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

1377378380382383419

Comments

  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,703 ✭✭✭hometruths


    On what are you basing your claim there has been a significant rise in vaccine confidence?



  • Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Lol. Seriously?

    The study you posted. (Or rather posted a article from an obscure Welsh News site that talks about a study, but doesn't link to it.)

    You didn't read it, clearly.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,507 ✭✭✭Fighting Tao


    You seem to have a knack of reading things that aren’t stated, and getting caught out on it. Different people have different competencies and maybe understanding research papers is not for you.



  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,703 ✭✭✭hometruths


    It's amusing given our previous discussions about using graphical representations of the findings of studies to make claims that are not stated in the text, that you should suddenly be interpreting Figure 8 as a "significant rise in vaccine confidence."

    The text says:

    "Non-parametric tests highlighted a statistically significant decline in vaccine confidence in the 2022 cohort compared to the 2019 cohort"

    "vaccine confidence has significantly declined since the onset of the pandemic"

    "This study provides evidence that vaccine confidence was significantly lower in the cohort surveyed in 2022 compared to the pre-pandemic cohort."

    Yet you say the study shows a significant rise in confidence? Can you quote the text that says there has been a "significant rise in vaccine confidence" or is that just your interpretation of Figure 8?



  • Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    So according to yourself, and despite the diagram I posted, the study does not show that vaccine confidence increased by 21.6%?

    Why would I need to provide you the text for this? The graph clearly shows it.


    But here you go:

    When participants in the 2022 cohort were asked to self-assess their vaccine confidence since the COVID-19 pandemic, 54.6% reported no change in confidence, 23.8% a decrease in confidence, and 21.6% an increase in confidence

    And

    The comparison of two convenience samples surveyed in 2019 and 2022 highlighted that, while the internal trends were relatively consistent within each cohort, there was a decline in vaccine confidence scores following the COVID-19 pandemic irrespective of the participants’ gender, age, graduate status, ethnicity and religious belief. Despite abundant epidemiological evidence of the safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines, only approximately 1 in 5 participants of the 2022 cohort self-assessed their vaccine confidence as having increased since the pandemic; the majority of participants reported that their confidence remained unchanged or even decreased. 



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,703 ✭✭✭hometruths


    It does not show that vaccine confidence increased by 21.6%.

    It shows that 21.6% of respondents self-reported an increase in vaccine confidence.

    This self reporting question was not used to calculate the vaccine confidence score.



  • Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Lol Ok. If you say so man. I'm sure you read it beyond the facebook post or the random Welsh Local news site.

    What's this have to do with extreme pro vaxxers?



  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,703 ✭✭✭hometruths


    It's not that I say so. The study says so:

    Table 1. Questions used in the study. The questions marked with a single asterisk (*) were used in the calculation of the Vaccine Confidence Score (VCS). Questions relative to the COVID-19 pandemic (marked with **) were only used in the 2022 survey.



  • Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Ok. I'm sure that you didn't just now read the study rather than a tweet or the Welsh local news cause you were getting painted into a corner again.

    This somehow means that there wasn't a 21.6% percent increase in vaccine confidence.

    What's this to do with extreme provaxxers?



  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,703 ✭✭✭hometruths



    We've covered extreme pro-vaxxers:

    I avoided these points because your claim that there is no such thing as extreme pro vaxxers is simply a matter of your opinion. In my opinion there are people who are extremely pro vaccine and I have given some examples of why I hold that opinion.

    I get it that you don't share my opinion. So what. That does not mean it is wrong.

    No point in going back and forth on this difference of opinion. It inhibits more relevant and interesting discussion. That may be your intention, but it is certainly not mine.



  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    But even if I don't believe that EPVs exist (they don't, as you aren't actually able to define the term) You can still explain what this study has to do with them.

    But you can't, because it has nothing to do with the made up term. You're just trying to avoid it as you're avoiding how completely you've misrepresented a study you found and social media and didn't actually read.

    Again.

    As you say, there's no point in discussing this further.



  • Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Now, to address the claim that this increase in vaccine hesitancy is due to "revisionism around the covid vaccines' spurious efficacy".

    We know this is unlikely to be the case as the author of the study that hometruths is trying to claim shows this said:

    This study suggests that paradoxically, despite the success of COVID-19 vaccination campaigns, vaccine confidence has significantly declined since the onset of the pandemic; the comparison of a pre- and post-pandemic cohort sheds light on the differential effect that the pandemic had on vaccine confidence in different demographic groups.

    If the author is claiming that the vaccine campaigns were a success, then it's not reasonable to believe that "revisionism around the covid vaccines" is a likely explanation. Unless of course once again we are to be told that an anti-vaxxer knows the topic and data in the paper than the person who wrote it. Or we are to get vague hints that the author is somehow being influenced to make a false statement or change the conclusions in his study.


    On the flip side, there's a bunch of actual evidence that shows the effect of vaccine misinformation on people's confidence in the vaccines and willingness to get them:

    Abstract


    Widespread acceptance of a vaccine for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) will be the next major step in fighting the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, but achieving high uptake will be a challenge and may be impeded by online misinformation. To inform successful vaccination campaigns, we conducted a randomized controlled trial in the UK and the USA to quantify how exposure to online misinformation around COVID-19 vaccines affects intent to vaccinate to protect oneself or others. Here we show that in both countries—as of September 2020—fewer people would ‘definitely’ take a vaccine than is likely required for herd immunity, and that, relative to factual information, recent misinformation induced a decline in intent of 6.2 percentage points (95th percentile interval 3.9 to 8.5) in the UK and 6.4 percentage points (95th percentile interval 4.0 to 8.8) in the USA among those who stated that they would definitely accept a vaccine. We also find that some sociodemographic groups are differentially impacted by exposure to misinformation. Finally, we show that scientific-sounding misinformation is more strongly associated with declines in vaccination intent.


    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8528483/

    Findings


    High levels of misinformation exposure were observed among participants, with 73% reporting some exposure to misinformation about COVID-19 vaccines in the past 6 months. Exposure to misinformation was directly correlated with vaccine hesitancy. Among those who did not report any exposure to misinformation, 73.8% of respondents were vaccinated. That number fell to 62.9% with exposure to just one misinformation theme and 52.2% for six or more (χ2 = 11.349; φ = 0.138; p ≤ 0.05). Politicization was also found to be a major factor in vaccine hesitancy, with 73.4% of self-identified Democrats being vaccinated, compared to only 58.5% of Republicans and 56.5% of Independents (χ2 = 16.334; φ = 0.165; p ≤ 0.001). Both misinformation exposure and political affiliation were strong predictors of vaccination even after accounting for other demographic predictors.


    Results


    Looking across U.S. states, we observe a negative association between vaccination uptake rates and online misinformation (Pearson R = –0.49, p < 0.001). Investigating covariates known to be associated with vaccine uptake or hesitancy, we find that an increase in the mean amount of online misinformation is significantly associated with a decrease in daily vaccination rates per million

    This study in particular points out some examples of sources of vaccine misinformation:

    Untitled Image

    A lot of which we've seen on this thread at one point or another.



  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,703 ✭✭✭hometruths


    Now, to address the claim that this increase in vaccine hesitancy is due to "revisionism around the covid vaccines' spurious efficacy".

    We know this is unlikely to be the case as the author of the study that hometruths is trying to claim shows this said:

    You know as well as I do, that I did not claim this study shows this.

    I said that this study shows a significant decline in vaccine confidence. And I think that decline is interesting because I have been posting for a while that the revisionism around the covid vaccines will lead to a decline in confidence.

    To remind you:

    I thought it was noteworthy because I have been saying time and again on here that the revisionism around the covid vaccines' spurious efficacy has damaged confidence in vaccines overall.

    This study suggests that vaccine confidence has significantly declined since the pandemic.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 36,512 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    21 percent of people reported an increase in confidence.

    23 percent reported a decrease in confidence

    But given that the 2019 cohort is a much smaller group composed of a entirely different set of people to the larger 2022 group... as the study notes, it may be that that there was no actual change overall.

    In my opinion it would be correct to say that views about vaccines have polarised given the shift in both directions.

    This is borne out by other studies and reflects polarizing trends in society which predate covid but which it crystallized

    https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5370(20)30131-0/fulltext

    "To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 330 ✭✭cezanne


    Now thatwe have rehomed 55k plus unvacccinated Ukranians ( they had the lowest up take in europe less than 30%). I think the government & 95% of the population should apologise for vilifying the 5 % who decided to place their trust in the natural immune system of mother nature. We were vilified and treated like lepers and now it has all disappeared & all is forgiven ( but not forgotten). Put an irishman on a spit and you will always find 2 irishmen to tturn the spit, still applies even today & more than ever fcuk Covid & the stupid vaccines. .



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,304 ✭✭✭patnor1011


    Oh that desperate need to lump people together in order to assign some label on their back and completely dismiss everything they may say if it collide to your own beliefs :)

    Some people take this as some sort of a dogma where not a single deviation is allowed refusing to acknowledge that people may hold different and sometimes even contradictory beliefs.

    I find it amusing how one will be called antivaxxer for not taking mrna injection when they do not fall in vulnerable category or they had covid already which resulted in far more superior natural immunity.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 36,512 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    Great takedown of the extreme pro vaccine label. Fair play... cos you do realise it would be hypocritical to only object to the labels you disagree with...

    Oh and natural immunity wanes too especially v different strains.

    "To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,304 ✭✭✭patnor1011


    It was never 95%, actually not even close since it was always just a media spin. A lot of the people took it because they were told that they will not be able to travel, go to the pub or get out of their house even. Give them some leeway and they will be claiming that substantial meals defeated covid. :)



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,304 ✭✭✭patnor1011


    You read what you want to see. I do not care you guys call me antivaxx since for me it is just another pointless overused label like racism or nacism, the more you flung these at the people the more they lose any meaning.

    You are on the other side of this extreme and covid brought a lot of this primal fear out. There are not just extreme pro vaxxers but also pro maskers and people who would love to see everything and everyone locked up again...

    Thankfully sanity prevailed and world is slowly getting back to normal.

    Even you, it is a baby steps for you but I am glad you agree with my post and the fact I mentioned that mrna injection is not needed for people who are not in vulnerable category or who had infection already.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 36,512 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    And there is the total hypocrisy as predicted.

    Posts objecting to labels then throws out labels as slogans but only those on the opposing side of the debate, thereby completing undermining their previous post.

    So no I dont agree with your previous post, I was showing how hollow it would prove to be.

    Vaccines are one of the main reasons things are coming back to normal.

    "To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,304 ✭✭✭patnor1011


    Ah the vanity again... On the contrary, they had pretty much nothing to do with it. It was nature with omicron and simple fact that governments (those who tried) could not afford to keep the party going any longer. They brought us recession and probably worse but we live and we learn.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 36,512 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    Vanity? Thats a novel deflection to try when your post has been shown up to be an exercise in hypocrisy. You were hoist on your own petard.

    We saw what happened in Hong Kong when Omicron hit a vulnerable unvaxxed population.

    And what were we supposed to do in 2021 ... wait in hope for Omicron or something similar?

    So to state vaccines had nothing to do with it is entirely without evidence or foundation. And they are vaccines. Look how you how to resort to mrna injections nonsense.

    Arent most vaccines given as injections? Why are you trying to label the use of injections as a fear word?

    "To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,304 ✭✭✭patnor1011


    Your fixation on Hong Kong is legendary but sadly it is the only example you can use. That is simply due to the fact that there are very few places like that where people live in shoeboxes shoved on top of each other and spent year in isolation. If nothing then it was and always will be a petri dish and any comparison with the rest of the world is pointless.

    What we were supposed to do in 2021 is pretty obvious now. Total opposite of what we did. We would be able to save more lives which were lost dispatching old and vulnerable to the nursing houses where they could not get care they had before in hospitals. Everyone knows that at this stage anyway.



  • Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    There's no such thing as extreme pro vaxxers. There's no such thing as extreme pro maskers.

    No one "would love to see people locked up".



  • Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    OK. So the study you linked to via an obscure Welsh news site has nothing at all to do with "revisionism" either.

    You just think it's "interesting"



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 36,512 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    Hong Kong shows what happens when Omicron hits an unvaxxed vulnerable population.

    Why would 'shoeboxes' matter?

    Omicron already emerged so how a petri dish effect comes into it only you seem to understand - but it aint science.

    The reason why we dont have other examples to point to is because of the scale and success of the vaccine rollout.

    Either you expose your vulnerable to covid at some point - and see many of them die. Or you protect them until you have vaccinated them.

    It is obvious you have no way to rebut HK as proof of this other than poor attempts at deflection like 'legendary'.

    It is not a legend.

    It happened.

    And people died from Omicron who could have lived had they been vaccinated.

    "To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)



  • Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    For reference, and to contrast the complete lack of definition of the made up term "extreme pro vaxxer"...


    You are not an anti vaxxer because you don't want to get the vaccine.

    You are an anti vaxxer because you believe and spread a wide variety of false and debunked claims about the vaccine. You are an anti vaxxer because you repeatly use dishonesty to defend those beliefs. You are an anti vaxxer because you keep linking to propaganda mills like natural news and epoch times as well as grifters to support your claims.

    You are an antivaxxer because you oppose vaccines to an irrational level and to the point that you refuse to call them vaccines.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 36,512 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    Frankly it is embarrassing to be called an extreme pro vaxxer.

    Clearly I am a super mega stage 4 xTreme pro vaxxer and any labels not addressed in my proper title will be treated with disdain.

    * I have tried reasoning with posters on labels but sometimes, sarcasm is the only course to highlight the hollowness of a position

    "To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)



  • Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    You only say that cause you haven't been given the all clear like I have.

    I'm officially not an extreme pro vaxxer according to our resident labelers.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,343 ✭✭✭dwayneshintzy


    This is a completely nonsensical view of what happened in HK. Small apartments had nothing to do with the disaster that started back in January; people did not spend a year in isolation either.



Advertisement