AIBU to say ‘no vaccine, no seeing grandchildren’ to my anti vaccine in laws?

[Hfjshdhs]

Name changed because I’m sure that IABU and I’m a bit scared of the fallout!

My PIL are anti vaccine, conspiracy theorists (don’t think Covid exists). They are refusing to get the vaccine.

I have a 3 year old and 5 month old. The 3 year old goes to nursery, but other than that we are incredibly careful and follow all rules. My 5 month old hasn’t met anyone because we are staying safe. None of us are CEV, but equally we have friends who are healthy, have had covid, and had a really awful time of it. So we really don’t want Covid in the house.

AIBU to say to my in laws that if they don’t have the vaccine, I won’t see them, and they won’t be seeing the grandchildren? Or is that a really shitty thing to do?

For context, I have never got on with them. They are extremely controlling. My husband has a very poor relationship with them. But our daughter loves her grandparents so we make sure they have a good relationship. My PIL are both still working, in offices, so exposed every day. If I see my PIL I don’t think I could see my own parents in the following two weeks because they are vulnerable (though have been vaccinated).

So the issue is the fact that they are anti vax covid deniers? If there was no mention of them being covid denying anti vaxxers, would you still think OP was being reasonable?
It would make a difference to me.

If I was looking at my family situation and we were coming out of lockdown, I can entirely see why I might say (given that nothing is without risk) that I'm happy to accept some risk by sending DC to nursery because I'm cautious in other areas my life, but I don't want to mix socially with people who have decided covid is a hoax and they won't have a vaccine. I would take that view because in my experience the people who deny covid haven't been following the restrictions and they are probably more likely to be mixing lots as soon as restrictions lift. That's not something I would want to be part of.

If the grandparents weren't covid denying anti-vaxxers and I knew they were following the rules (like my own parents and in laws) then I'd be much happier.

But I'm writing from the perspective of someone who has had covid and is still unwell months later, so haven't got much time for the idea that the OP should be pressured into taking more risks than she wants just because grandparents are more likely to die if they get it.

I have huge issues with the idea that 'but it's my right to make personal judgements' seems to apply to people ignoring rules and mixing, but if people exercise judgement to apply caution for themselves and their family then they're somehow unreasonable.

"We are still meant to be limiting how much mixing we are doing. Common sense says it's wise to avoid spending time with idiots who think the whole thing is a hoax, so probably haven't been taking any precautions."

I don't see the common sense at all. She has no idea how many precautions have been taken by all the children at nursery and their families and anyone any of them is in contact with, which will surely include some others who think Covid is a hoax.

I don't see the common sense at all. She has no idea how many precautions have been taken by all the children at nursery and their families and anyone any of them is in contact with, which will surely include some others who think Covid is a hoax
In which case I hope you tell every mum who exercises caution in their wider lives that they too are awful because the schools are open now. They should be accepting play dates with anyone and everyone who asks. They should be socialising with any member of their extended families who want to, after all schools are open so common sense says to mix with everyone.

Again, it comes back to people who want to break lockdown rules have apparently able to say 'but it's my personal judgement... mind your own business' for months, but a mother feels that they are balancing risk by saying yes to nursery and no to other things and apparently personal judgement goes out the window, she's controlling, she's out of order, she's unreasonable.

Thalidomide can be a useful drug against some cancers, and skin conditions like leprosy, but it was not tested during its development in the fifties for use by pregnant women, and it was specifically recommended for them to use against insomnia, anxiety and morning sickness, as being less dangerous than other available drugs; it was sold over the counter at that time. Tests which had showed it could be teratogenic in rats were deliberately concealed by the manufacturers. The American FDA refused it a licence.

Not quite the same story as a lethal pandemic disease being treated using a variation of an existing treatment for similar diseases (such as the first SARS virus, with studies on its possible use against Ebola going back to the outbreak in 1995), which new treatment has now been tested on many hundreds of thousands of people as well as on a body of over 23,000 in the initial tests before it was licensed for general use in this country.

Let's face it, if they'd taken ten years to produce any vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 people would be screaming their heads off about that. They managed it in lass than a year because they worked their arses off and were massively funded by governments, which is something most new treatments don't get.

less than a year

Maybe don't do anything as confrontational (and controlling) as say 'If you don't get vaccinated, you can't see grandchildren'. But if you are anxious about your PIL infecting you or your children with Covid, just say that you are waiting until the rates of transmission go down a bit more in your neighbourhood. Play for time.

Time is on your side in your relationship with your PILs, and you hold all the cards. You can afford to be generous. Why do they think the way they do? Can you engage with them, talk about it reasonably, show them scientific evidence? If they remain totally unreceptive, then they have a right to their opinions, and you will just have to work round them in your family relationships.

But don't use your children as bargaining chips, don't misuse your power in this relationship.

@chanceswhatchances I understand your concerns but attempting to blackmail anyone with the withholding of children is tantamount to coercive control - and I don’t believe that’s acceptable in any situation Deciding who you want your children to see isn't blackmail or coercive control. @RidingOn it also isn't controlling. Coercive control is when someone tries to control the other person for the sake of controlling the other person. Saying that you don't want someone to see your children unless they are vaccinated is not blackmail. A parent deciding who they want to their dc to see isn't being controlling. I am just clarifying this because there are people out there who are in a relationship where they are affected by coercive control, and it is nothing like this. It is important to understand the difference and that parents have a responsibility to make decisions for their children, the best way they see fit, and you disagree with their decisions it doesn't mean they are using blackmail or controlling behaviour. Fgs.

@notboggeddown

Agree it's not coercive control, or anything like!

But imo using your children as a way of making someone else do something you want them to do is controlling, or trying to control, their behaviour. I suppose you could call it manipulative? But I wouldn't even call the OP manipulative. I think she has a real problem and is trying to deal with it. I just think it is sometimes better not to confront people with ultimatums and that if she wants to avoid family friction, she could just stall for time. And maybe start a conversation about vaccines when things are a little less fraught and people are less emotional.

@RidingOn it really isn't controlling or manipulative, and I am not sure it is easy to understand unless you have a relative who is difficult to see because of their behaviour. You could try replacing the vaccine with "don't get drunk" to illustrate the problem - so saying "I am not going to let you see my children unless you promise to not drink beforehand" you are not being manipulative nor controlling their behaviour generally, nor using children as a threat - it is a straightforward laying down of boundaries. I think that applies here because of the history of the relationship and the fact that the PIL do not believe covid exists. Your idea of sitting down to have a conversation is a good one normally, but the OP has said that the PIL do not believe that covid exists at all - so here there isn't much to work with - and the fact that she says they are generally controlling (ie not to do with protecting their children) and that the family (including their own son) have had to go NC/LC before with them, makes the idea of a good conversation working out well somewhat unlikely.

@notboggeddown
OK, maybe it's just laying down boundaries ...

I agree that it's unlikely that talking to them will change their minds, but it might be worth a try and at least it is treating them with respect.

The thing is, what sort of relationship does the OP want with her in-laws? Presumably her first priority is to keep her children safe, which she can do by stalling for time. What comes next?

[quote notboggeddown]@RidingOn it really isn't controlling or manipulative, and I am not sure it is easy to understand unless you have a relative who is difficult to see because of their behaviour. You could try replacing the vaccine with "don't get drunk" to illustrate the problem - so saying "I am not going to let you see my children unless you promise to not drink beforehand" you are not being manipulative nor controlling their behaviour generally, nor using children as a threat - it is a straightforward laying down of boundaries. I think that applies here because of the history of the relationship and the fact that the PIL do not believe covid exists. Your idea of sitting down to have a conversation is a good one normally, but the OP has said that the PIL do not believe that covid exists at all - so here there isn't much to work with - and the fact that she says they are generally controlling (ie not to do with protecting their children) and that the family (including their own son) have had to go NC/LC before with them, makes the idea of a good conversation working out well somewhat unlikely.[/quote]
That’s not really the same thing though is it? A drunk grandparent may be a risk to the children. In this case it’s the children who are a risk to the unvaccinated grandparent but they are the ones being penalised by not being allowed to see their grandchildren.

honestly, if i could have the vaccine, i don't know yet, and someone chose not to have it, it would make no difference to me as if it works, not saying it will and not saying it won't, I wouldn't be worried if someone I saw hadn't had it, same as if it just reduces symptoms and doesn't stop you getting it, I've heard 2 versions of how effective it is but really don't know for sure which one is correct. Although regardless of whoever has been vacinated or not and whether or not I'm able to have it I will be being careful still as there is still alot unknown about this virus and it does mutate and the vaccine may not cover all mutations. I'm ECV and even the common cold can cause complications at present so have to be really careful anyway.

Exactly this. The only people affected by not having the vaccine are those not having it.

Think very carefully about locking out your PIL from seeing their grandchildren. Your daughter loves her grandparents and you will be depriving her of a loving relationship. Maybe agree to only meet outside where transmission is very low and insist on masks.

Totally ok to do this wish some of my family weren’t going with the vaccine so I could do the same 😳

YABU having the vaccine does not stop you getting covid, and we dont know if it can still be passed once vaccinated, also both vaccines are not a deterrent on new strains, the scientists are currently working on a top up ive read to be given possibly in the Autumn, so if its a new strain they are not possibly protected anyway.

YANBU. It's your children's - and yourselves and your parents' lives which your in-laws would be endangering. Even if any of you only got the virus in mild form you'd feel bl**dy awful, and there's long covid to think of. If your supremely stupid and selfish parents-in-law had witnessed the death of someone suffering from Covid, as I did when I held my beloved husband's hand as he died, they'd soon sing another tune. Here's your chance to go no-contact: your daughter will recover from not seeing them, children are very resilient.

I agree with you. There are a few anti-vaxers near me. The majority - not very bright. I would say no jab, no seeing grandchildren. However, I do think your parents will be okay once they've had 2 jabs +3 weeks.

Your kids don't need to be around nutcases like them for their physical and mental health - flat earthers, tinfoil hat wearers, anti-vaxxers and conspiracy theorists are best kept away from children not healthy

Genuinely asking...would you feel the same if your parents? If so, then fair enough.

Vaccine conspiracy theorists are SO frustrating. However as a pregnant woman im unlikely to get vaccinated before October...and I would feel sad if this stopped me seeing my family when allowed but maybe that makes me over suspicious.

My uncle was antivaccine but now changed his mind since all his friends have been vaccinated. Hope this happens for you.

Meant sensitive not suspicious lol

I'd take pleasure in not seeing them or allowing them see their grandchildren if this is their stance on vaccines and Covid. These people cause harm to society.

They’re not only putting themselves, your children, your parents at risk but everyone else. Such irresponsibility should come with conditions. YANBU. Your family your rules. You know it makes sense

@ChloeCrocodile it's not controlling, it's protecting herself and family, and the rest of the world's population. What if everyone refused?

@Soontobe60 people refusing the vaccine effects everyone, seems you fundamentally have misunderstood how vaccines are effective in populations.