Parents refused the vaccine and now have covid

[ofallthedays]

Even worse, they looked after my dd today as we are moving house and this has now meant we can’t see DPs parents tomorrow, on his birthday, for the first time in 6 months.
I am devastated. Worried for them (and me as I am pregnant). But most of all bloody angry and I don’t know if iabu to feel this way. But I can’t help being annoyed they didn’t have the vaccine. They have turned it down twice both from work and the GP.
I don’t even know what to say to PILs at the moment as I am embarrassed at the way my parents have handled the whole pandemic..and it has now cost PILs seeing their grandchild
Not a question really, just wanted to vent. Maybe it’s my fault for letting them look after her? But didn’t feel I could blackmail them to make them have the vaccine. It’s so shit.
Any ideas to help me salvage DPs birthday much appreciated. I don’t even have a cake as MIL was bringing that.

@ofallthedays did he get his result back yet?

@nestlestealswater. Coronavirus isn't the only thing that matters. I'm not an anti-vaxxer at all, but I don't understand why people suddenly seem to blindly trust our corrupt government and these terrible drug companies to have out best interests at heart, when time and time again they've shown that they don't

Sounds typically anti vaxxer to me. Presumably you don’t agree with the lockdown because it’s been prescribed by ‘a corrupt government” - so what’s the solution ? Open up the economy fully and risk another wave of Covid that will shut us down again ? In case you hadn’t noticed, only half the population has been vaccinated, and only a percentage of those have received a second dose. Interesting that you think the drug companies who have raced to develop and distribute the vaccines are ‘terrible’. Keep that in mind when you roll up your sleeve.

@Waterfallgirl

They are teachers / work in a school so presumably aware their risk of exposure was higher - and they have a daughter who is pregnant - surely there is both a moral and public duty to have a vaccine if offered it. No one is forcing people to have vaccines but their personal situation is one where you would think they would do the right thing.

No one forced the OP to use them as childcare. They made a decision, she made a decision.

[quote pam290358]**@nestlestealswater. Coronavirus isn't the only thing that matters. I'm not an anti-vaxxer at all, but I don't understand why people suddenly seem to blindly trust our corrupt government and these terrible drug companies to have out best interests at heart, when time and time again they've shown that they don't

Sounds typically anti vaxxer to me. Presumably you don’t agree with the lockdown because it’s been prescribed by ‘a corrupt government” - so what’s the solution ? Open up the economy fully and risk another wave of Covid that will shut us down again ? In case you hadn’t noticed, only half the population has been vaccinated, and only a percentage of those have received a second dose. Interesting that you think the drug companies who have raced to develop and distribute the vaccines are ‘terrible’. Keep that in mind when you roll up your sleeve.[/quote]
Tonight people in their 20s might be questioning their confidence in the govt advice on vaccines.

Tonight people in their 20s might be questioning their confidence in the govt advice on vaccines.

There are no medical interventions without risks. Common, everyday medicines like parmecetol and ibuprofen can cause awful side effects but they are still widely used. The risks of getting covid and having an adverse outcome are still enormously greater than any risk associated with having the vaccine.

[quote pam290358]**@nestlestealswater. Coronavirus isn't the only thing that matters. I'm not an anti-vaxxer at all, but I don't understand why people suddenly seem to blindly trust our corrupt government and these terrible drug companies to have out best interests at heart, when time and time again they've shown that they don't

Sounds typically anti vaxxer to me. Presumably you don’t agree with the lockdown because it’s been prescribed by ‘a corrupt government” - so what’s the solution ? Open up the economy fully and risk another wave of Covid that will shut us down again ? In case you hadn’t noticed, only half the population has been vaccinated, and only a percentage of those have received a second dose. Interesting that you think the drug companies who have raced to develop and distribute the vaccines are ‘terrible’. Keep that in mind when you roll up your sleeve.[/quote]
Nope, not an anti vaxxer. Had all my jabs, so have my children.

Interesting that you think the drug companies who have raced to develop and distribute the vaccines are ‘terrible’.

They are though. Just use a search engine. Or [[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2875889/#:~:text=Pfizer%20has%20been%20a%20%E2%80%9Chabitual,civil%20penalties%20and%20jury%20awards.]try this link] to start.

Keep that in mind when you roll up your sleeve.

Not planning to actually, until it's been shown to be safe. My body my choice.

Trying the link again

Tonight people in their 20s might be questioning their confidence in the govt advice on vaccines.

Why? The government have revised guidance based on new knowledge coming to light. The instances of clots are so rare that unless it was a huge scale trial it would never have come to light at that stage. The government, like with any medication, vaccination or whatever, has never said it's a 100% safe.

@Sansaplans

Tonight people in their 20s might be questioning their confidence in the govt advice on vaccines.

Why? The government have revised guidance based on new knowledge coming to light. The instances of clots are so rare that unless it was a huge scale trial it would never have come to light at that stage. The government, like with any medication, vaccination or whatever, has never said it's a 100% safe.

Yes but people had the jab on the basis of the advice they were given which has turned out to be wrong for some people, the under 30s. That is why people, like the OPs parents have a right to make their own decision and not be called stupid/selfish/ignorant or whatever. If something can't be guaranteed safe then it has to be a personal decsion to take that risk.

Yes but people had the jab on the basis of the advice they were given which has turned out to be wrong for some people, the under 30s.

There's no proof of it being a cause of the blood clots at this point, it's on hold for that cohort while it's being investigated. So it has not "turned out to be wrong".

@MissConductUS

Yes but people had the jab on the basis of the advice they were given which has turned out to be wrong for some people, the under 30s.

There's no proof of it being a cause of the blood clots at this point, it's on hold for that cohort while it's being investigated. So it has not "turned out to be wrong".

Well OK if you want to nitpick it has changed. Is that OK? So say the OP was moaning about her sister and BIL not having the vaccine when they were offered it, everyone piling in, they were selfish, they should have thought of OP when asked to babysit, oh but hang on they are in their 20s now being told not to take the AZ.

At the time, though, they probably would have been advised to take it. The AZ jab is only not being offered to under 30s because the rate of Covid is now so low in the UK that it isn't worth the potential (even almost negligible) risk. That isn't the case in other countries, and wasn't the case even a few weeks ago, so any decisions on what people would have done then would be different. The rates are low now in large part because many people have had the vaccine! So of course advice is going to continue to change, partly because of changing rates in different places around the world changing the balance of risk, even without any new information on the vaccine.

@FlattestWhite

At the time, though, they probably would have been advised to take it. The AZ jab is only not being offered to under 30s because the rate of Covid is now so low in the UK that it isn't worth the potential (even almost negligible) risk. That isn't the case in other countries, and wasn't the case even a few weeks ago, so any decisions on what people would have done then would be different. The rates are low now in large part because many people have had the vaccine! So of course advice is going to continue to change, partly because of changing rates in different places around the world changing the balance of risk, even without any new information on the vaccine.

That is my point, it is all very well piling on and insulting people for the decisions they were perfectly entitled to make. I decided to have it, other people made their decisions. People on here are out of order with the insults. If there is a risk, and now we know for the under 30s there is a risk that is significant enough for us to withdraw it for the under 30s, then everyone is entitled to make their own decision. Just like the OP was entitled to take the chance and use her parents for childcare, a reasonable decision but with hindsight maybe wrong. The point is it was her decision.

They aren't saying that the risk is higher for the under 30s, though. Just that the rate of Covid is so low that it may not be enough to outweigh any possible risks.

And I think people tend to judge those who make decisions that are not following sensible science or risk assessment, even if - at the same time - they agree that they are their decisions to make. I'm not a fan of forced vaccination. It's an individual decision, and I can understand people questioning it and considering it and certainly worrying about it - that's natural. But I might have my opinion of their judgement if I don't think they then go on to assess the risk sensibly! They probably don't care what I think, however.

It's hardly a nitpick. Younger people are being advised to wait while the issue is being investigated not because there is evidence that there is more danger to them, but because their risk of severe covid is lower.

Your statement implied that there was a known, certain danger to younger people having the vaccine. It's important to not let that sort of misinformation sit out there unchallenged.

because their risk of severe covid is lower

I'll be honest it's made me question whether the vaccine is needed in the younger healthier society, the risk of blood clot is what 70 out of around 20 million or so give or take to me this is tiny and yet that's still deemed possibly a higher risk than covid??
FWIW I've had 1 dose of AZ and will definitely having my second but I can see how or why others might be reluctant as having the vaccine is for other people's benefit not their own yet theres a slight tiny risk to that individual. It's OK to pull out the paracetamol, ibuprofen or contraceptive pill analogy but taking those drugs benefits that specific person not wider society.

but if the rates start to rise more than a bit, then the risk-benefit balance will change, and at that point, it probably will be more beneficial than risky for under 30s to have the vaccine. So it is important to vaccinate younger people as well (for many reasons, not just that one, with both direct and indirect benefits).

@FlattestWhite

but if the rates start to rise more than a bit, then the risk-benefit balance will change, and at that point, it probably will be more beneficial than risky for under 30s to have the vaccine. So it is important to vaccinate younger people as well (for many reasons, not just that one, with both direct and indirect benefits).

Hmm maybe, I can understand anyone under 30 wanting to wait a while to see if this rise and risk actually does increase though. I honestly hope younger ones aren't bullied into having a vaccine just to be allowed to socialise again, there needs to be a medical benefit to the individual not a social one

I'll be honest it's made me question whether the vaccine is needed in the younger healthier society, the risk of blood clot is what 70 out of around 20 million or so give or take to me this is tiny and yet that's still deemed possibly a higher risk than covid??

This has been considered. The article is behind a paywall, so I've copied and pasted the relevant bit.

www.wsj.com/articles/astrazenecas-covid-19-vaccine-receives-backing-from-eu-regulator-11617804998?mod=hp_lead_pos2

Dr. Van-Tam presented analysis by the University of Cambridge showing that for someone age 20 to 29 years, the benefits of vaccination in preventing illness severe enough to need intensive care would easily outweigh the improbable risk of suffering a blood clot if Covid-19 was spreading as quickly as it was in Britain in February—and even more so if cases were proliferating as fast as they were late last year.

But that calculus changes when case numbers dwindle to the level they have reached recently. The analysis showed that if daily cases numbered two per 10,000 people, as they did in March, vaccination would prevent 0.8 intensive-care admissions among 100,000 20-to-29-year-olds. That compares with a risk of around 1.1 in 100,000 for developing a blood clot after vaccination.

-----

It's not just about individual risk, it's also about reaching herd immunity and not allowing an active resevior of infected cases that mutations can arise from.

miss conduct surely then it depends on whether your priority is a herd or your family

I find the acceptability of sacrificing 100 young people in respect of a virus of no consequence to them individually a very troubling notion

I think this is one of the clearest graphics I've seen showing the risk vs benefit analysis, divided into different scenarios of case rates from low (now), medium (Feb), high (Jan).

the measure is only for severe disease (ICU admission) and not for things like moderate disease that requires hospitalisation but not ICU, long covid or other complications.

Note also that the Covid risk part of the chart shows the likelihood of ICU admission for that group of people per 16 weeks, so is an ongoing risk (though obviously variable), while the vaccine risk is a one-off event (with two doses of course). The risk also doesn't mean there is any causal connection to the vaccine, as that's still unknown. It also does not take into account any individual factors, nor anything to do with indirect benefits of the vaccine like stopping spread to vulnerable, or preventing mutations that could then later be more dangerous to certain age groups or risk overwhelming the NHS and causing more lockdowns.

wintoncentre.maths.cam.ac.uk/news/communicating-potential-benefits-and-harms-astra-zeneca-covid-19-vaccine/

@FlattestWhite

They aren't saying that the risk is higher for the under 30s, though. Just that the rate of Covid is so low that it may not be enough to outweigh any possible risks.

And I think people tend to judge those who make decisions that are not following sensible science or risk assessment, even if - at the same time - they agree that they are their decisions to make. I'm not a fan of forced vaccination. It's an individual decision, and I can understand people questioning it and considering it and certainly worrying about it - that's natural. But I might have my opinion of their judgement if I don't think they then go on to assess the risk sensibly! They probably don't care what I think, however.

They are saying the risk is higher, look at the chart they used on the briefing and the risk of the jab goes up and the risk of covid goes down.

yes that is newer data than the original source I saw

@MissConductUS

It's hardly a nitpick. Younger people are being advised to wait while the issue is being investigated not because there is evidence that there is more danger to them, but because their risk of severe covid is lower.

Your statement implied that there was a known, certain danger to younger people having the vaccine. It's important to not let that sort of misinformation sit out there unchallenged.

You posted a chart which states with low prevalence the risk of blood clots for under 30s is 1.1 per 100,000 and the risk to 60 to 69 year olds is .2 how can you say there is no evidence it is more dangerous for them? It might not be conclusive evidence but they are gathering the evidence and their conclusion is it isn't worth the risk. They actually state on that chart that it is specific blood clots due to the vaccine. Don't you think that anyone who told a 25 year old they were being stupid and selfish for turning down the vaccine should now accept that they might have been wrong not the 25 year old.

My statement didn't imply anything, it was stating that judging people for their decisions is unreasonable particularly when you consider that the risks weren't, and still aren't, fully known. They are entitled to make the risk assessment.

@FlattestWhite

but if the rates start to rise more than a bit, then the risk-benefit balance will change, and at that point, it probably will be more beneficial than risky for under 30s to have the vaccine. So it is important to vaccinate younger people as well (for many reasons, not just that one, with both direct and indirect benefits).

Or we could accept what the experts are telling us and letting the under 30s have a vaccine that isn't showing the same risk.

If we only had one vaccine you might have a point, as we have others I am happy to go with the experts.