Genuine question for anti-vaxxers

And here, about the effect of anti-vax sentiment in the US:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/mar/24/vaccine-disinformation-trump-measles-covid

This article explains how dangerous it is when measles re-emerges, and how living in a “post-herd immunity” world means people can’t judge the risks of these diseases accurately:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/may/03/measles-post-herd-immunity

Sigh. Rubella is at near zero levels in the U.K. because of vaccination. Same with mumps. There are places in the world where this is not true, so we know how dangerous these diseases continue to be when outbreaks pop up. Several deaths from measles already in the US this year.

The serious effects from rubella are not direct deaths, which are rare, but the effect on unborn babies, which includes stillbirth and serious foetal deformity — look up congenital rubella syndrome, in which a third of babies who suffer from it die early in life. Nobody wants that re-emerging in the U.K. Before vaccination, mumps did kill — a smaller case fatality rate than measles, but mumps encephalitis, and complications like infertility, still happened, and still do, in other parts of the world.

We also know the mutation rates of these diseases - they are viruses which are very stable over a long time, which is why vaccination gives lifelong immunity. The measles virus is not able to mutate much before it collapses, so the proteins on its coat, (which our immune system recognises it by), remain the same. We know from what happens elsewhere in the world (and not just in countries with poor sanitation), that the effects of these viruses remain the same when there are outbreaks.

THIS is what happens when antivax misinformation takes hold:

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2025/oct/17/health-infectious-diseases-vaccination-measles-us-robert-kennedy-latin-america-antivax-blamed-cases-deaths-rise

Anti-vaxxers are just freeloaders. They avoid the hassle of vaccinating their children by relying on the rest of us to create transmission barriers by taking the sensible course of vaccinating.

But if there’s an outbreak they rush to get their children vaccinated. It’s not a matter of research or reasoned risk assessment (because those would point strongly to the benefits of vaccination). It’s just selfishness.

When a GP diagnoses something, the drug they prescribe will be based on clinical considerations, but also cost.

Their budgets aren’t finite, and they are steered towards prescribing the most cost-effective drug within the clinical guidelines.

In the case of contraception, certain brands of pill cost twice as much as others, which is why you wouldn’t routinely be prescribed something like Yasmin, even if it’s better.

Long term solutions like the Mirena coil cost less again, which is why GPs are ‘encouraged’ to offer them.

A lot of it is driven by money.

Have you heard of NICE (the UK's National Institute for Health and Care Excellence)? They examine the evidence and decide which drugs/interventions are most cost-effective for various conditions. Prescribing practices in the UK are based on their guidelines.

Because of budget constraints (and of course ethics!), the last thing a GP will do is prescribe something unnecessary.

www.nice.org.uk/what-nice-does

OK then explain that to me.

Kind of but not strictly true - no-one has died from german measles or mumps in many years in the UK, nor in the last big mumps outbreak did anyone have 'physical and cognitive disabilities and deformities just from the damage from the virus' likewise for scarlet fever and I believe that any children made seriously unwell by measles in the last few years also had serious underlying illnesses.

The other aspect is hygiene, maybe improvements in that area has helped or maybe the viruses have changed and become less devasting over time.

But if you were poor in the 1920's then you had very little chance of seeing a Doctor until it was too late was my point.

That's tough @Sexentric

I am pro vax and I know 2 people. A friend in her 40s who had some sort of rheumatoid arthritis triggered by the AZ jab, and my step mother who developed polymyalgia after a flu vaccine.

Not picking particularly on you @Jumpingthruhoops but just wanted to point out - it's a strange phenomenon that the anti-vax person knows multitudes of people who have side effects of the vaccination, and the pro-vax person doesn't.

I'm not talking about in general. I'm talking about this particular thread and similar, where someone is asking why you wouldn't take a vaccine.

And I have twice now detailed why I am happy with my decision to take vaccines and have my children also take them. So the pro-vax people absolutely do cite their sources.

It's not about peer-reviewed studies - @thecatfromneptune obviously reads and understands them. I don't. Because it would too far outside my understanding. But - why can I, as a pro-vaccination person admit that, and say I used e.g. the NHS webpages as guidance but an anti-vaccination person won't ever point to anything? Is it because they know deep down that people will question why they accept Jenny from Utah who just so happens to be flogging something that stops measles is their source for information, but won't accept the NHS page written in a manner for the layperson to understand, which is derived from the peer-reviewed research?

But the poster mentions 'social media conspiracies' not social media.

While I get your general point, I don’t think you tend to hear the specific phrase ‘I’ve done my research’ from people who have the vaccinations because it’s synonymous with the anti-vaccination theories online.

But why are all these people you know regretting it, if they haven’t suffered any ill effects (presumably they can’t all have?)

A combination of those who've suffered very ill effects (two under 30 now with life-altering heart conditions), those who've noticed a marked change in their general health (constant fatigue and no end of coughs, colds) and those who at the very least know of people who have experienced/are still experiencing all of the above - like the many pro-vaxxers I know who have sworn off any further boosters, that they're being offered.

It's then the justification, using the "I did my research" with literally nothing to qualify that, that is baffling.

That's my point: why is it baffling? 'I did my research' is enough of an explanation. The fact you're not happy with that explanation is what the issue is here. People

If I said, 'I've done my research and I've decided to take x jab', nobody would press further and say: 'Oh but what peer reviewed studies did you read to come to that informed decision?' People would just accept what you had said.

I'm saying people just need to accept what those who do not wish to take a vax are saying without demanding explanations all the time.

By the way what I will say is that if you consider that the risk of vaccination injury is higher than the risk of serious complications from the actual illness - that's fine. Even if it might not be a reasoning I agree with, I see your logic.

It's then the justification, using the "I did my research" with literally nothing to qualify that, that is baffling.

As I previously said - I'm not medical or scientific, so I either have to trust the information I have available to me, or not trust it. Yes I do think NHS support pages, media drawn from that, and the data behind it that is available is better than anecdata from acquaintances or similar. I'm happy with my decisions to vaccinate my children and myself and the reasons behind those decisions to share that.

Ok the thread has moved on - but I'd just like to point out-

1. You came onto a discussion thread about taking vaccinations or not and accuse me of being entitled for expecting people who say they've "done their research" to expand on that? Don't express your views if you don't want to answer them?
2. You then, despite having previously quoted me, say that pro-vax people never explain their own reasoning - when I literally did that?

I think my initial point about intelligent conversation stands if I'm honest.

A GP doesn't care how much a drug costs.

Of course they do! They have budgets.

For example, most GPs will push for women to be on the pill, regardless of whether it is the safest and best option for them. It’s cheap and reliably prevents pregnancy, so it’s a tick from them.

I don't see the logic of this. A GP doesn't care how much a drug costs. I used to have horrendous periods as a teen and several things were tried before I went on the pill (much to the disgust of my mother).

More recently talking to a GP about contraception he said he could prescribe the pill or he could give me the injection or refer me to a clinic for other options.

We don’t know whether the vaccine did ‘do its job’ at all. We only know that the virus became endemic. That could have happened anyway as the virus mutated and became milder. The main benefit of the vaccine was that it protected vulnerable people from dying. The rest of us didn’t really need it.

Personally, I had one vaccine and no more, and I wish I hadn’t bothered getting the first one. It didn’t stop me from getting Covid twice more, and it messed up my menstrual cycle. It wouldn’t have stopped me from spreading it to anyone either.

I’m SO glad I stuck to my guns and didn’t let my children have it, especially my teen daughters.

(NB, all my DC have had all other vaccinations)

Umm, gosh. Let me explain.

No one’s saying doctors and scientists are ‘conspiring’ or hiding data, or that there aren’t stringent regulatory bodies. This isn’t at that level.

As a PP put so well, medical data can be scientific AND political. You may be able to understand it, but I do think you’re operating from an incredibly naive standpoint if you won’t even consider that the presenting of the data, what is made available to us and when, might not have other complexities around a certain agenda.

The problem with medical and scientific academics and professionals is they often don’t see the political nuances that accompany ‘the science’.

We can wax lyrical about this all we want but what I've learned in the real world is that there are an awful LOT of people who regret taking the Covid jab; I know two staunchly pro-vaxxers, who've had the initial two and several boosters, who have since said 'absolutely no more!'
On the flipside, I'm pretty sure you'll be hard-pressed to find anyone who regrets NOT taking it. In fact, many have gone as far as to say they think they 'dodged a bullet'.

@Jumpingthruhoops I’ve never personally met a single person who regrets having the Covid vaccine, but then I know lots of scientists; and also many people with compromised immunity (or in clinically vulnerable categories), who without the Covid vaccination were having to shield.

That doesn’t mean I think vaccination injury doesn’t ever happen — we know it does. But why are all these people you know regretting it, if they haven’t suffered any ill effects (presumably they can’t all have?) Is it just the idea of it they don’t like? The whole point is that after the initial few vaccinations, they don’t largely need them any more anyway. As the disease has now become endemic, the vaccination has already done what it was meant to do. It was never meant as a measles-style preventative vax — you can’t create one of those for Covid (or herd immunity), because the C-19 virus doesn’t behave in the same way as measles does. It was always designed to work like the flu vax does, and not like childhood vaccinations do.

I’ve been told several times by colleagues who worked for (then) Public Health England, that they have been hoping to add varicella for some time as the research on the vaccine and shingles has shifted in favour of giving the vaccine, but that they have decided to pull back from it each time so far because of increases in anti-vax sentiment, and the desire not to jeopardise vaccination drives for other vaccines needed to combat eg. increased circulation of pertussis, etc. There were worrying drops in MMR uptake at various points, but better uptake and coverage currently.

The last thing anyone wants to do is jeopardise herd immunity and leave children not protected from diseases like measles with higher complication rates. I think adding in varicella is a good thing and long overdue — many other countries have had it on the schedule for a while. 🤷‍♀️

I would be interested to know how many people on this thread would still feel the same about not vaccinating if, say, MMR uptake dropped so low that herd immunity for their own children could not be guaranteed by others….

It isn't 'reasonable' at all. The 'onus' isn't on anyone to do anything. If there is a 'responsibility' it's on the healthcare and pharmaceutical industries to rebuild the trust in consumers/patients, which was frankly decimated during Covid.

We can wax lyrical about this all we want but what I've learned in the real world is that there are an awful LOT of people who regret taking the Covid jab; I know two staunchly pro-vaxxers, who've had the initial two and several boosters, who have since said 'absolutely no more!'
On the flipside, I'm pretty sure you'll be hard-pressed to find anyone who regrets NOT taking it. In fact, many have gone as far as to say they think they 'dodged a bullet'.