What do you do if a family member is an anti-vaxxer?

[BrutusMcDogface]

I’m so angry with my sibling for putting my parents at risk. So very, very angry.

WWYD? Avoid him? Avoid them?!

Can’t believe he’s being so selfish!

@bumbleymummy

Yes, most people are satisfied with just being immune to something, rather than being extra immune. :)

Expert and NHS advice is to take up vaccination even if prior infection

Not to be "extra immune", but to develop the best level of protection based on current evidence

@bumbleymummy

Yes, most people are satisfied with just being immune to something, rather than being extra immune. :)

No most people take the opportunity to have their immunity at optimum levels You really continuously spout false info or statements without context to try to.mimmise the benefits of vaccines for society It's pathetic

A recent study found that previously infected people ‘don’t necessarily benefit’ from vaccination so ‘unvaccinated people should be prioritised’.

www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.01.21258176v2.full.pdf (Preprint)

I’ve also already sent you links to studies showing how long immunity last after infection.

Several studies have found that a single vaccine dose in a previously infected person results in a higher level of antibodies than a non infected person with two doses. Some countries only offer a single dose to previously infected people.

So I’m not really sure that the NHS current policy of ‘2 doses for all’ is actually to ‘develop the best level of protection based on current evidence’ tbh.

No most people take the opportunity to have their immunity at optimum levels
You really continuously spout false info or statements without context to try to.mimmise the benefits of vaccines for society
It's pathetic

Don’t be ridiculous. If that was the case then everyone would be rushing out every year to get boosters for their childhood vaccines and paying to have their children vaccinated against chickenpox after they’ve recovered from it.

I haven’t spouted any false info. Vaccines do benefit society and this vaccine has done a great job in reducing serious illness and transmission. That doesn’t mean that we should overlook the fact that it doesn’t entirely prevent people contracting and spreading the disease and therefore vaccinated people can still put others at risk. Why do you have such a problem with that?

@bumbleymummy

A recent study found that previously infected people ‘don’t necessarily benefit’ from vaccination so ‘unvaccinated people should be prioritised’.

www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.01.21258176v2.full.pdf (Preprint)

I’ve also already sent you links to studies showing how long immunity last after infection.

Several studies have found that a single vaccine dose in a previously infected person results in a higher level of antibodies than a non infected person with two doses. Some countries only offer a single dose to previously infected people.

So I’m not really sure that the NHS current policy of ‘2 doses for all’ is actually to ‘develop the best level of protection based on current evidence’ tbh.

You have linked a single preprint. This is not current guidance and all you're doing is cherry picking evidence to again push your agenda of discouraging people to take up the vaccine.

Yup unvaccinated people without prior infection should be prioritised but that's not the situation here.

I do echo @sleepwouldbenices comments and think they have it spot on:
No most people take the opportunity to have their immunity at optimum levels.You really continuously spout false info or statements without context to try to.mimmise the benefits of vaccines for society

Regarding whether two doses or one is necessary post infection, that's not the point you were making @bumbleymummy- you're just discouraging vaccination for anyone who is non-vulnerable and flinging any possible argument you can think of and trying to make it stick.

Yes more studies are needed to understand whether a second dose + previous infection confers significantly more protection, and whether this is generalisable to everyone. But given the current situation, applying the precautionary principle and offering two doses to everyone makes sense.

This is interesting, from the well respected John Hopkins university in America:





It won't load. Anyway it shows that the huge majority of deaths in US in each state is unvaccinated people. Over 96%, in all cases.

www.kff.org/policy-watch/covid-19-vaccine-breakthrough-cases-data-from-the-states/

You have linked a single preprint. This is not current guidance and all you're doing is cherry picking evidence to again push your agenda of discouraging people to take up the vaccine.

Yes, that’s why I said a recent study (singular) and I pointed out that it was a preprint myself. I didn’t say it was current guidance and I’m not ‘cherry picking’, I’m producing evidence to support my point (something which you didn’t do earlier). There is other ‘recent evidence’ out there along with policies in other countries that that differ from the nhs approach. Why do you seem so against the idea of infection providing lasting immunity? Surely it’s a good thing? We can then prioritise vaccination for people who are not immune, particularly those in at-risk groups in other countries.

Considering all other factors, your risk of passing it on is lower if you are vaccinated. Even in the situation where there is breakthrough infection and transmission, your viral load is lower, further reducing your risk to others.

Actually, I think the latest data presented and acted on by the CDC suggest that viral load from a respiratory tract swab (as assessed by PCR cycles) is equal for unvaxxed and vaxxed who have tested positive. This would suggest equal infectiousness to others.

Of course, this doesn't affect the finding that vaccinated people get less serious disease/are hospitalised less frequently. But it does weaken the arguments for people needing to be vaccinated for transmission purposes.

Of course, this doesn't affect the finding that vaccinated people get less serious disease/are hospitalised less frequently. But it does weaken the arguments for people needing to be vaccinated for transmission purposes.

@GrassIsRiz see my PPs

Even if this finding is replicated (I outlined the limitations of the CDC report) this does not "weaken the argument for people needing to be vaccinated for transmission purposes"

You cannot pass COVID on if you are not infected. COVID prevents infection in the majority of cases.

ugh "vaccination prevents infection in the majority of cases"

But my million other posts have stated it without typos

And I’m not trying to ‘discourage people’. Unlike some people, it doesn’t bother me whether someone has the vaccine or not.

@bumbleymummy

And I’m not trying to ‘discourage people’. Unlike some people, it doesn’t bother me whether someone has the vaccine or not.

Why consistently post statements that aren't true or without context regarding vaccination then?

Have dipped in and out this board but regularly see you posting on the current hot topic that can be used to discourage vaccination - disputing safety, COVID minimising, promoting the idea efficacy isn't good, stating it's selfish to take up a dose when it could go to "someone in India".

I think it's everyone decision to be vaccinated or not, but that shouldn't be coerced or misled by the floods of misinformation on here and SM.

To be blunt, you’re wrong. :)

It actually seems that you take any evidence of adverse side effects, information showing lower risk in certain groups, evidence of lower efficacy as ‘misinformation’. Why? Why can’t people accept that, in general, the vaccine is a good thing but it is by no means infallible and we should be able to critically evaluate the evidence of its risks alongside its benefits?

And, again, it wasn’t me that said the vaccine should go to ‘someone in India’. This isn’t the first time you’ve tried to attribute that quote to me. I have said that I think we should be prioritising at risk groups in other countries , something which the WHO has also stated and I’m sure they’re not trying to ‘discourage vaccination’

@bumbleymummy

To be blunt, you’re wrong. :)

It actually seems that you take any evidence of adverse side effects, information showing lower risk in certain groups, evidence of lower efficacy as ‘misinformation’. Why? Why can’t people accept that, in general, the vaccine is a good thing but it is by no means infallible and we should be able to critically evaluate the evidence of its risks alongside its benefits?

And, again, it wasn’t me that said the vaccine should go to ‘someone in India’. This isn’t the first time you’ve tried to attribute that quote to me. I have said that I think we should be prioritising at risk groups in other countries , something which the WHO has also stated and I’m sure they’re not trying to ‘discourage vaccination’

Nope. I work as an epidemiologist, I have pretty reasonable skills in "critically assessing evidence" in regards to coronavirus and vaccines.

In all my pps I give reasons as to why something is misinformation and normally link to better qualified people for explanations. None of my posts proclaim the vaccine as being "infallible", it's you who likes to reduce everything down to a binary.

Cba to dig out your quote, but yes you definitely said that, there was an entire thread dedicated to your ideas about it. The thread also explains why your thoughts aren't well informed and are misquoting what WHO have recommended. You got a lot of advice on the thread so I suggest you read back on it.

As, I’ve already pointed out, I’m not the one reducing things to binary on this thread (vaccinated = clean, unvaccinated = unclean according to many)

And clearly your ‘reasonable skills in critically assessing evidence’ don’t stretch to a simple AS which would show you that I didn’t actually say that, someone else on the thread tried to ‘summarise’ what I was saying and they said that.

I’m actually wondering if you’re completely mixing me up with someone else by saying there was an entire thread on my ideas and that I got ‘advice’ on it. . I directly quoted the WHO director btw.

You aren’t the only one who has to critically assess information as part of their job btw and I don’t really appreciate you misrepresenting things that I’ve said. If you bothered to look back on those threads you’d see that I also provide links to other reliable sources eg medical journals or articles written by experts. (Not anti-vaxxers before you try to squeeze in another false accusation)

This. Repeatedly and very noticeable

I have lost the ability to quote again🤣
Just wholeheartedly agreeing with riveted 're bumbles repeated posts

Fine. You can go into the same category as riveted. You’re wrong

@blue12345 What you are ignoring is that those figures come from a time when restrictions were in place - restrictions that no longer apply. They also relate to the period before Delta took off here - a much more infectious variant. So the numbers will be going up unless women either continue to apply those restrictions themselves or get vaccinated.

No health care professional wants to see more women in ICU, no health care professional wants unnecessary caesareans. Not scaremongering at all to warn women that there are risks to their pregnancy. Those who minimise the risk to promote an anti-vax message are sick.

Dont understand how bumbleymummy can possibly suggest anyone is immune to covid. It's well known that reinfections occur with covid and PHE upgraded the risk from Delta recently because reinfection is more more common.

I don’t tend to make statements without being able to back them up. Here you go @alreadytaken I hope you find this helpful.

“  Nineteen observational cohort studies, that investigated the risk of SARS-CoV-2 reinfection over time, were identified that met the inclusion criteria. Five studies exclusively enrolled healthcare workers and two studies enrolled both staff and residents of elderly care homes; six of these seven studies were conducted in the UK. The remaining twelve studies were in the general population, conducted in ten different countries.
 Across studies, the total number of PCR- or antibody-positive participants at baseline was 641,911 (median: 1,899; range: 88 to 378,606).
 The median follow-up of individuals within studies was 135 days (4.5 months) (range of medians: 54-249 days), with a maximum follow-up of ≥300 days (ten months) in six studies.
 Reinfection was a rare event: the median PCR-confirmed reinfection rate was 0.6% across studies, ranging from 0% (zero reinfections in three studies) to 2.8% (which was observed among dental practitioners in the UK).”

“ Only one study reported the relative risk of reinfection by age group, noting higher rates in older individuals. In individuals aged 65 years or older, the adjusted relative risk was 0.529 (95% CI: 0.372 to 0.753) compared with 0.173, 0.199 and 0.187 in individuals aged 0-34 years, 35-49 years and 50-64 years, respectively. One other study reported risk of reinfection in an older age group. This UK study reported an adjusted hazard ration of 0.15 in elderly residents of care homes (median age ≥84 years).
 One study assessed the protective effectiveness of natural infection against reinfection in both vaccinated and unvaccinated healthcare workers in the UK, and coincided with widespread transmission of the B.1.1.7 variant. This study found:
o Compared to unvaccinated seronegative HCWs, natural immunity and two vaccination doses provided similar protection against symptomatic infection: no HCW vaccinated twice had symptomatic infection, and incidence was 98% lower in seropositive HCWs (adjusted incidence rate ratio 0.02 [95%CI