Covid vaccines - thread banned users in First Post

I haven't backed myself into any corner.

My position is that the vaccines were approved to prevent symptomatic cases of Covid 19. Whilst there may have been a hope that in the course of fulfilling the role to which they were approved for - the prevention of Covid 19 - they would reduce the severity of outcomes in breakthrough infections, they were not granted approval to do this.

I know this for certain, not just because of the wording of the approvals and the definition of vaccination failure, but because at the time of the initial approvals there was not sufficient data available to make any findings with confidence about the effectiveness of reducing the severity of outcomes.

Anybody who says that approvals were granted to reduce the severity of outcomes is talking absolute horsesh*t and simply reinforces my belief in my initial point:

Anybody who says that the primary function of the vaccines is to reduce the severity in breakthrough cases is making a blatantly false claim.

The fact that I don't know exactly why such false claims are made, does not change the fact that the claims are false.

I have no idea why you would make that claim, nor why astrofool would, nor why any government or health service would. I would presume they are all for different reasons, but I am not claiming to know why.

Fine I will answer your question.

I'm in agreement with the experts who wrote the paper in the BMJ - it is a political policy decision.

Of the two options you have asked which is most likely I believe the most likely is they are involved in a conspiracy.

Hang on a second. I didn't say I believe there's a big giant conspiracy - you said there were only two options and asked me to pick which I thought was most likely, which I duly did.

SO since the scientists who were producing the data are involved in this conspiracy, why did they suggest an explanation so obvious that it gives the conspiracy away? Why did they publish the data in the first place?

And have you stepped into a discussion about the false claim that the primary function of the vaccines being to reduce severity of outcomes (the post you quoted and referenced false claims) and now pivoted to the explanation of the case rate data?

Have you any idea what you're talking about?

To be clear, which false claim are you talking about?

the idea that the primary function of the vaccine is to reduce ICUs/death or the explanation of the case rate data?

It's an important distinction because the first is demonstrably false whereas as the second is just a question of credibility.

It doesn't really matter man. I'm referring specifically to to the case rate data, but the point applies to both equally.

It really does matter man. You asked me a very specific question about a very specific false claim, which I answered, and then you took that answer and pivoted to something else entirely.

Yesterday you were bleating on about my refusal to answer questions about an Israel news article I never posted. And as I pointed out, you have a style of posting that relies on simply accusing posters of ignoring your questions again and again and again. But you still haven't worked out that the reason posters ignore your questions, is that your questions are all over the place and you're unable to keep track of yourself.

This happens time and time again.

There are only two possible explanations for this:

a) you're involved in some big conspiracy to derail any negative discussion about vaccines

b) you're as thick as mince

I think it is unlikely you're involved in some big conspiracy.

Ok, if you're not prepared to be specific about the false claims in the post you quoted, are you prepared to be specific about this:

What was I mistaken about re vaccine approval?

You keep making vague statements about previous answers yet seem unwilling to specifically answer what you think I am wrong about? It doesn't make any sense.

If other vaccines were approved to prevent the disease and reduce the severity of outcomes it was because the data was available at time of approval to show effectiveness at reducing severity of outcomes.

At time of approval of covid vaccines the data concerning severity of outcomes was insufficient in order to be conclusive - fact. That’s the difference.

regulators are not in the habit of granting emergency use approval based on data they do not have or consider to be insufficient.

Hence, whilst it was probably expected and hoped that the vaccine would prove effective at reducing severity of symptoms in breakthrough cases, it was approved solely on the basis of its effectiveness at preventing symptomatic disease - I.e to prevent all symptoms.

This is clearly spelt out in the regulatory documents.

What I am claiming is an indisputable fact. That’s the reality I have created for myself.

And thus far nobody has been able to dispute it, despite the fact it should be very easy - just point to the original regulatory approval reports which cite the data.

I have already posted all the links and quoted them at length stating the data was insufficient.

Which means you are back to either calling the scientists/approvers liars or backing down, again, which is it?

If the scientists/approvers or yourself or whoever else is currently saying the vaccines were approved to reduce the severity of symptomatic disease rather than to prevent symptomatic disease then yes I am calling them liars.

I am confident in doing this because the regulatory approval reports published at time of approval showed there was insufficient data to conclusively state the vaccines would be effective at preventing severity, no matter how much they might have hoped or expected that would be the case.

Do you disagree?

You admitted the vaccine effectiveness yourself already (unless you are calling yourself a liar?).

I've admitted they are effective at reducing the severity of outcomes, I've never questioned that. My point is the fact that they are effective reducing severity of outcomes, does not make it right to rewrite history and claim they were approved to reduce severity of outcomes.

Bit now that we're finally here (amid another retread attempt), why do you think the scientists would lie?

I'm happy to answer your question, but there is a difference in asking me the broad general question you're asking now - why do I think the scientists would lie vs the one from earlier - if I think they are lying there are only two possible explanations as to why, which do I think is more likely: a) either I am smarter than them or b) they're involved in a conspiracy.

So what are you asking me - the general question or the specific one?

To be clear, either way I am not claiming that the approvers lied at time of approval, the point is back there was no claim that vaccines were approved to reduce severity. I am claiming that anybody who now, with the benefit of hindsights, says that the vaccines are working as intended, they were approved to reduce the severity of outcomes, is lying.

really going round the houses on this one...

it's tedious no doubt, but as long as the lie is being repeated I'll contradict it.

the pandemic changed, so the message changed with it, which was the right thing to do.

If the change of the message was to update based on new information, saying things turned out differently but here's what we know now, that's fine.

But the message has changed to say this is not new information, we knew all long that the vaccine is far more effective at reducing the severity of symptomatic infections than it is at preventing symptomatic cases, sure that's why it was granted approval.

That's horsesh*t, and the bit I have the problem with.