Covid-19 Discussion (moderated)

But check the other sources from the UK government you can clearly see that the vaccinated are catching it more. 

What I care about is the data more than the content/wording in this article.

Just an example:

So, the wording won't really make a difference, if you take the gist of the article and see the statistics they're referencing instead.

The argument is definitely not strong enough to support vaccine mandates or anything of the sort.

Besides, I just shared the article to discuss it (100% translated, no changes). I'm not in a position to make an affirmation of whether this is true or not, nor did I mention my position towards the article/content. 

Apparently we are allowed here to talk about the Covid Disinformation and Covid Misinformation campaigns throughout the world.
And their methods.  And their tactics.
In chat rooms throughout the internet -
if somebody were to ask the question:
"How much thinking does it take to understand that if vaccination has stimulated the immune system to kill viruses within one's body - then those dead viruses can no longer spread contagion - thereby reducing the spread of the disease ...  how much thinking does it take to understand that ?"
and then whoever (could be any one or more of millions of anti-vaxxers - disinformationers and misinformationers)
then 'responds' by continually posting many links and graphs and 'peer reviews' and forty line responses that few people read ...
then what is it that is thus happening ?  
What is the idea  of that ?
Is it to try to force whoever to read through mountains of pseudoscience in order to claim the question was answered?
These are questions - not accusations.
Nobody is obliged to answer questions.

Hi Sam !
I think we're allowed to talk about the anti-vaxx campaigns in the world here.
Is that your impression Sam ?
I'd really like to hear your opinion and I really appreciate your post that I just quoted !
And we're allowed to post links here.
In fact - it even is encouraged apparently.
And earlier we had discussions about anti-vaxx gurus and quacks like Dr. Joseph Mercola.

Just now - I typed in my internet search box:
"the tactics used by anti-vaxxers"
and I got hits right away.
I think this is basic to Covid discussion and is basic to people being informed about such tactics.

Here are some of the links that appeared quickly.
Are they 'peer reviewed' ? 
Well if they're about tactics - they may not need to be.
Perhaps the source does matter ... for example I would think that Reddit and Quora wouldn't be great sources.  So I'll avoid those.

https://www.thedoctorstv.com/videos/find-out-the-5-tactics-anti-vaxxers-use-to-manipulate-people

https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/29/perspectives/covid-19-vaccine-anti-vaxxers-social-media-cults/index.html

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-anti-vaxxer-playbook-to-destroy-confidence-in-covid-19-vaccines/

https://www.sciencealert.com/here-s-how-to-debunk-every-anti-vaxxer-argument-with-science

And I am just sharing the disclaimer on the bottom of the very PDFs being misinterpreted in the article:

"These data should be considered in the context of vaccination status of the population groups
shown in the rest of this report. The vaccination status of cases, inpatients and deaths is not the
most appropriate method to assess vaccine effectiveness and there is a high risk of
misinterpretation. Vaccine effectiveness has been formally estimated from a number of different
sources and is described earlier in this report.

In the context of very high vaccine coverage in the population, even with a highly effective
vaccine, it is expected that a large proportion of cases, hospitalisations and deaths would occur
in vaccinated individuals, simply because a larger proportion of the population are vaccinated
than unvaccinated and no vaccine is 100% effective. This is especially true because vaccination
has been prioritised in individuals who are more susceptible or more at risk of severe disease.
Individuals in risk groups may also be more at risk of hospitalisation or death due to nonCOVID-19 causes, and thus may be hospitalised or die with COVID-19 rather than because of
COVID-19."

I make more allowances for this type of posting from newcomers to the thread.  You no longer have this distinction.  If you want to make a point about some new wrinkle that you would like to argue changes the scientific consensus or what have you, then go ahead and post your wrinkle, and you may even attempt to link sources that might turn out to be dubious if you do not know that they are, within reason. 

This article isn't just borderline.  It's beyond.  When you chose something from "The Expose" and "Resistance Mondiale", you knew that.  But given that it draws a "we'll know in the next few weeks" line in the sand, I'm good it being posted as it will be a good lesson a month from now when it fails to prove out, and because you haven't posted in a while and aren't peppering the thread with misinformation regularly.

Just be aware that further "tossing out" of such articles without comment and then trying to imply you are not advocating yeah or nay, "just putting them out there", will not be allowed to continue.

     My concern is his 1st assumption....... "I think we're allowed to talk about the anti-vaxx campaigns in the world here".      Actually we're not.  Even though btickler does a good job of regulating the thread,...Staff monitors it also because millions of people are dying from this virus. If your not posting good science, your wasting everybody's time.

Scientific refutations of anti-vaxx campaigns is good science.
And how to deal with anti-vaxx campaigns is good science too.
And both could save many lives.
Saving lives is not wasting time.  I wonder why you'd think so.

   Ok, I apologize.....  "I'd think so" because we know more today than the early days of the pandemic 2 yrs ago. Remember when people thought that stocking up on toilet paper would save them?

That was funny 

The 'apologize' there might be legitimate.
Because you said 'I'd' - not 'I'.
And no - your post about toilet paper not 'good science'.
Remember this ?
"If your not posting good science, your wasting everybody's time."
So maybe you should put that toilet paper science 'behind you'.  

  But given that it draws a "we'll know in the next few weeks" line in the sand, I'm good it being posted as it will be a good lesson a month from now when it fails to prove out, and because you haven't posted in a while and aren't peppering the thread with misinformation regularly."

I don't mind waiting for a month but people would have gotten a 4th shot by then. We'll probably need to wait for the same pattern to repeat again.

""This article isn't just borderline.  It's beyond.  When you chose something from "The Expose" and "Resistance Mondiale", you knew that."

1) I re-posted the whole article's translation in english so that everyone can understand what's written.

2) I don't really see what exactly is wrong with the article. The sources may have a history of being averse vaccine, but the data is taken from the UK gov. The only thing is the data interpretation, which can be made independantly by any reasonable reader. Plus, are all provax sources reliable? Conflicts of interest is a huge problem and some pro-vax sources hide it but it's so blatant it only takes a little bit of research and reason.

Big Pharmas have a history of corruption/conflicts of interest:  

https://aulnaycap-com.translate.goog/2021/10/03/conflits-dinteret-entre-big-pharma-loms-et-ses-financeurs-les-medecins-du-conseil-scientifique-de-macron-et-ceux-des-plateaux-tv/?_x_tr_sl=fr&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=sc

https://medor-coop.translate.goog/nos-questions/openpharma-sante-transparence-financement-betransparent/episodes/transparence-en-pharma-les-comptes-dapothicaire/?full=1&_x_tr_sl=fr&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=sc

Plus remember what happened with Purdue and opioid?

And this:

https://www-consultor-fr.translate.goog/articles/opioides-le-parlement-us-ouvre-une-enquete-sur-le-role-de-mckinsey?_x_tr_sl=fr&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=sc

When Pfizer's assets (about 180B in 2021) are just lower than New-Zealand's PGD (190B), the marketing power you have with this is insane. Plus the documents that were initially meant to be hidden for 50 years. I'm sorry, but EVERY citizen has the right not to trust.

I wouldn't mind waiting a month but people would have gotten a 4th shot by then, which boosts people's immunity as mentioned in the article. So 'the next few weeks', I think, refers to waiting for the same pattern as after the 3rd shot.

I posted the whole translated article because I wanted non-french speakers to understand. But actually, it would be just easier to translate from the main page.

 "Vaccine effectiveness has been formally estimated from a number of different
sources and is described earlier in this report."

Well, an example of a source: The Pfizer docs:

According to this biostatistician with an expertise of 23 years who's worked with some of the biggest pharma industries, they do not follow Good Clinical Practices

https://christine-cotton.1ere-page.fr/expertise-in-english/

Plus, some of them are extremely outdated (Alpha variant vs current Omicron). This article is saying that after a while of receiving a shot, people are acquiring a syndrome of immunodeficiency. How long are patients monitored in those studies? Do they include any potential biases? Do their monitors have conflicts of interest? Do any of the studies cancel the data shown in this article?

""These data should be considered in the context of vaccination status of the population groups
shown in the rest of this report. The vaccination status of cases, inpatients and deaths is not the
most appropriate method to assess vaccine effectiveness and there is a high risk of
misinterpretation. Vaccine effectiveness has been formally estimated from a number of different
sources and is described earlier in this report.""

Well, at least that's the way Pfizer calculated their vaccine efficacy in their clinical trial phase three. 

100* (n of infections in unvax - n infections vax) / n of infections in unvax

""In the context of very high vaccine coverage in the population, even with a highly effective
vaccine, it is expected that a large proportion of cases, hospitalisations and deaths would occur
in vaccinated individuals, simply because a larger proportion of the population are vaccinated
than unvaccinated and no vaccine is 100% effective. ""

The graphs shown in the article, the one I showed earlier is the number of vax cases per 100,000 of the population. And therefore there is no reason for number of vax cases to be higher than the number of unvax cases which is frequent in these reports.

""This is especially true because vaccination
has been prioritised in individuals who are more susceptible or more at risk of severe disease.
Individuals in risk groups may also be more at risk of hospitalisation or death due to nonCOVID-19 causes, and thus may be hospitalised or die with COVID-19 rather than because of
COVID-19.""

Forget hospitalizations because the article is about infections. But even then, that is also true for the unvaccinated. They can die with COVID rather than from COVID. 

Finally, no potential bias suggests that efficacy can even come close to go from -126% to anywhere near 95%.

Let me be unequivocally clear here.  It doesn't matter what one person working in biostatistics says.  It doesn't matter what some spreadsheet-jockey at The Expose says.  It doesn't matter what Jean Claude Van Damme says.  It doesn't matter if the bat that was the initial vector for the virus flew into your window and told you that they started the pandemic.  It doesn't matter if your sources could somehow be right.  It doesn't matter that they most assuredly are not.

Do not post any more of this stuff here.  What do you think you are doing by posting it here, even if you are right?  The very fact that you are posting *here* belies your belief in the dangers you are trying to propagate.  If you are so intent on saving everyone from impending doom that is so imminent it is measured in weeks, track down the proper medical authorities in France and argue with them, then get them to disseminate their findings and save everyone, then track down a reporter from a reputable source, like the Washington Post for example, and get *them* to write an "expose" using the hard data.  

Then come back here and you can post it... 

LONG COVID is a new word or better, new definition.

it is a long-term sequel that affects people who have caught the disease. It can lasts months, even years.

There is no point for me in persisting in this approach. I should have probably argued around the british gov data right away. 

But:

1) If that one person working in biostatistics is wrong in this case, why would there be no refutation to what she says? Plus, nothing suggests she's got a history of misinfo. With the expertise, surely that's reliable? Surely what she says has to 'matter'.

2) What do I think I'm doing? Well, it's a thread. I would have hoped for a scientific refutation in the best scenario. If there is no refutation, then I'm defending the unvaxed rights.

3) You're too convinced there is no money/corruption/conflicts of interest.

There is no point however, in trying to argue further about this. People have always disagreed, but when a certain point of view is mandated on somebody else it's just wrong, especially when it's in relation with one's own body choice.

   Chamo....  your more than welcome to start your own thread if you think its important enough. 

There is only one allowed thread for COVID on this site and it's this one.

   Sorry, I forgot about that......now you know why the OP, & Staff want to keep good sources. 

(1) There's not enough time or goodwill in the world for every individual backseat driver to have the reasons for driving a certain route be explained.  If there *is* an issue, it will gain consensus and rise up the ranks.  

(2) The opinion piece you provided does not require a scientific refutation, because it's based on somebody grabbing some publicly available PDFs and then misinterpreting them, not on any science.  The "refutation" is that this article has gone nowhere, and that's a reliable refutation.  If a tabloid story says "Aliens living in the basement of Notre Dame", the refutation of said article is that it never gets picked up by the real news sources...and that is all that is required for our purposes here in this thread.  We're not here to solve Covid-19. 

If everyone online that has gotten ahold of some misinformation and then passed it to somebody else as you have done here were required to be individually refuted, then the world would starve from lack of time for the entire human race to do anything else.  It's the responsibility of individuals to learn how to to be more discerning, not for everyone else to educate them every time they run across some new misinformation, which is an unsustainable burden.  This is true across the board in every walk of life.

(3) I'm not at all convinced...but that matters little for this thread.  Actual conflicts of interest, while they may try to be hidden, will eventually expose themselves.  We won't be the ones that blow some secret conspiracy wide open .

(4) There's no viewpoint mandated here.  Only a standard of presentation.  If France is actually forcing vaccinations against people's wills, then you should take it up with the authorities there.  You can even lament about it here and decry the practice, provided you stay away from extrapolating that into a reason to post outside the guidelines.

(1) The issue is there. What the pfizer clinical trial studies suggest (95% efficacy) or other safety evaluations were never true in the real life scenario. Though the same individuals who gave the approval, or for instance mentioned we could go maskless in indoor areas if we're vaccinated are still the most trusted nowadays.

(2) Agreed. Though the article does state that time will tell in this case. But to be fair the more I think about it the more I realize the article was a gaf.

(3) There is a big difference betweeyn conspiracies and corruption. A conspiracy theory would suggest that the whole COVID pandemic was human initiated for some profit. But the true story can just be one of the authorities taking advantage, rather than initiating.

Otherwise, agreed we do not have the resources to expose corruption etc.. but it might be too late just like with Purdue. But fear/doubts won't make a single difference or blowing any secret affairs wide open as you say just like most communications won't really make a difference as to what ends up happening.

   California is seeing Covid cases rise 63%.....                                                             https://www.yahoo.com/news/california-coronavirus-spread-significantly-worsen-120044254.html  

Just looked at the Covid worldometer site.  Some graphs.
Daily new cases in USA heading back up to around 125 thousand a day.
Worldwide new cases running at about 800 thousand a day.

This website indicates France mandated new vaccine regulations in August last year.
Good for Them !
https://www.republicworld.com/world-news/europe/france-imposes-new-rules-for-adults-mandates-vaccination-certification-for-public-visits.html

One can 'lament' about that.
Or one can be pleased that france is saving the lives of people there.
And that Australia has made an even bigger effort and therefore is saving an even larger percentage of its citizens.
Perhaps I'll now be quickly quoted and there'll be graphs and 'questions'.
Fortunately I and others are not compelled to read through mountains of pseudoscience and cherrypicked statistics that distort the real situation.