I think every woman of child-bearing age needs to know this - AIBU?

[reader12]

98.1% of pregnant women in hospital with COVID are unvaccinated.

98.7% of pregnant women with COVID in intensive care are unvaccinated. None of them have had two doses of the vaccine.

It feels like an emergency to me that everyone knows these figures and understands what they mean. As well as the horror of being ill and pregnant for each person going through it, the horror all the doctors and nurses are going through in dealing with this over and over again is totally avoidable.

Infographic with all the stats: www.npeu.ox.ac.uk/assets/downloads/MBRRACE-UK_Rapid_COVID_19_2021_-__Infographic_v10.pdf

More info on the source: www.npeu.ox.ac.uk/mbrrace-uk/news/2173-covid-19-in-pregnancy

[quote 21dolly]@BeardyButton now why would you mention stillbirths when you must know how triggering that can be to someone when you have no clue about their past? That doesn't have anything to do with what I've said so I'm really not sure why you've mentioned that.
Nowhere did I say that pregnant women can't get Covid nor did I say where exactly I've done my research (so not sure how you've determined the sources I've read are not credible)

Your response has nothing to do with the effects on babies when the mother has taken the vaccine so not sure what your point was[/quote]
The ‘research’ you’ve don’t can’t have been from credible sources, because if they were then you would get your jab. You would also understand that vaccines don’t have ‘long term effects;’ they are processed out of the body within a few weeks.

*you’ve done, not ‘you’ve don’t’

Yes you're right, they do need to know.

BoredZelda

I'm aware of research showing you're more likely to be hospitalised with Covid if you're pregnant, aren't you? That would be the missing piece of research not how many unvaccinated pregnant women are actually there because we're not talking about your odds of being hospitalised but how pregnancy increases those odds.

... And how vaccination reduces them.

On a nationwide level there's no point assuming it won't be relevant because it's a rare event. It will be someone's all-encompassing experience, we just don't know who. That someone can drastically reduce their chances of becoming a sad statistic by having the vaccine which is all the thread was about and still stands despite the data juggling.

I collapsed after my COVID jab in may. Still being feed through a tube. No way am I having another jab.

YES 100%

YANBU

Women due to give birth in the next month or so would not have had the opportunity for the vaccine prior to pregnancy based on age. In their early pregnancy, around the time their cohorts came up for the first dose, the advice was for pregnant women not to be vaccinated. Women were reporting issues with their menstrual cycle. The advice changed in the summer halfway through pregnancy and it is difficult to switch from a stance of "no, this is potentially harmful to us" to "oh, it's ok now" and I dislike the blaming stance being used when women are following the original stance.

By all means publicise that we do know that to get through this winter, vaccination is the preferable risk/benefit, but don't blame and don't use misleading statistics where women never had the opportunity to be vaccinated within that time frame.

The other factor that is unclear is how many are seriously ill because of Covid, and how many have aquired Covid while in hospital with other complications. (I say this having ended up in HDU from birth complications in a "low risk" pregnancy) Women do sometimes unfortunately need HDU/ ICU care due to pregnancy/ birth and there is scope for statistics to be lumped together for dramatic impact, and there is form of the media presenting moral cautionary tales of "healthy" unvaccinated people in ITU while failing to mention very obvious risk factors that can blatently be seen from the photo.

Women in earlier stages of pregnancy now are more likely to have been vaccinated prior to pregnancy and recieved more positive messaging about the advantages of vaccination.

@Thecurliestwurly

Just out of curiosity (not pregnant myself) how have the long term risks to mother and baby been tested and are these well known?

I think as it is a new vaccine and we haven't been able to study long, long term effects (development of the child, etc) this might be what puts some pregnant women off. No vaccine is 100% safe (obviously the risk of COVID complications is higher). For some people putting something in their body which might, in their eyes, l lead to harm will feel more anxiety inducing than risking getting COVID and possibly being ok. I think this is why some pregnant women don't come forward and I expect this will improve over time.

This.

This is exactly why. Easy to say 'whats stopping them' - this is whats stopping them. The ones who dont blindly agree to being injected with a substance that has no long term effect data, no lasting data to show of any harm that may come of baby and mother in 5 years time.

I am confused why people arent more concerned about this? How is everyone so happy to be injected with someone we know virtually nothing about.

I'mnot anti- vaccine by the way, i think they are great. With extensive research. I just dont want to be a statistic in the test trials whilst they figure it out.

The argument of “I’ve done my research” is so irritating. It generally ignores medical fact, and tends to rely on Facebook posts from nutters.

It’s deeply concerning that so many pregnant women are unvaccinated, and ignorant in believing they’re making the safer choice for them and their babies.

I am double jabbed, 24 weeks pregnant, and very much looking forward to my booster as soon as I’m allowed it. The thought of going into hospital to have my baby, completely vulnerable to Covid, is so scary. Can’t imagine deny people are happy to take that risk

“98.1% of pregnant women in hospital with COVID are unvaccinated.

98.7% of pregnant women with COVID in intensive care are unvaccinated. None of them have had two doses of the vaccine”

If you understand the meaning of these sentences; all they are saying is that most pregnant women are unvaccinated. It is not actually suggesting that their risk of being hospitalised or in ICU is dependent on vaccine status.

in the study you refer to only 2% of pregnant women had been fully vaccinated. Which was 13000 people. On average 1.6 in 10 000 pregnant people normally die per year. So finding that nobody died from fully vaccinated group isn’t really any different to the normal death rate in pregnant women.

The sample is too small to say that the vaccine has prevented any deaths. They admit that in the study. Which you would know if you actually read it, rather than just reposting pretty pie charts with lovey colours. To think people rave about vaccine misinformation! Stop doing it yourself!

I had a baby in July and the advice from my midwives and consultant was very much don’t get the vaccine even though the NHS advice was to get it. I would hope things have changed but if not there is no surprise women are cautious.

I find it strange the advice in the UK hasn’t been consistent. That’s been at a terrible cost to some women. I’m disappointed but not shocked- it’s no secret pregnant women or even women generally are not a priority for our current government.
There have been several threads on MN this week of pregnant ladies unsure about getting the vaccine & asking about others’ experiences. I’m 34 weeks & double jabbed; I think when you’re pregnant the choice is easier to make not harder! More to lose. Xo

And just to say when they talk about pregnant women being hospitalised this includes being hospitalised to give birth like what normally happens at the end of pregnancy...

@Thecurliestwurly

Just out of curiosity (not pregnant myself) how have the long term risks to mother and baby been tested and are these well known?

I think as it is a new vaccine and we haven't been able to study long, long term effects (development of the child, etc) this might be what puts some pregnant women off. No vaccine is 100% safe (obviously the risk of COVID complications is higher). For some people putting something in their body which might, in their eyes, l lead to harm will feel more anxiety inducing than risking getting COVID and possibly being ok. I think this is why some pregnant women don't come forward and I expect this will improve over time.

This is just not true.

The science of how these vaccines work is DECADES old. Thanks to decades of research and innovation, mRNA vaccine technology was ready to go.

Viral vector vaccines were being safely used for Ebola in 2013.

[quote eyeslikebutterflies]The reason there's so much anxiety around this is due to the fact that women are always an after-thought in medical science, and particularly pregnant women. The conflicting advice given to so many pregnant women - even now - is a direct result of this. We desperately need a system of medical trials that explicitly considers women, pregnant women, and men and women from different ethnic backgrounds, because at the moment it really doesn't.

I'm not surprised pregnant women are anxious. However, the data now does present a very clear picture of the risks to them.

My understanding is that during the third trimester the immune system 'damps down' its response, so that the immune system doesn't view the baby as an 'alien'. This, along with changes to the respiratory system caused by late-stage pregnancy, makes pregnant women far more vulnerable to infections like COVID. It's why flu jabs have been recommended for a very long time for pregnant women. But we're not told this basic information, are we? If we were, then I am sure many pregnant women would understand their risk much more, and thus be more minded to take the vaccinations on offer.

There's loads published that explain just why pregnant women are at such risk. This is just one paper: www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fgwh.2021.602572/full[/quote]
You have a point but the pp who said all sources are not equal is also correct. I would not trust articles coming out of frontiers, the review process is shoddy. I reviewed for them (different discipline) and rejected the paper (because it was dire) but they've chosen to publish it anyway. It's a very very different standard to more rigourous journals.

I've done my research

That is bonkers on the basis have you also done your research on what happens when you end up ill, have you researched antivirals, antibiotics and the risks to a prem baby if they need to take some of the pressure of your own body.

I was never sure if the c-section discussion were to help me or my baby. I took the opportunity to ask when expecting my second child.
I was told my life would have been put first above my baby.

It was flu that put me in ICU, don't let covid do it to you.

I got my first vaccine while I was pregnant back in March, before it was being recommended by the NHS for pregnant women (I lied at the vaccine centre and said I wasn't pregnant). I knew pregnant women were being prioritised in some US states for the Covid vaccine at that time, the CDC was publishing information about the higher risk to pregnant women and there were scientific articles being published already regarding the low risk of the vaccines so I decided to get myself protected as soon as I could. Very simple decision for me, and not at all hard to find the information I needed.

I'm pregnant again now and have just had my booster. It's not something I've got anxious about or had to think hard about tbh - all those stats in the OP have been in the headlines a lot so I don't think it's that pregnant women aren't aware of them. Lots of case studies being publicised as well (of pregnant women dying).

@BogRollBOGOF that’s not correct. The advice RE pregnant women changed in April this year, around the time I became pregnant. I’m due in early Jan and have been eligible for vaccination throughout my entire pregnancy. I chose to wait until 12 weeks to get my first dose because at that time there was no data regarding women who had received the vaccine in early pregnancy and their outcomes at full term. The vaccines simply hadn’t been around for long enough. I was following the large USA study on pregnant women and, being aware that the biggest risk from Covid was during the 3rd trimester, I decided to wait until 12 weeks because I knew I could still achieve full vaccination by 3rd trimester but that there would be more data available that was relevant to my situation.

@Bexxe

“ This is exactly why. Easy to say 'whats stopping them' - this is whats stopping them. The ones who dont blindly agree to being injected with a substance that has no long term effect data, no lasting data to show of any harm that may come of baby and mother in 5 years time.”

But couldn’t you equally ask why anyone would leave themselves more vulnerable to contracting a serious illness when they don’t know the long term effect that illness might have on them?

The point is, good decisions are generally based on assessing the available evidence. Why would I prioritise an imagined unknown future scenario in my decision making over known risks and impacts? There’s no evidence showing there is likely to be any long term effect from the vaccine (in fact the opposite based on what we know about how vaccines work, it’s not new science). There’s plenty of evidence about impact of Covid now.

I just found this which is reassuring: www.gov.uk/government/news/new-ukhsa-study-provides-more-safety-data-on-covid-19-vaccines-in-pregnancy