4 ms·

That first study is about alpha. Why is it relevant? Yes, technically, all you have to show is some miniscule VE above 0% to be correct. But when you position

That first study is about alpha. Why is it relevant? Yes, technically, all you have to show is some miniscule VE above 0% to be correct. But when you position it as "well its not 100%", but it's closer to 0% than 100%, isn't that misleading? Here's one in a very specific subset (kids 5 to 11 for omicron): https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35767475/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35767475/ It shows 51% efficacy at 7 to 21 days after the second dose. That will quickly be closer to 0% than 100%. Presumably, a year after that series, virtually everyone in that cohort that was able to contract covid will have done so. Here is some interesting evidence on heart issues in unvaccinated covid patients: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35456309/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35456309/ > We did not observe an increased incidence of neither pericarditis nor myocarditis in adult patients recovering from COVID-19 infection. I can't speak to whether the study is sound or not, but some food for thought on your point about myocarditis.

lern_too_spel 4y ago
> That first study is about alpha. Why is it relevant? Why do you keep forgetting that this thread is about whether the the public health agencies lied about whether the vaccine prevents infections, despite the fact that I've repeatedly pointed that out? Once again, it prevents infections, we've known that for a very long time, and that's why it's relevant. > I can't speak to whether the study is sound or not, but some food for thought on your point about myocarditis. You should be because the very article we are in a discussion thread for is about that. It is a newer paper showing that COVID-19 infection carries a significantly greater risk of myocarditis than the Pfizer vaccine and that vaccinated people have reduced risk of myocarditis even if they get infected.
- ifyoubuildit 4y ago
  Oh, well thats where the confusion is. I didn't forget anything. Maybe I didn't make this clear enough, but my only interest in this thread was responding to this: > The vaccine is known to prevent infections, just not 100%. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34551224/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34551224/ Which is a kind of odd statement in 2023. It's currently known to slow down infections a little bit, nowhere near 100% even at it's best. Times change and we have to keep up with them. Something that you thought you knew in 2021 isn't necessarily going to apply two years later. The study I posted about myocarditis is just to show that there at least exists evidence to the contrary of what tfa is saying. I can't say which one wins, just that they both exist. Edit: totally reasonable not to believe me. Maybe Bill Gates from a year ago can convince you: https://youtube.com/shorts/LfbYSbPF9uU?feature=share https://youtube.com/shorts/LfbYSbPF9uU?feature=share
  - lern_too_spel 4y ago
    > I didn't forget anything You certainly forgot my explanation of the quote you were responding to. I never claimed it was near 100%. I merely said it was between 0 and 100%. The only one confused here is you, who seems to be confusing yourself deliberately. > I can't say which one wins The AHA can. > Maybe Bill Gates from a year ago can convince you As you keep confusing yourself into misunderstanding, Gates is saying nothing different from what I had claimed but something entirely different from what the person I responded to had claimed. Good job using a video with a vaccine conspiracy theory title though. No wonder you're so confused.
    - ifyoubuildit 4y ago
      You said "it's just not 100%". I guess I must just be confusing myself into thinking that is misleading. What a silly vaccine conspiracy theorist I am. You're a really good troll btw, just not 100%.
      - lern_too_spel 4y ago
        I explained that earlier. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34570467 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34570467 Are you seriously unable to remember? If I say vaccines prevent infection, a vaccine conspiracy theorist will say, "B-b-but my friend got vaccinated, and she still got infected." That's why I added that qualification, not to say it is near 100%. That's on you and your silly vaccine conspiracy theory interpretations.

lern_too_spel 4y ago

> That first study is about alpha. Why is it relevant? Why do you keep forgetting that this thread is about whether the the public health agencies lied about whether the vaccine prevents infections, despite the fact that I've repeatedly pointed that out? Once again, it prevents infections, we've known that for a very long time, and that's why it's relevant. > I can't speak to whether the study is sound or not, but some food for thought on your point about myocarditis. You should be because the very article we are in a discussion thread for is about that. It is a newer paper showing that COVID-19 infection carries a significantly greater risk of myocarditis than the Pfizer vaccine and that vaccinated people have reduced risk of myocarditis even if they get infected.

ifyoubuildit 4y ago
Oh, well thats where the confusion is. I didn't forget anything. Maybe I didn't make this clear enough, but my only interest in this thread was responding to this: > The vaccine is known to prevent infections, just not 100%. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34551224/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34551224/ Which is a kind of odd statement in 2023. It's currently known to slow down infections a little bit, nowhere near 100% even at it's best. Times change and we have to keep up with them. Something that you thought you knew in 2021 isn't necessarily going to apply two years later. The study I posted about myocarditis is just to show that there at least exists evidence to the contrary of what tfa is saying. I can't say which one wins, just that they both exist. Edit: totally reasonable not to believe me. Maybe Bill Gates from a year ago can convince you: https://youtube.com/shorts/LfbYSbPF9uU?feature=share https://youtube.com/shorts/LfbYSbPF9uU?feature=share
- lern_too_spel 4y ago
  > I didn't forget anything You certainly forgot my explanation of the quote you were responding to. I never claimed it was near 100%. I merely said it was between 0 and 100%. The only one confused here is you, who seems to be confusing yourself deliberately. > I can't say which one wins The AHA can. > Maybe Bill Gates from a year ago can convince you As you keep confusing yourself into misunderstanding, Gates is saying nothing different from what I had claimed but something entirely different from what the person I responded to had claimed. Good job using a video with a vaccine conspiracy theory title though. No wonder you're so confused.
  - ifyoubuildit 4y ago
    You said "it's just not 100%". I guess I must just be confusing myself into thinking that is misleading. What a silly vaccine conspiracy theorist I am. You're a really good troll btw, just not 100%.
    - lern_too_spel 4y ago
      I explained that earlier. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34570467 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34570467 Are you seriously unable to remember? If I say vaccines prevent infection, a vaccine conspiracy theorist will say, "B-b-but my friend got vaccinated, and she still got infected." That's why I added that qualification, not to say it is near 100%. That's on you and your silly vaccine conspiracy theory interpretations.