Covid vaccines - thread banned users in First Post

Just like odyssey, second post in a row, you've now switched to addressing a claim that I didn't make: whether or not the vaccines should have been approved. I have consistently said I understand why they were approved, the regulators acted in good faith and were correct to approve based on the data available.

But what kicked off the current tit for tat was you challenging this claim I made:

And now you are unable to rely on the lazy "You don't understand" tactic, you've actually tried to argue the point and discovered you cannot actually find anything to contradict it, despite blindly contradicting it for the last six months.

And whilst you have in the past expressly told me that other posters have proven with links that the primary function of the Covid vaccines was intended to be something other than to prevent symptomatic cases of Covid, you are unable to find these other posters links, or any of your own.

So with that realisation you just shift over to "Trials showed very good effectiveness and safety, I'm not the slightest bit surprised they were approved" and "Considering how good the results were I don't see any glaring reason why they wouldn't have been approved", as if by addressing claims I didn't make, you can somehow imply that I did.

I totally accept you genuinely believed that you would easily find reams of material to back up your contradiction, and your challenging my views was in good faith. You just knew I was wrong, because sure doesn't everybody know that the vaccines were only approved to prevent severe disease and death, and not to prevent infections? Except anti-vaxxer loons.

You knew this in just the same way everybody knew the Emperor's new clothes were stunning. They had seen no evidence of it themselves, but everybody else said it was true, so it must be true.

There were a mixture of expectations in late 2020, it wasn't a singular thing. I previously posted examples of scientists and experts at the time urging caution regarding the performance of the vaccines.

Sure, there were those who cautioned they might not be as effective at preventing symptomatic infection as hoped/expected based on the trial data. But the fact remains that they were approved specifically on the back of the trial data to prevent symptomatic infection, not to reduce severity of symptoms.

Likewise there were a mixture of key aims/goals/objectives of the vaccine rollout. Depends on source and interpretation.

The emergency use approval does not allow for interpretation. It is specific and unambiguous. The indication the vaccines were approved for is to prevent infection.

As posted before, this is exactly why infections in the vaccinated are referred to as breakthrough infections - because they have broken through the protection that the vaccines were intended to provide.

it's more like influenza, mutates and evolves a lot, hence vaccine effectiveness has reduced in some respects, and we need boosters.

The comparison with the flu is very valid in this context because it just another example of the evidence there is a narrative around covid vaccines.

Pre Covid the performance of flu vaccines was routinely described as disappointing because of the volume of infections in vaccinated people - these were referred as breakthrough infections and cases of vaccine failure, in line with international agreed medical terminologies.

It was recognised that having a poorly performing vaccine was better than nothing, but the consensus was that there was a need for a significantly more effective flu vaccine. The difficulties of flu mutating and evolving variants were seen as hurdles that needed to be overcome by better vaccine development rather than excuses for a poorly performing vaccine.

Equally it was recognised that vaccination had some value in alleviating the symptoms in the breakthrough infections, this was better than nothing, but no more than that. It was certainly not hailed as the vaccines working as intended. Quite the opposite.

By way of illustration consider the following two articles on flu vaccines and covid vaccines, written in the same publication by the same author on the essentially the same aspect of vaccines - the need for better protection from a more universal vaccine.

The one on flu vaccine was written in 2017 and titled "Why flu vaccines so often fail" and like all good journalists, he sets the tone in opening paragraph with a well chosen quote (empahsis mine):

The one on covid vaccines was written in July 2022 and titled "Why efforts to make better, more universal coronavirus vaccines are struggling" - again the author sets the tone in the opening paragraph with a well chosen quote (emphasis mine):

So can you explain why in 2017 vaccines that did poorly to prevent infections, but did alleviate the severity of those infections would be described as "terribly indequate" whereas in 2022 vaccines that do poorly to prevent infections, but do alleviate the severity infections are described as "terrific"?

What's the difference?

Yep, totally agree, that's what I mean when I say the contrast between the discussion of flu vaccines vs covid vaccines is just another example of the evidence there is a narrative around covid vaccines.

Indications? Any links where we can read more about these underestimates?

Thanks. The American study certainly makes a strong argument that the CDC are more than capable of underestimating the number of deaths caused, and dramatically so.

The authors are assuming that heat is capable of aggravating and hastening death from another cause, (which seems a reasonable assumption), and thus built a model looking at death rates during times of increased temperatures to try and estimate the level of deaths caused by but not attributed to heat:

All very plausible indeed.