Covid vaccines - thread banned users in First Post

16-06-2022 11:30PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119213558#Comment_119213558

Marky, you believe that all space flight is fake.

Why should we take you or what you have to say about vaccines seriously?

I would ask the other conspiracy theorists what they think and why they would take you seriously, but they won't answer. They don't want to acknowledge your silly embarrassing credibility killing beliefs. They can't deal with the association and they're too cowardly to confront you directly.

shillyshilly · 17-06-2022 06:10AM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119213558#Comment_119213558

you need to NSFW content like this...

oohhfff, you won't even get this type of quality content on Pornhub or Xhamster..

Really gets my vaccinated loins going

hometruths · 17-06-2022 07:30AM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119213469#Comment_119213469

Multiple separate trials all pointing to the same result

Erm, no. Multiple separate regulators using the same trials all pointing to the same result - limited data on severity, no reliable conclusion.

if you want to do the maths with the combined numbers across trials (where now there would be more than enough cases for high confidence) and measure the confidence interval go ahead, all I will say is that the result is proven and comprehensive ;) (which is why I pointed you at the other trials by the way, and that's just EMA, look up the US and UK trials as well, which is why the massive trials piece was important).

If you had any clue what you were talking about you would realise that US and UK and EMA all used the same data from the same trials.

The 95% efficacy held up within the same measured timeframes as the trials, the trials also measured symptomatic cases rather than asymptomatic as happens in the real world when close contacts get themselves tested.

In your argument for severity data being improved on in the real world you cited a study that measured up to 2022. Why are you unwilling to consider the same timeframe to the 95% efficacy for protection?

I'm saying that we got lucky that the unreliable estimates of protection against severity were improved on with real world data, and unlucky that the reliable estimates of prevention of Covid proved to be worse with real world data.

I am not asking if you agree with the question of luck or not - simply do you agree that the real world data suggested efficacy of below 95% in the prevention of Covid?

Your only way out now is to forego the trial conclusions,

I still totally agree with the trial conclusions. The estimates of VE against severe covid are unreliable because of limited data.

otherwise you have directly proven that your argument is false in front of everyone else in the forum, in absolute detail with all the numbers there to back it up.

This is total nonsense. You haven't backed anything up other than my argument that some people, for whatever reason, are desperate to spin the trial results as proving vaccine efficacy against severe Covid and will clutch at whatever straws they can find to do so. Every increasingly ridiculous post on the subject just backs it up further.

There isn't a single sane poster on this forum who believes your argument that the trials proved VE against severe Covid based on comprehensive data.

17-06-2022 09:10AM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119214044#Comment_119214044

You keep saying "Unreliable". But that's another example of a conspiracy theorist claiming something says something it doesn't.

hometruths · 17-06-2022 09:28AM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119214454#Comment_119214454

I keep saying unreliable because that's what the approval reports say multiple times, here's just one example:

reliable efficacy estimates against severe COVID-19 and hospitalisation caused by COVID-19 could not be established

Ok. It does not use the word unreliable. But it does say reliable efficacy estimates could not be established. Therefore the estimates they did establish are unreliable.

17-06-2022 09:38AM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119214543#Comment_119214543

Nope. That's you putting words in their mouths to change what they said.

It's what you've been doing constantly.

hometruths · 17-06-2022 09:46AM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119214592#Comment_119214592

I have not put words in their mouth, I've quoted verbatim - reliable efficacy estimates against severe COVID-19 and hospitalisation caused by COVID-19 could not be established

drunkmonkey · 17-06-2022 09:52AM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119214592#Comment_119214592

Christ on a bike, your car is either reliable or unrelaible, give it a rest with the whataboutery it's tedious and making you look like a complete shilly pharma muppet.

Dohnjoe · 17-06-2022 09:52AM

Page 252, vaccines still safe and effective. No conspiracies. Most of the globe vaccinated.

17-06-2022 09:53AM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119214629#Comment_119214629

But you didn't say that. You used the word "unreliable".

You said: "The estimates of VE against severe covid are unreliable because of limited data." Which is not what they said.

Hence, you put words in their mouths.

This is just an illustrative example of the contortions you have to do to cling to this silly nonpoint you have.

The only folks you're convincing are folks like Markus and Buzzer.

And even then I'm not sure.

17-06-2022 09:54AM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119214666#Comment_119214666

Lol. Again with the childish accusations.

So what again is the difference between your arguments and Buzzers?

Do you agree with Hometruths even though he's declared that your claim that the vaccine never worked is false?

Fighting Tao · 17-06-2022 09:56AM

“reliable efficacy estimates against severe COVID-19 and hospitalisation caused by COVID-19 could not be established”

It does not mean that it is unreliable. It could be extremely reliable, but has not yet been determined.

hometruths · 17-06-2022 10:06AM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119214670#Comment_119214670

But you didn't say that. You used the word "unreliable".

You said: "The estimates of VE against severe covid are unreliable because of limited data." Which is not what they said.

Hence, you put words in their mouths.

So the approvers say "reliable efficacy estimates against severe COVID-19 and hospitalisation caused by COVID-19 could not be established could not be established due to the lack of a sufficient number of cases within the clinical studies."

And I say that means "The estimates of VE against severe covid are unreliable because of limited data"

Your response to me is that I am twisting what they said by putting words in their mouth because I am a conspiracy theorist.

What then do you make of astrofools statement the data on severity was extremely comprehensive and proven in massive trials?

Is that also putting words into their mouth, another example of a conspiracy theorist claiming something says something it doesn't?

drunkmonkey · 17-06-2022 10:07AM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119214676#Comment_119214676

More whataboutery, I never claimed they didn't work is that what you asked Hometruths to comment on, a decietful misrepresentation if you did, I said they didn't work as advertised, it does not prevent transmission and infection and yes we were told it would even though you say we weren't.

The booster is a fools folly and may be causing more harm than good as I pointed to yesterday with the study of triple jabbed health professionals. Your it's safe claim is looking more like a conspiracy every day.

17-06-2022 10:14AM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119214728#Comment_119214728

But Hometruths doesn't believe that either though.

17-06-2022 10:17AM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119214724#Comment_119214724

I think that Fighting Tao explained it very clearly:

It does not mean that it is unreliable. It could be extremely reliable, but has not yet been determined.

Any comment on any of the lies and bullshit coming from your side at all? Any comment on buzzers claims? Any comment on Drunkmonkey claiming the vaccines didn't work?

Any comment on Marky's comments given he's a flat earther and all?

astrofool · 17-06-2022 10:39AM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119214454#Comment_119214454

If only there was some scientific way to run the same test multiple times to prove it's conclusion...

I don't think hometruths understands that bit, as in, it's not wilful ignorance it's just ignorance.

hometruths · 17-06-2022 11:10AM

It could be extremely reliable, but has not yet been determined.

Which means the estimate they have currently is not reliable. Of course if they had more data to work with it is possible they could have come up with an estimated they judged to be reliable. That is the whole point.

It could be extremely reliable, but has not yet been determined, because of the limitations of the then available data. The reliable efficacy estimates against severe COVID-19 and hospitalisation caused by COVID-19 could not be established due to the lack of a sufficient number of cases within the clinical studies.

So any efficacy estimates of VE against severe covid that were calculated are unreliable because of limited data.

hometruths · 17-06-2022 11:12AM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119214767#Comment_119214767

I think that Fighting Tao explained it very clearly:

It does not mean that it is unreliable. It could be extremely reliable, but has not yet been determined.

That's just more clutching at straws.

Fighting Tao · 17-06-2022 11:12AM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119215035#Comment_119215035

You have read it, but you take completely the wrong understanding. It does not mean it is unreliable. To say it does mean it is unreliable is making up something to suit your narrative.

hometruths · 17-06-2022 11:21AM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119215046#Comment_119215046

It could be extremely reliable, but has not yet been determined.

Ok, let's see if I can get to the right understanding. I agree with the above statement you posted.

So if it has not yet been determined, what has been determined?

Dohnjoe · 17-06-2022 11:24AM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119214728#Comment_119214728

We have flu jabs every year.

You are on a public discussion forum basically claiming you know better than medical science. Keep in mind you are a poster who mindlessly swallowed a made-up blog from a crank about a singer's condition being linked to "evil vaccines", why on earth would anyone take your personal opinion on this seriously over that of professionals?

Dohnjoe · 17-06-2022 11:25AM

The fact that this "discussion" is taking place on the conspiracy forum tells passer-bys all they need to know

hometruths · 17-06-2022 11:31AM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119215095#Comment_119215095

Indeed.

So the approvers say "reliable efficacy estimates against severe COVID-19 and hospitalisation caused by COVID-19 could not be established could not be established due to the lack of a sufficient number of cases within the clinical studies."

And I say that means "The estimates of VE against severe covid are unreliable because of limited data"

In any other forum posters would not try and argue that I am twisting words to suit a narrative.

Dohnjoe · 17-06-2022 11:47AM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119215122#Comment_119215122

You are an anti-vaxxer. This is "your way" of attacking vaccines (being pedantic to the extreme and arguing over semantics). Most anti-vaxxers favour this forum because often they are thread-banned elsewhere and the modding here is very lax.

astrofool · 17-06-2022 12:16PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119215199#Comment_119215199

I'm pretty sure they was threadbanned from the COVID forum in previous guises (or warned not to continue posting disinformation).

They have jumped wholeheartedly into accepting the approval data though because they wrongly thought it supported their argument, which is funny.

Dohnjoe · 17-06-2022 12:19PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119208417#Comment_119208417

That poster has over 400 posts in this thread, was previously known as "Schmittel"

Fighting Tao · 17-06-2022 12:25PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119215081#Comment_119215081

That they don’t have the data yet to provide reliable estimates. That does not mean ‘unreliable’.

Igotadose · 17-06-2022 12:29PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119215389#Comment_119215389

Yinno, I think I said almost the exact same thing to @hometruths some weeks ago - too soon to have data. Never saw a response but with all the white noise in this arc of the thread I could've missed it. Seems pretty obvious that at the time of approval, vaccinated people weren't ending up in the hospital yet after vaccination, i.e., the vaccine prevented it.

As for endless pedantry over one sentence or one term, that's a well known Holocaust denier technique, arguing about punctuation (Rassinier wrote a whole denier screed that turned out to be rooted in a misplaced semi-colon.)

hometruths · 17-06-2022 12:31PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119215199#Comment_119215199

Your comment reveals a lot of what interests me about the vaccines. The Emperor's New Clothes effect I mentioned earlier. For some reason people are totally unwilling or unable to discuss or acknowledge anything that they interpret as a negative comment on the vaccines.

In the opinion of most in this forum I am anti-vaxxer. Therefore anything I say is an attack vaccines. It does not matter whether or not what I say is true, it must contradicted at all costs because it is an attack on the vaccines.

That's how we end up with ridiculous discussions like the one in hand.

When I say "The estimates of VE against severe covid are unreliable because of limited data" I am instantly accused of twisting words so suit my antivax agenda despite the fact that verbatim quote from the approvers is "reliable efficacy estimates against severe COVID-19 and hospitalisation caused by COVID-19 could not be established could not be established due to the lack of a sufficient number of cases within the clinical studies."

The only reason that the meaning of this is in dispute is because people think this is an attack on the vaccines - not because it is untrue, but because I am saying it and I have an agenda.

But how is this an attack on the vaccines?

I have said I agree with the approval granted. I think the approvers approved the vaccines for prevention of Covid based on a favourable/risk benefit analysis of the best available data they had at the time.

The controversial thing that I have said, my attack on the vaccines, is to state that it is impossible to claim today that it was made clear to us from day 1 that the primary function of the vaccines was to reduce the severity of the Covid infections rather than to prevent Covid infections.

I am certain of this because it is crystal clear that from day 1 those who approved the vaccines for use considered that the available data indicated no reliable estimate of efficacy against severe Covid but the available data did indicate a very reliable estimate of efficacy in preventing Covid infections.

We have one posters arguing that I am wrong because their interpretation of the approval reports on severity is that "It does not mean that it is unreliable. It could be extremely reliable, but has not yet been determined" and another claiming it has in fact been determined thanks to the extremely comprehensive data. Another poster is agreeing with both of these positions simply because it is an attempt to contradict.

I don't know what you think, other than it has been explained to me. But I suspect you know as well as I do that the available data on severity was extremely limited and that's why the approvers said they could not determine anything on severity.

What I think is fascinating is why so many people will refuse to acknowledge it. And why others are tripping themselves up all over the place, making complete fools of themselves, to argue black is white.

I suspect it is because to many the debate is no longer about facts and logic - it's about what side you are on as KingMob repeatedly refers to.

Covid vaccines - thread banned users in First Post

Comments