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

Covid vaccines - thread banned users in First Post

Options
1180181183185186419

Comments

  • Registered Users, Subscribers Posts: 5,818 ✭✭✭hometruths


    So you disagree with my opinion, fair enough what is yours?

    Take these two caveats for example:

    • 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.
    • People who have never been vaccinated are more likely to have caught COVID-19 in the weeks or months before the period of the cases covered in the report. This gives them some natural immunity to the virus for a few months which may have contributed to a lower case rate in the past few weeks.

    I think it is contradictory to suggest 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.

    Do you disagree? If you think I have misunderstood the meaning of the plain English, please do let me know your interpretation?



  • Registered Users Posts: 16,496 ✭✭✭✭astrofool



    For example I think it is contradictory that the unvaccinated are less likely to get tested because they are less health conscious yet more likely to reduced exposure to Covid because they actively avoid social interactions.

    Why are the unvaccinated avoiding social interactions? Cases measure verified tests, those who are unvaccinated and refuse to get a jab are also less likely to go and get tested so won't be included in the numbers even when infected.

    NPHET and similar authorities have models that include the actual estimated numbers that they used for managing the pandemic, those numbers can be double the recorded case count (which can also be limited by testing capacity).

    Similiarly I think it is contradictory to suggest 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.

    But that is precisely what they are saying due to the antibody coverage that proves it's the case. ~85% are covered by vaccines, another 13% have caught it knowingly or unknowingly. Those that test positive after vaccination are more likely to be older and vulnerable thus more likely to get tested than the unvaccinated who skew younger and fitter overall (even though deaths skew a decade younger in the unvaccinated despite their smaller numbers).

    Your assumptions are making no sense.



  • Registered Users, Subscribers Posts: 5,818 ✭✭✭hometruths


    Why are the unvaccinated avoiding social interactions?

    In the whole I don't think they are any more or less likely to avoid social interactions. That's what the caveats are suggesting:

    • 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.




  • Registered Users Posts: 7,674 ✭✭✭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.



  • Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    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?



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Subscribers Posts: 5,818 ✭✭✭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 Posts: 7,674 ✭✭✭whippet


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



  • Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    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.



  • Registered Users Posts: 7,674 ✭✭✭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.



  • Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


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



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 13,138 ✭✭✭✭Igotadose




  • Registered Users 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 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.



  • Registered Users Posts: 7,674 ✭✭✭whippet




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


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



  • Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    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 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 :)



  • Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    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 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 ?



  • Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    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?



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users 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.



  • Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    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: 0 [Deleted User]


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



  • Registered Users 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 Posts: 7,761 ✭✭✭Pinch Flat


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



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


    Better than being lead by the carrots, heeere haweee



  • Registered Users Posts: 16,496 ✭✭✭✭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 Posts: 5,818 ✭✭✭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 Posts: 16,496 ✭✭✭✭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).



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Subscribers Posts: 5,818 ✭✭✭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



Advertisement