Fed up of being labelled an ‘anti-vaxxer’

[WilsonMilson]

Just that. I’ve expressed some concerns about the vaccines, AZ in particular.

I’m very glad we have vaccines for the elderly and vulnerable, as covid can be deadly. But, as yet we simply do not have the data on longer term outcomes from vaccines and that concerns me when we start jabbing the young and the healthy. We are already seeing blood clots with AZ becoming a serious issue.

I’d consider myself an educated and informed person. My ds has had all his routine vaccinations to now and I am not a tin foil hat wearer, flat earthier, or conspiracy loon of any description. Yet, whenever trying to initiate a sensible discussion based on science and reason, it gets shot down as conspiracy or am labelled an ‘anti-vaxxer’, which I am emphatically not.

Why is is so difficult, here and elsewhere to have a sensible discussion about this?

Yotube banning content creators, what a shocker, you must be new to YouTube.

Exactly, and that's why there is an element of impatience/suspicion around all vaccine critical posts. I only continue to engage with them because the misinformation needs to be challenged. I worry if it's not other people reading the thread might be more inclined to believe it's true and I'm sure that's the reason a lot of posters feel they can't just disengage.

I think you're right to respond, and you should know that replies like yours are absolutely not pointless. I think lurkers are often helped by them.

One problem is that anxious people seeking reassurance are quite likely to post very similar things as people who want to share misinformation - the difference is that the anxious people are hoping for those things to be debunked. But they also crave certainty, so will sometimes push and push, asking "but what if...?", "what about this that I've heard...?" and so on, circling back round to the same question, appearing to just ignore reassuring answers rather than just accepting them. This is because anxiety is a monster and those "what ifs" are drilling away in their minds the whole time.

It is frustrating for them to be labelled anti-vaxxers, as they don't feel like that at all, but of course lots of people who don't understand anxiety see only someone spreading doubt and really believe that no one would post that unless they had an anti-vax agenda. But there's a big difference between sharing doubts because you want more people to join you in doubting something, and sharing doubts in a desperate search for reassurance. Doing the latter repeatedly may be pointless, but it's not malign.

The fact is vaccination is a deliberate action. The covid disease risk feels different because there's an element of randomness as to when you might actually get covid. The vaccine is a deliberate choice (which brings up an absolute terror of making the wrong choice) and one happening now - both of those make the risks of the vaccine feel more salient and important than the risks of the disease. It's not stupid to feel anxious in this situation, it's just human. Sometimes I think posters who admit their own anxiety and talk about how they were vaccinated anyway because they decided that logically it made sense are the most helpful. Posters who say they have none and any anxiety is stupid and selfish are probably the least.

@IntoAir

It really depends on the age of the person. Covid itself is actually quite low risk for young people anyway so if you’re happy enough with that risk you may not feel so inclined to rush out and have a vaccine.

How many times do the basics need to be repeated?

1. "Young people" mix with all sorts of other people, including those far more at risk from COVID, and including those who medically/physiologically cannot take the vaccine (not those with "anxiety" about it).

1. If we are all vaccinated, the virus has fewer chances of replicating, and therefore mutating.

1. We are an interconnected society - we ALL need to take responsibility for damping down the spread of this nasty disease.

Or would you prefer a diktat that anyone able to take the vaccine, but who refuses, is required by law to self-isolate for the foreseeable future because they are a risk to others?

1. ‘At risk’ people have been vaccinated before young people because they are more at risk. The JCVI prioritised them for that reason. People who can’t be vaccinated have to decide whether or not they are prepared to be out with people who may put them at risk. Currently, there are many young people/children/pregnant women who haven’t been/can’t be vaccinated, along with others who have been vaccinated but aren’t immune. There are no guarantees.

2. mutations are inevitable - it’s what viruses do.

3. Recovery from COVID also confers immunity so also contributes to herd immunity. In any case, the risk is in overwhelming the NHS and, by vaccinating the top 9 vulnerable groups we have vastly reduced that risk.

No more of a risk than unvaccinated children/young people and vaccinated people who are not immune.

Just coming back to this one and something struck me.

If OP is still reading, if others who have not posted are reading, it must be quite eye opening to read the posts from individual posters.

Accusatory, vague, indignant

Specific, informative, questioning

You can spot the illogic a mile away!

So AUserName12345 did mention Dr Yeadon as one of her reliable sources.

So, so predictable.

Well, this derailed a bit from where I was hoping, but I do think that everyone’s opinion and views are entitled to he heard.

Also, how does anyone learn without airing their views and having them debated?

I think it’s been a big problem that we haven’t been able to have discussions on many platforms about anything that veers from the main narrative. As adults I think we should be able to listen to everyone and then make our own considered judgement based on the totality of evidence. Otherwise it creates distrust and fuels conspiracy.

Personally, I have real concerns about the vaccines and their potential health consequences, despite acknowledging that we may be in a desperate place without them and that they are necessary for the elderly and vulnerable. I don’t think this makes me ‘anti-vax’ and I resent being dismissed as such, especially when the evidence is growing that the vaccines are causing real problems in some, and often otherwise healthy people.

I think the difficulty is OP that there is no perfect solution to the situation we are in. There is no course of action that can be taken that extinguishes both the risk of covid and the risk of the vaccines for every single individual.

With that in minds, the considered view is that, on balance, vaccinating the entire adult population is the course of action most likely to minimise risks at both an individual and population level whilst also allowing society to recommence a more "normal" way of life without overwhelming the health service.

It's an individual choice whether or not to have the vaccine but the risk of the vaccine does have to be considered in the context of the wider circumstances that currently exist and not in a vacuum.

It is also true that if everyone under 70 refused the vaccine a return to normal life would not be possible for a considerable period of time, years. With that comes all the various social and financial costs of prolonged restrictions.

So the only way those who refuse the vaccine can return to more normal life is by relying on others to make a different decision to them and accept the vaccine. I'm not saying that as part of a guilt trip or saying it's a moral obligation to accept the vaccine, it's just a fact.

Sunshine good post. Sums up how I feel and you’ve said it well

I think one of the reasons that replies can appear quite hostile is that thread after thread is started by someone who is either new to Mumsnet or has namechanged. So many of these threads seem to be saying something along the lines of

'I don't want to have this vaccine until lots and lots of other people have had it. It's new and may have unforeseen side effects. It's OK for other people to risk that, and in doing so protect me, but not for me. Other people feel anxious but it's OK for them to suffer and have the jab and worry (and protect me) but not for me.'

Not many of us like to feel we are the dispensible 'Little People' who can take risks that the 'Special People' won't, and fight their anxiety, and in doing so make it less likely that the 'Specials' will need to take the risk. So they tend to react negatively.

It’s funny, in real life most people I know are getting the vaccine (photos of them getting it, excited photos of their vaccination card, stickers etc!). On the news they’ve reported 75% of UK adults have now had it.
If I were to think mumsnet were a representation of society I’d assume loads of people haven’t had it! The amount of threads I’ve seen on here with people saying they’re not having it! I wonder why it’s so high on mumsnet? Or do they just shout the loudest.

@Sunshinegirl82

I think the difficulty is OP that there is no perfect solution to the situation we are in. There is no course of action that can be taken that extinguishes both the risk of covid and the risk of the vaccines for every single individual.

With that in minds, the considered view is that, on balance, vaccinating the entire adult population is the course of action most likely to minimise risks at both an individual and population level whilst also allowing society to recommence a more "normal" way of life without overwhelming the health service.

It's an individual choice whether or not to have the vaccine but the risk of the vaccine does have to be considered in the context of the wider circumstances that currently exist and not in a vacuum.

It is also true that if everyone under 70 refused the vaccine a return to normal life would not be possible for a considerable period of time, years. With that comes all the various social and financial costs of prolonged restrictions.

So the only way those who refuse the vaccine can return to more normal life is by relying on others to make a different decision to them and accept the vaccine. I'm not saying that as part of a guilt trip or saying it's a moral obligation to accept the vaccine, it's just a fact.

Why have you gone for 70 as a cut off? The top 9 groups identified by the JCVI include over 50s. We have a high uptake in those age groups and have seen the predicted drop in hospitalisations and deaths despite not having even completed the vaccination of those groups. What is the justification for continuing to vaccinate younger, low risk groups when they are unlikely to overwhelm the health service?

@bumbleymummy

Principally because this was the age that a previous poster referenced as being the main age above which risk increases significantly.

The point holds true if you substitute it for under 50s though. If all under 50s refused the vaccination we would not be able to return to a more normal way of living and restrictions would remain. Only vaccinating the over 50s wouldn't exert enough downward pressure on virus numbers.

It's vaccinate everyone or live with restrictions indefinitely. Those are the choices.

Food for thought.

Anti-vaxxer Colorado sheriff’s deputy, 33, dies of COVID complications

Well, this derailed a bit from where I was hoping, but I do think that everyone’s opinion and views are entitled to he heard.

Also, how does anyone learn without airing their views and having them debated?

@WilsonMilson
But what about the posters whose views are based on misinformation which they insist on spreading?

There have been so many covid-denying and anti-vax links posted that are not from credible sources. Yeadon has been referenced multiple times.

I think thr term anti vaxxer is so contentious that people like the op object to it, even when they are spouting anti vax rhetoric

Out of curiosity do you have the same feelings about other medications? For example nurofen which can cause bleeding in your stomach and internal organs and difficulty breathing which can be life threatening?

[quote Sunshinegirl82]@bumbleymummy

Principally because this was the age that a previous poster referenced as being the main age above which risk increases significantly.

The point holds true if you substitute it for under 50s though. If all under 50s refused the vaccination we would not be able to return to a more normal way of living and restrictions would remain. Only vaccinating the over 50s wouldn't exert enough downward pressure on virus numbers.

It's vaccinate everyone or live with restrictions indefinitely. Those are the choices.[/quote]
Is that simply your opinion or are you basing it on something?

According to the JCVI the top 9 groups account for ~99% of the deaths and are at highest risk of hospitalisation. The restrictions were to reduce pressure on the NHS. An increase in case numbers does not put strain on the NHS if they do not translate into hospitalisations. We have already started lifting restrictions despite not having completed vaccination of the top 9 groups. So no, we don’t have to vaccinate everyone or live with restrictions - clearly.

@Sunshinegirl82 I really do agree with your post, and it is that balance between individual and population level risk that we have to remember. I’m not oblivious to the fact that a certain amount need to be vaccinated to achieve a herd immunity situation and to prevent immune escape problems.

There are no easy answers and it feels a bit rock and hard place.

I do, however believe there may be alternatives that need to be explored further - Ivermectin being something that’s shown efficacy as both prophylaxis and as treatment.

@riveted1 I think those people have a right to post what they want, as hopefully they can learn something too. Surely as adults we are all responsible for seeking out facts, and if someone posts rubbish then surely we’re not all so gullible as to believe it without investigating the source and reliability of such. I’m rather fed up of someone else deciding what I can and cannot read or listen to, as if I’m some sort of idiot who has no critical thinking capacity at all.

The problem is who decides what is disinformation and what isn’t?
A point in case is the current revelations about the possible lab leak. 6 months ago people who talked about that were dismissed as crackpots. Now it’s seemingly very likely that this was the source of the virus.

So, I say let everyone speak and let the falsehoods be shown as such by getting them out there and letting them be shot down. Its the suppression of them that leads down the conspiracy path.

@bumbleymummy

It is based on the fact that if you don't vaccinate the under 50s you will have millions of people who are entirely susceptible to the virus. Some of those people will be come very unwell. A relatively small percentage but a small percentage of a very big number is still a very big number.

The main issue though is that if there are very high levels of virus in the under 50s it will leak into the older and more vulnerable populations. A small but significant proportion of those populations will not be protected by the vaccine and will then become very unwell and a proportion will die.

Those two things happening simultaneously will create significant amounts of serious illness and death that will put pressure on the health service.

In addition, a pool of virus will provide further opportunities for mutation and the more mutations that occur the more likely we are to get one that that significantly diminishes or negates vaccine efficacy.

At present we are keeping hospitalisations at a manageable level with a combination of vaccine protection and some restrictions. If we want to remove the remaining restrictions we need to vaccinate more people to replace the downward pressure of restrictions with the downward pressure of vaccines.

amicissimma
I don't think it's about people not wanting to feel like they're the dispensible little people.
I think the negative reaction comes from the fact that most of the time those promoting everything from anti vaccine rhetoric to anti-government conspiracy theories seems to rest on the idea that those refusing the vaccine are enlightened, better read, more intelligent and more critically thinking thinking everyone else. Before long it always comes back to "but if you were better informed then you'd agree with me and see the light and realise the whole thing is a conspiracy".

People tend to react negatively when others posting garbage do so with a worrying level of arrogance and a bizarre belief that they're in a special club of higher beings who know the truth.

It is based on the fact that if you don't vaccinate the under 50s you will have millions of people who are entirely susceptible to the virus.

This isn’t a fact. A large number of people are immune after recovering from infection so they are not entirely susceptible to the virus.

I guess the answer to my original question is, yes, it is your opinion. The situation you are predicting will happen if we don’t vaccinate everyone is the situation we are currently living with right now. We haven’t even finished vaccinating the most vulnerable groups and yet we are nowhere near the doom and gloom scenario you are predicting.

@WilsonMilson

There are millions of drugs I'm sure we could try but there will be rare reactions to those too. Plus whereas vaccines are "in and out" as it were a drug that needs to be taken regularly would be more likely to have an unknown long term impact.

On balance I really think vaccines are our best bet, not perfect but as good as we are likely to get anytime soon.

@Sunshinegirl82 can’t agree with that, there is growing and compelling evidence for Ivermectin, a drug that has a long history of safety. It’s out of patent and cheap, so obviously not making anyone much money and crucially would threaten the emergency licence for the vaccines if it were proven effective, as in order to be granted emergency approval, there has to be no other effective treatment option.

There is, however more and more evidence growing for its efficacy, and we can’t ignore that forever.

[quote WilsonMilson]@Sunshinegirl82 can’t agree with that, there is growing and compelling evidence for Ivermectin, a drug that has a long history of safety. It’s out of patent and cheap, so obviously not making anyone much money and crucially would threaten the emergency licence for the vaccines if it were proven effective, as in order to be granted emergency approval, there has to be no other effective treatment option.

There is, however more and more evidence growing for its efficacy, and we can’t ignore that forever.[/quote]
OP this post is full of misinformation

there is not currently good quality evidence to suggest ivermectin is both safe and effective for the treatment of COVID. If it was, it would be used.

Other cheap drugs have been approved (e.g., the corticosteroids) for treatment of COVID.

If what you are saying is true

• why were large scale RCTs set up (e.g solidarity, recovery) to identify existing drugs the could be repurposed for COVID?
• why have other cheap drugs been approved for treating COVID?
• why is ivermectin currently being assessed in well designed RCTs for the treatment of COVID?

@bumbleymummy

Honestly, @bumbleymummy I am genuinely not a doom and gloomer at all. I'm actually pretty positive about where we are with things and I want the restrictions to end ASAP! I think we have to be realistic that if we want that to happen, vaccinating everyone as quickly as possible is the way to do it.