Covid vaccines - thread banned users in First Post

odyssey06 · 12-09-2022 06:08PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119608933#Comment_119608933

It shows a line going below zero at a certain point.

You are the one claiming negative effectiveness versus unvaccinated.

Where does the report state this or show the data for unvaccinated?

The underlying data shows very different effectiveness for vaccination at Week #20 based on month of first dose vaccination.

The report text states one of its limitations is that:

Specifically, waning effects of both vaccination and previous infection may have been confounded by earlier infection and earlier vaccination in high-risk children.

It is reasonable to propose that higher risk children are also more likely to be tested etc due to interactions with medical services and may already have had weaker immune systems. This confounding factor would explain why children who received first dose vaccination in Jan'22 at Week#20 had very different outcomes to those who were vaccinated in Nov'21.

sydthebeat · 12-09-2022 06:23PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119608866#Comment_119608866

im not saying your wrong, im asking you to show me how youve come to this definition, and im asking for you for any evidence of that definition in the study?

if, as you claim, after 18 weeks, the vaccinated are more likely to catch the virus than the unvaccinated, then surely its easy to show the stats that reflect this.

if these stats dont exist, then how have you come to your definition?

i can just as easily argue the negative figure is due to the confidence interval being 95% so eventually youre guaranteed to have a negative return, regardless of actual returned statistics. Especially with a small dataset

hometruths · 12-09-2022 06:30PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119609002#Comment_119609002

Fair enough, but before I get into that are we agreed that the graph does in fact show negative effectiveness and we are only debating what that actually means?

For example the graph is showing -20% effectiveness at 20 weeks just as clearly as it is showing 15% at 16 weeks for the previously uninfected?

robinph · 12-09-2022 07:04PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119609021#Comment_119609021

"only debating what that actually means?"

What is the point of discussion if not to figure out what it actually means. You may as well be arguing over the name for the shades of colours that they used to draw the graph.

As for what it means, the first point of reference for that is surely the report itself?

hometruths · 12-09-2022 08:03PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119609188#Comment_119609188

I am trying to avoid another totally pointless discussion along the lines of "the graph does not show negative effectiveness, it shows a line going below zero effectiveness"

That's just ridiculous.

snowcat · 12-09-2022 09:00PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119609403#Comment_119609403

Unfortunately you are dealing with 2 very extreme cohorts here. One that believes in the power of the vaxx to infinitum and the anti vaxxers who dont.. There is no room for anyone in the middle. Any query is automatically assumed to be one or the other. Hence why i ignore the more extreme posters on both sides.

12-09-2022 09:16PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119608798#Comment_119608798

Are you saying the Scandinavians are some sort of master race?

hometruths_real · 12-09-2022 09:17PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119608933#Comment_119608933

If you read the paper, you would know it uses Cox's regression modelling

If you understood statistics, you would know what that meant

In the context of science, you would know that the negative percentages in this context are used to demonstrate their findings do not crumple under negative numbers (strengthening the rationale of their findings.... if you had a magical drop or rise in the graph, their data is crap)...

It's like a fancy version of extrapolation....

short answer, no it doesn't mean negative effects from the vaccine

odyssey06 · 12-09-2022 09:26PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119609731#Comment_119609731

Number of references to 'master race' in my posts = 0.

Those are your words not mine.

You also seem confused about which countries are Scandinavian and which ones are Baltic.

In terms of development, similarities and connections and land borders, Sweden is grouped most closely with Finland, Norway and then Denmark.

12-09-2022 09:46PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119609782#Comment_119609782

How does that influence COVID to a much larger extent than lockdowns and other "effective" measures?

odyssey06 · 12-09-2022 09:52PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119609858#Comment_119609858

Asked and answered:

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119601277#Comment_119601277

12-09-2022 10:18PM

But Sweden is one of the most urban societies in Europe!

odyssey06 · 12-09-2022 10:33PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119610004#Comment_119610004

With the highest number of single person households.

Bordered by low population density countries. There were huge voluntary shifts in behaviour in 2020.

Its approach doesnt scale and nothing you have posted shows otherwise.

12-09-2022 11:11PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119609654#Comment_119609654

But again man. Still no such h thing as extreme pro vaccinationists.

No one holds the arguments you're attributing to them.

It's not extreme to for example point out that a study you posted contradicts your claims about it.

It is extreme to claim a study support something it doesn't then go to great lengths to avoid and ignore what the study actually says.

You aren't in the middle man. You're an anti vaxxer.

12-09-2022 11:14PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119608933#Comment_119608933

If the graph really showed negative effectiveness, why is it not mentioned in the conclusion by the authors?

You keep avoiding this point. Why?

12-09-2022 11:20PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119608873#Comment_119608873

Yea. He's not actually commented on any of the actual text of the paper. He's only harping on about one graph while ignoring the others and the context.

I really doubt he's actually read the study.

Most likely is that the graph was plastered all over the Twitter threads he follows or the anti vaxxer Facebook groups or whatever, and he just accepted their claims about it without question.

12-09-2022 11:29PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119610058#Comment_119610058

So lockdowns and masks didn't work then. It could all have been achieved with voluntary behavior shifts. No need for us to have spent 40 billion. Thanks for clarifying. That was my point all along.

Dohnjoe · 13-09-2022 01:11AM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119609654#Comment_119609654

Your views are flanked by individuals who believe space travel is faked, who believe we are ruled by a "one world government", who believe the pandemic was "pre-planned". It's a who's who of posters regularly curtailed from posting in other threads. You are relegated to expressing these types of views on the sites conspiracy theory forum. If those aren't hints to you, I don't know what is.

If you go to any health professional in this country, the medical advice they'll give you regarding Covid and the vaccines will generally be the same.

These vaccines are overwhelmingly safe, over 95% of adults in this country are vaccinated. No one here can present any coherent conspiracy.

Dohnjoe · 13-09-2022 01:31AM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119610246#Comment_119610246

Lockdowns and masks reduced the spread of the virus.

As for the rules/laws on the issue, no matter how common sense something is there are people who will ignore it unless it's enforced. Even in countries which are considered progressive with high social responsibility, it's still an issue. This is why we still need laws regarding e.g. seat belts because there are people who are simply too stupid/ignorant/selfish to wear them voluntarily.

Even during the 1918 Spanish flu pandemic, which killed tens of millions of people, there were those who opposed masks. It doesn't matter how black/white something is, sadly people cannot be relied upon.

13-09-2022 07:53AM

Lockdowns and masks reduced the spread of the virus.

Prove it. Especially masks. And "proof" is not quoting some lab study. Proof is real world data. Having said that a Danish study showed they had no effect whatsoever. A Bangladeshi study showed some small effect. Even countries with N95 mandates didn't do any better than neighboring countries without them. And we wouldn't have had so many hospital staff with COVID either if they worked. Also all the health officials and scientists were strongly against masks at the start of the pandemic.

All lockdowns achieved was to create an immune naive population that caused enormous spikes when they were lifted. And put enormous strain on health services, over a very short period of time, exactly what they were supposed to avoid. They pointed the curve instead of flattening it. We did it twice in Ireland. A better strategy would have been the original regionally based levels strategy, which was working well, and keeping COVID on a slow burn rather than a massive spike. But we abandoned that early on.

Keeping the virus out like NZ managed was the only thing that worked. And then test and trace made sense. Once you had community spread test and trace was a massive waste of money.

This is all hindsight is 20/20 stuff - but many seem to think we did fantastically well in Ireland, while the reality is we didn't considering our relatively young demographics and low population density. Sweden did better than we did adjusting for population age.

The way almost all restrictions were quietly dropped overnight after Christmas shows this very well. Lockdowns were a tool to get people vaccinated in the end. Nothing more.

I got vaccinated - because there was real data showing it worked to prevent serious illness. I wore a mask and stuck to my 5k because I had to by law. When I needed to visit my elderly mother I would have loved to have had the option of an antigen test to see if I was infectious, but they were "snake oil".

Fighting Tao · 13-09-2022 08:21AM

Bloody hell. Back to square one with the masks now? I think the bottom of the barrel has been scraped through.

13-09-2022 08:27AM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119610683#Comment_119610683

Gonna be told all the covid restrictions are permanent again in a few posts.

hometruths_real · 13-09-2022 01:04PM

It's also very funny that data extrapolation in a graph is being rooted as "aha science, we got you know" when in previous studies mentioned they were rebuked immediately as not being complete and giving the full picture.

odyssey06 · 13-09-2022 01:22PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119610246#Comment_119610246

Nope not remotely. How about responding to the points made and not your own strawman.

I said their approach doesnt scale. That their excess deaths werent even worse than their neighbours was because of the voluntary shifts. Voluntary shifts that could not be presumed to happen to the same extent elsewhere.

And implicitly if you think voluntary shifts in behaviour can make an impact then mandatory ones must also. Checkmate.

hometruths · 13-09-2022 01:56PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119611911#Comment_119611911

What is the data that is being extrapolated? Is it extremely comprehensive?

hometruths_real · 13-09-2022 02:13PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119612206#Comment_119612206

you tell me.... it's your study you posted which you clearly haven't read

hometruths · 13-09-2022 02:18PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119612335#Comment_119612335

That old chestnut. "You're wrong. But I am not going to tell you how or why".

hometruths_real · 13-09-2022 02:23PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119612383#Comment_119612383

no...it's a case of you not reading your own study you presented and haven't an answer so you're trying to gaslight...

The fact they're even using Cox's theory on statistical values shows it's an extrapolation of a subset of data

hometruths · 13-09-2022 02:27PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119612415#Comment_119612415

I have read it, and I am asking you, given your apparent superior understanding to state what subset of data it is they are extrapolating?

Dohnjoe · 13-09-2022 02:33PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119610628#Comment_119610628

Also all the health officials and scientists were strongly against masks at the start of the pandemic.

This is distorted and simply not true. In the beginning there was a) uncertainty over whether pathogens would be too small and simply pass through masks rendering them useless and b) high concern for getting the limited amounts of available PPE to relevant medical staff. As time went by and we understood the virus more, we discovered it would cling to aerosols and droplets exhaled from our mouths/noses, and that masks could reduce the spread of these and thus reduce the spread of Covid. Thus consensus built. Also, as more masks and PPE were became available on a large scale there was no longer an urgency to limit them for critical medical staff.

If you happen to meet a surgeon, ask them why they wear masks in surgery, feel free to add your views about masks during the Covid-19 pandemic and see what they think.

All lockdowns achieved was to create an immune naive population that caused enormous spikes when they were lifted.

Covid spreads due to contact between people. Lockdowns reduced that contact, reducing the spread.

A better strategy

You believe you know more or better than every individual national health body in every country around the world which took various lockdown decisions? Okay, maybe you do. This also happens to be a forum for people who believe they know more than the professionals and expert consensus.

Covid vaccines - thread banned users in First Post

Comments