5 ms·

Failed as in the vaccines, that were being advertised as being 95% effective with no talk of any boosters only 6 months ago, no longer provide any protection at

Failed as in the vaccines, that were being advertised as being 95% effective with no talk of any boosters only 6 months ago, no longer provide any protection at all. As for the vaccines forcing mutation, SA is only 25% vaccinated so that doesn't work. Have the vaccines succeeded in preventing many people from dying? That is something for history to judge. There just isn't good enough data on vaccine deaths to judge that at the moment. The problem for COVID vaccines is that whilst they may some people from dying of COVID, not many life years are saved because almost all the COVID deaths are concentrated in the very elderly. Meanwhile vaccine injuries are a looming iceberg because they aren't being properly tracked or recorded. The number of random cardiac failures in athletes is well up this year and eventually people will stop being in denial about the reasons. The long term damage from this programme can be judged in five or ten years. However, if Omicron does display Delta as it appears to be doing very rapidly, we can say that at most the vaccines were useful for maybe 6-8 months. Bearing in mind you aren't "vaccinated" until your second dose and there's a gap.

chimprich 5y ago
> Have the vaccines succeeded in preventing many people from dying? That is something for history to judge Please don't post this nonsense on HN. There's ample evidence for vaccines saving the lives of millions.
Sohcahtoa82 5y ago
I don't think I've ever seen so many wrong sentences in a single HN comment. I would love to go through and debunk them all, but I don't have the time or the crayons, nor would I think it would be effective in changing your beliefs. You're too far gone.
romwell 5y ago
All I ask in response to this comment is that if you do get COVID, please post somewhere on HN so that you could be properly nominated for the Herman Cain award[1]. Thank you in advance. [1]https://old.reddit.com/r/HermanCainAward/ https://old.reddit.com/r/HermanCainAward/
ADSSDA 5y ago
> Failed as in the vaccines, that were being advertised as being 95% effective with no talk of any boosters only 6 months ago, no longer provide any protection at all. It's disappointing to see complete lies like this on HN. Vaccines have been, and remain, incredibly effective in preventing hospitalization/death, even without a booster (although everyone should also get their booster).
- native_samples 5y ago
  And why do we think that? Because public health agencies said so? It's not because the trials proved it - they didn't. At only ~64,000 participants the e.g. Pfizer trial was not powered to show any difference to deaths and didn't use hospitalizations as a goal metric either, only infections. And so we're forced to rely on the testimony of the same people in charge of the program, where their data is often missing or deceptive in some way. For example Germany has been claiming nearly all cases occur in the unvaccinated. It turned out this wasn't true. Rather, they don't have data at all on the status of most cases, and then reallocate all the "unknown" column to "unvaccinated" because ... well, why not? No matter what they do, plenty of people will still take their word for everything. This was revealed by Die Welt and the response was nothing. They still do it, as far as I know. The UK data is usually considered to be the best, as in, the most detailed. And there, when the data on deaths is studied carefully it turns out to be riddled with anomalies and problems that cast doubt on whether vaccines did in fact reduce mortality (the numbers are low enough that statistical artifacts can actually matter). For example, in the UK data vaccination reduces non-COVID deaths in unvaccinated people. Don't take my word for it, ask a professor of risk management: http://probabilityandlaw.blogspot.com/2021/12/possible-systematic-miscategorisation.html http://probabilityandlaw.blogspot.com/2021/12/possible-syste... "Our research team have now analysed the ONS England November mortality data. We conclude that, despite seeming evidence to support vaccine effectiveness, this conclusion is doubtful because of a range of serious inconsistencies and anomalies", "The ONS data provide no reliable evidence that the vaccines reduce all-cause mortality."
  - ADSSDA 5y ago
    I don't have to trust public health agencies. I can go look up the numbers in my local hospital or ask family members who work there. >90% of ICU cases and deaths are unvaccinated. Hand wavy arguments about "the data is bad!" from a non-peer reviewed paper with 0 citations does not convince me that you're arguing in good faith.

chimprich 5y ago

> Have the vaccines succeeded in preventing many people from dying? That is something for history to judge Please don't post this nonsense on HN. There's ample evidence for vaccines saving the lives of millions.

Sohcahtoa82 5y ago

I don't think I've ever seen so many wrong sentences in a single HN comment. I would love to go through and debunk them all, but I don't have the time or the crayons, nor would I think it would be effective in changing your beliefs. You're too far gone.

romwell 5y ago

All I ask in response to this comment is that if you do get COVID, please post somewhere on HN so that you could be properly nominated for the Herman Cain award[1]. Thank you in advance. [1]https://old.reddit.com/r/HermanCainAward/ https://old.reddit.com/r/HermanCainAward/

ADSSDA 5y ago

> Failed as in the vaccines, that were being advertised as being 95% effective with no talk of any boosters only 6 months ago, no longer provide any protection at all. It's disappointing to see complete lies like this on HN. Vaccines have been, and remain, incredibly effective in preventing hospitalization/death, even without a booster (although everyone should also get their booster).

native_samples 5y ago
And why do we think that? Because public health agencies said so? It's not because the trials proved it - they didn't. At only ~64,000 participants the e.g. Pfizer trial was not powered to show any difference to deaths and didn't use hospitalizations as a goal metric either, only infections. And so we're forced to rely on the testimony of the same people in charge of the program, where their data is often missing or deceptive in some way. For example Germany has been claiming nearly all cases occur in the unvaccinated. It turned out this wasn't true. Rather, they don't have data at all on the status of most cases, and then reallocate all the "unknown" column to "unvaccinated" because ... well, why not? No matter what they do, plenty of people will still take their word for everything. This was revealed by Die Welt and the response was nothing. They still do it, as far as I know. The UK data is usually considered to be the best, as in, the most detailed. And there, when the data on deaths is studied carefully it turns out to be riddled with anomalies and problems that cast doubt on whether vaccines did in fact reduce mortality (the numbers are low enough that statistical artifacts can actually matter). For example, in the UK data vaccination reduces non-COVID deaths in unvaccinated people. Don't take my word for it, ask a professor of risk management: http://probabilityandlaw.blogspot.com/2021/12/possible-systematic-miscategorisation.html http://probabilityandlaw.blogspot.com/2021/12/possible-syste... "Our research team have now analysed the ONS England November mortality data. We conclude that, despite seeming evidence to support vaccine effectiveness, this conclusion is doubtful because of a range of serious inconsistencies and anomalies", "The ONS data provide no reliable evidence that the vaccines reduce all-cause mortality."
- ADSSDA 5y ago
  I don't have to trust public health agencies. I can go look up the numbers in my local hospital or ask family members who work there. >90% of ICU cases and deaths are unvaccinated. Hand wavy arguments about "the data is bad!" from a non-peer reviewed paper with 0 citations does not convince me that you're arguing in good faith.