds with yours

    She believes that the rates in the unvaccinated are lower this week because they are more likely to have caught covid in previous weeks when they were simultaneously less likely to have caught covid because of lower exposure?

    And they had lower exposure in those previous weeks because they were more careful about taking risks of Covid exposure, yet simultaneously they were less likely to get tested because they were less health conscious?!

    Good for her. It takes all sorts.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,744 ✭✭✭whippet


    bingo - you are a genius. Dimond in the rough. Well done you



  • Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    I do take my wife's opinion very seriously as she has 20 years of professional expertise in the area and the educational history to back it up.

    Yea, but he gets his opinions from guys on twitter, so clearly his opinion is much more trustworthy.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,744 ✭✭✭whippet


    I know ... I've just going to have to have that conversation with the wife and tell her she has wasted two decades of her life as someone called 'home truths' has figured it all out from twitter. She will be gutted. She will probably pull pin on the career and get a stress free job in the local cafe.



  • Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    That is if she isn't just pulling in all the conspiracy money she gets from Bill Gates to push the vaccines...



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 14,882 ✭✭✭✭Igotadose




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,442 ✭✭✭bad2thebone


    To top it off you should have decorated it with a dash of yellow over the other eye, that way you can add your Ukraine decorations. Have you still yours up ?

    I think it's funny no problem whatsoever with the bants. But if someone posted something similar with two bats,I'm sure you guys would be hopping up and down ;)



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,442 ✭✭✭bad2thebone


    Well wherever you're getting paid from it must be good, you've been posting some amount of shoite here since the posting began.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,744 ✭✭✭whippet




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,442 ✭✭✭bad2thebone


    Follow your gut....I'm sure you're quite intelligent



  • Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Lol. I'm not getting paid man. Don't be a child. The government isn't out to get you. You aren't rebelling against evil government agents.

    You're dreaming up this notion that we're getting paid because it helps you with your cute little fantasy. But I assure you, it only makes you and your fellow conspiracy theorists look ridiculous.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,442 ✭✭✭bad2thebone


    Well you think I'm ridiculous anyhow, you've been making that clear enough. They're not my fellow's either,as you put it before we're your guests. It's your thread :)



  • Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Yes, cause you believe that people who disagree with your beliefs have to be government agents.

    You either genuinely believe this, and thus are very paranoid and very ridiculous.

    Or you're just throwing it out as part of this silly extended tantrum you're doing, which is also ridiculous.


    So who exactly pays me, and how much do I get? Am I on shift work, or...?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,442 ✭✭✭bad2thebone


    I'd say you're on so much for each rebuttal, not as much as the other lads because they're better at getting their point across.

    You like to give people a map of locations which are all mixed up and they have to figure out where they're supposed to be going, and where they are.

    Everything is twisted around, and I'f you were a barrister I'd hire you for defense, but I'd hate to have you on the other side.

    Have you ever thought of studying law, in fairness you'd be great in the bar.

    Are you a Kerry man by any chance ?



  • Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Lol Not even an attempt to answer my questions.

    You were pretty brave to start throwing around accusations and making shite up.

    Second you're challenged though...


    So how much am I paid for each rebuttal? Who by?

    Come on man, you're making this all up, why be shy about your fantasies now?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,442 ✭✭✭bad2thebone


    You're not answering my questions either. Anyhow it's none of my business what you're getting. It's ignorant to talk about money. What's yours is your's and you earned it well.

    Posting in work time while getting paid for something else is still a payment.



  • Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Lol. But dude, you're just making it all up any way. It's all in your head because you can't accept that people might just disagree with you and might not buy into the grifts you do.

    So why not just make up who I'm working for and how much I'm being paid?

    Are you suddenly reluctant to speculate cause you didn't think that far and don't actually have any special insight? Was it that your accusation is literally just the base level "you're a shill!" and nothing else?

    That's a little pathetic man.

    At least have the spine to really believe your fantasies.



  • Posts: 6,045 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Pretty bold statement from someone who considers ultra-Conman Alex Jones his hero. Takes all sorts I s'pose



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,442 ✭✭✭bad2thebone



    Do ye want a slagging match guy's I'm all for banter, considering that's all we do slag each other off and call each other names.

    I'm pretty much up for it, I love a good slagging match.

    You're taking everything seriously, Kingmob takes it to heart I'm suggesting he's a paid infiltrator, you're his little bitch Shifty...

    Come on let's go ????



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,779 ✭✭✭Pinch Flat


    It's funny (to the point of embarrassingly funny) the stuff you guys parrot.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,442 ✭✭✭bad2thebone


    Better than being lead by the carrots, heeere haweee



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 17,550 ✭✭✭✭astrofool


    OK, let's break it down, go back to the report you got this snippet from:

    People who are fully vaccinated and people who are unvaccinated may behave differently, particularly with regard to social interactions and therefore may have differing levels of exposure to COVID-19.

    Noting that it doesn't say "more or less" just "differently".

    A different behaviour also includes not getting tested (which we know occurs already among the unvaccinated).

    In the early days of the rollout, the unvaccinated did behave differently, the majority did avoid social gatherings etc. until they got vaccinated.



  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,753 ✭✭✭hometruths


    Great, let's break it down.

    Noting that it doesn't say "more or less" just "differently".

    Noted. Which is one of the reasons I said the caveats are not scientific, they're deliberately vague trying to cover all bases.

    But given they point this out a possible explainer as to why rates in the vaccinated showed up higher than the unvaccinated, it is logical to conclude that the differing behaviour results in the unvaccinated have a lower exposure to Covid.

    A different behaviour also includes not getting tested (which we know occurs already among the unvaccinated).

    They have already dealt with that caveat in the first point, the propensity for getting tested in the unvaccinated is unrelated to any reason for differing levels of Covid in the unvaccinated, at least according to the structure of this sentence.

    In the early days of the rollout, the unvaccinated did behave differently, the majority did avoid social gatherings etc. until they got vaccinated.

    Yes, that is true. Because in the early days of the roll out the unvaccinated included people who couldn't wait to get their vaccination, some of whom endured a self enforced lock down counting the days off until they were eligible to be vaccinated.

    But they were still publishing these caveats in Mar 2022 when I think it's fair to say every person who wanted to and was eligible to receive a vaccine had already done so. Most of the eligible but unvaccinated at that point were antivaxxers.

    Are you saying that the known behaviours of the not yet vaccinated in early 2021 during the third wave which represented the worst of Covid should be assumed equal to the behaviours of the anti vaxxers in February 2022 riding out the tail end of the wave in which Omicron became dominant?

    If so, that's even less credible than what we started with before we broke it down.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 17,550 ✭✭✭✭astrofool


    As said, supply the original document and we can take a look.

    Those elaborations were added many months ago, so may not have been updated (when they then switched to a more scientific measurement than voluntarily reported case counts).



  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,753 ✭✭✭hometruths


    Here is one from 2nd February - shows higher vaccination rates in the vaccinated than unvaccinated. This trend goes back to about September/October of last year, but unfortunately they no longer list the weekly links.

    https://publichealthscotland.scot/media/13192/22-02-02-covid19-winter_publication_report.pdf



  • Posts: 6,559 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    This is pretty much the exact same thing your previous account said when he was losing his rag...



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,442 ✭✭✭bad2thebone


    You can pick it up and wipe away those tears, man up will you and stop being such a moaning Myrtle



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 17,550 ✭✭✭✭astrofool


    Ok, so a couple of pages in explaining the changes in testing that would now skew towards the vulnerable:

    . The number of confirmed cases is likely to be an underestimate of the total number who have, or have had, COVID-19. A person can have multiple tests but will only ever be counted once. The drop in the number of confirmed cases at weekends likely reflects that laboratories are doing fewer tests at the weekend. On 05 January 2022, the Scottish Government announced that asymptomatic people who return a positive lateral flow test (LFT) would no longer have to confirm their positive result with a PCR test.

    Omicron reinfections which hits the unvaccinated more than the vaccinated (due to vaccines broad defence):

    More recently, however, the monthly proportion of reinfections has risen to 6.4% in December 2021 and 9.8% in January 2022, coinciding with a rapid increase of the Omicron variant in Scotland. Evidence suggests that the Omicron variant is associated with increased risk of reinfection3. 

    Moving to voluntary testing for most of the population:

    On 05 January 2022, the Scottish Government announced that people who do not have symptoms would no longer be asked to take a polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test to confirm a positive Lateral Flow Device (LFD) result. Instead, anyone with a positive LFD, who does not have symptoms, should report the result online as soon as the test is done. In order to ensure that we continue to provide the most accurate information, changes have been made to the national COVID-19 case definition to reflect this revised testing strategy. 

    Change in policy around contact tracing that will again drop the numbers who test unless vulnerable:

    Scotland’s approach to contact tracing has continued to adapt throughout the pandemic to reflect changing circumstances, variability in cases, and increasing proportion of the population fully vaccinated since the roll out of the vaccination programme. The most recent Strategic Framework issued by the Scottish Government in November 2021 sets out how Scotland will continue to adapt now that we are in the phase described as “beyond level zero”

    Specific callout on reading the data:

    There is a large risk of misinterpretation of the data presented in this section due to the complexities of vaccination data. A blog post by the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA), formerly Public Health England (PHE), provides a comprehensive explanation of the biases and potential areas for misinterpretation of such data. They state that a simple comparison of COVID-19 case rates in those who are vaccinated and unvaccinated should not be used to assess how effective a vaccine is in preventing serious health outcomes, because there are a number of differences between the groups, other than the vaccine itself, and these biases mean that you cannot use the rates to determine how well the vaccines work.

    Another warning about how to read the data with links to controlled studies for those hard of understanding:

    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 ‘realworld’. 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 biases and risk factors and should not be used to measure vaccine effectiveness. We include links to vaccine effectiveness studies below.

    Specific callout on what I've said that will skew confirmed cases towards those vulnerable to COVID and also the prevalance of antibodies (previous infection) among the population (interesting that you always left that bit out):

    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 have health seeking behaviour and 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.

    Again, the vulnerable vaccinated more likely to count as a case:

    For example, some of the older individuals who have exceeded the recommended time will have not received their next vaccine dose because of frailty or ill health. They are, therefore, more likely to be hospitalised or die if they get COVID-19.

    One of the linked studies on Vaccine effectiveness:

    UKHSA publish a summary of current vaccine effectiveness in their weekly COVID-19 vaccine surveillance report. The latest evidence can be found below which suggests the COVID-19 booster/third dose vaccine lowers your risk of a severe outcome compared to the second dose.

    Again, a warning about the change in policy around cases (almost like they expected some eejits to misinterpret the data):

    Case rates have declined and subsequently plateaued in the last three weeks from 08 January 2022 to 28 January 2022. Caution should be taken when interpreting recent case trends due to the change in policy from 06 January 2022 where an asymptomatic individual who tests positive via a LFD test is not required to take a confirmatory PCR test. This section of the report only includes PCR confirmed COVID-19 cases and does not include cases confirmed by a LFD test.

    More evidence of vaccine effectiveness:

    In the last week from 22 January 2022 to 28 January 2022, in an age-standardised population, the rate of COVID-19 related acute hospital admissions in individuals that received a booster or third dose of a COVID-19 vaccine was between 3.4 to 4.0 times lower than in individuals who are unvaccinated or have only received one or two doses of a COVID-19 vaccine. 

    Another link to a study on Vaccine effectiveness:

    Analyses from Scotland show that the booster and third dose of the COVID-19 vaccines are associated with 57% reduced risk of symptomatic infection with the Omicron variant compared to those who are more than 25 weeks post-second dose of COVID-19 vaccine.

    And then the table, which, as I said, has the unvaccinated more likely to have the higher % of cases and then after the change in how they measure cases came in during early January, the vaccinated become the higher number per 100k (with the number of cases also dropping dramatically).

    And then another final warning about the data confirming all the above just for those still determined to misinterpret the data:

    The number of PCR confirmed COVID-19 cases and case rates have declined in the last week from 21 January 2022 to 28 January 2022. Caution should be taken when interpreting recent case trends due to the change in policy from 06 January 2022 where an asymptomatic individual who tests positive via a LFD test is not required to take a confirmatory PCR test.

    For god's sake, how can you read that document and come to the conclusion you have, being deceitful about what it says and ignoring everything therein bar one table.

    You should be ashamed of yourself, hopefully you're just doing this for fun and you're not taking it seriously.

    I'm 99% sure you'll ignore this analysis anyway and continue the charade.

    Q.E.D.



Advertisement