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!

Sounds like you’re question dodging (again). Perhaps you have some conflicts of interest that you haven’t disclosed?

Unless your parents are hermits they are going to come into contacting with unvaccinated people every day... I think you're being over the top.

@babybopella

Unless your parents are hermits they are going to come into contacting with unvaccinated people every day... I think you're being over the top.

This is someone they come in contact with regularly

@bumbleymummy

Sounds like you’re question dodging (again). Perhaps you have some conflicts of interest that you haven’t disclosed?

Nope @bumbleymummy, it's just not particularly rewarding to engage in a discussion which has happened in multiple previous iterations when the outcome is always the same - whether it's me or another poster you just either ignore or swerve onto a another topic. But why not one more round:

There is plenty of research that shows that natural immunity is reliable and long lasting the majority. Surely that’s a good thing? Why are you so keen to dismiss it?
-Not keen to dismiss it, any immunity to CV is a very good thing.
-The majority of previous lit is in HCPs, they are not a representative sample.

• As I literally said 2 pages ago, we have a lot of information regarding high level exposure (HCPs) and their immune response, not so much for the general population.

-We do not yet have a validated biomarker for what constitutes immunity that would prevent reinfection or transmission to others- AB levels? It is therefore impossible to say if someone is "immune", or if their current immunity could be bolstered by vaccination. -This would also require testing every individual to see what their "immunity" status is, as described above, we don't have a benchmark and this is adding a huge, resource intensive step that isn't necessary.

• Getting to population level immunity via infection is not recommended by any public health bodies when we have a vaccination. It puts both the individual and the population at risk by allowing extra transmission that could be mitigated.

Oh and another popular tactic - taking a single phrase out of context from a post, zooming in on that and ignoring everything as a handy method of deflection

@speckledostrichegg thank you for that. I appreciate you answering.

The advice from Hiqa was also based on population studies. I think I’ve already linked you to this but there is more detailed information here: www.hiqa.ie/sites/default/files/2021-06/Duration-of%20protective-immunity-evidence-summary_22-June-2021.pdf

They did include general population studies, not just studies into HCPs and they discuss what measure they used to determine ‘immunity’.

Yes, I know we weren’t advocating attaining herd immunity via infection at the start of the pandemic because, for too many people, the risk of infection would have been too great and we would have seen too many deaths. However, with the vaccine reducing the risks of serious illness/death in the majority of the most vulnerable population, infection among the low risk population provides a level of immunity without the same impact and strain on health services. Infection has been inevitable in a large percentage of the population over the last year in the absence of vaccination. Transmission is also low in previously infected individuals. I don’t think we should be discounting the contribution that previously infected people are making to the reduction of transmission in the population.

taking a single phrase out of context from a post, zooming in on that and ignoring everything as a handy method of deflection

You literally just did this in relation to one of my comments to riveted.

yup @bumbleymummy and the conclusion of the report you linked is:

There is substantial uncertainty in relation to the immune
response to SARS-CoV-2 given the small study sizes and lack of clarity in relation to potential confounders.

not "we have enough evidence to suggest vaccination for those with a previous infection is unnecessary"

Presumably you are keeping your unvaccinated children away from your parents too? Double vaccinated people can still get and pass on covid, are you staying away from them? I think you are overreacting.

@speckledostrichegg That’s in relation to immune memory.

Overall,

“A large volume of data supports the likelihood that the risk of SARS-CoV-2 reinfection, and relative risk compared with individuals without prior evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection, is low for over ten months post-infection.”

“The updated evidence summary identified 19 large cohort studies involving over 640,000 previously infected individuals, including six studies with over ten months’ follow-up. Across studies, the risk of SARS-CoV-2 reinfection was consistently found to be low. No study reported an increase in reinfection risk over time. More limited data were identified in relation to the immune response to SARS-CoV-2 infection. The identified studies suggest that immune memory develops in most or all people that have been infected with SARS-CoV-2 and lasts for at least nine months.”

And that is why Hiqa advised NPHET -

 In light of these findings, consideration should be given to extending the period of presumptive immunity from six to nine months post-infection.

Why would you try to misrepresent the findings?

[quote bumbleymummy]@speckledostrichegg That’s in relation to immune memory.

Overall,

“A large volume of data supports the likelihood that the risk of SARS-CoV-2 reinfection, and relative risk compared with individuals without prior evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection, is low for over ten months post-infection.”

“The updated evidence summary identified 19 large cohort studies involving over 640,000 previously infected individuals, including six studies with over ten months’ follow-up. Across studies, the risk of SARS-CoV-2 reinfection was consistently found to be low. No study reported an increase in reinfection risk over time. More limited data were identified in relation to the immune response to SARS-CoV-2 infection. The identified studies suggest that immune memory develops in most or all people that have been infected with SARS-CoV-2 and lasts for at least nine months.”

And that is why Hiqa advised NPHET -

 In light of these findings, consideration should be given to extending the period of presumptive immunity from six to nine months post-infection.

Why would you try to misrepresent the findings?[/quote]
And I repeat, at no point do they make policy recommendations that people who have had a previous infection should be vaccinated?

ugh And I repeat, at no point do they make policy recommendations that people who have had a previous infection should not be vaccinated?

And actually @bumbleymummy, it is clearly you who is misunderstanding the evidence (or deliberately misinterpreting), because HIQA explicitly state vaccination should occur after infection. So even the evidence you've dredged up from a specific country counteracts the claims you're trying to make. They recommend a single dose (not no vaccination) for those with presumption immunity.

So more spreading of misinformation in an attempt to discourage vaccination

www.hiqa.ie/hiqa-news-updates/hiqa-advise-nphet-extend-period-presumptive-immunity-six-nine-months-post

Dr Ryan continued: “Increasing the period of presumptive immunity from six to nine months has widespread positive implications for people. For example, a person who has COVID-19 in the last nine months would be exempt from serial testing. A change would also increase the number of under-50s who only need one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine to be considered fully vaccinated. It would also have implications for the implementation and roll-out of the proposed ‘green certificates’. It will be important that any policy changes and the evidence behind them are clearly communicated and consistently applied.”

That wasn’t the purpose of the document.

Good to know that people can be presumed immune for up to 9 months after infection though. We don’t have that data irt vaccines yet :)

Ah, you mistakenly think I’m trying to spread misinformation to discourage vaccination. I’m not. All I’m trying to do is show that previously infected people can also be considered immune for a significant period of time. The data supports that :)

@bumbleymummy

That wasn’t the purpose of the document.

Good to know that people can be presumed immune for up to 9 months after infection though. We don’t have that data irt vaccines yet :)

Nope, again a deliberate misunderstanding

They are quite clearly recommending those with presumptive immunity need to be vaccinated (one dose) to be considered immune.

@bumbleymummy

That wasn’t the purpose of the document.

Good to know that people can be presumed immune for up to 9 months after infection though. We don’t have that data irt vaccines yet :)

Again, you have completely understood the purpose of the report, and how they advised policy to proceed.

They are literally saying previous infection cannot be considered enough to make someone immune, and this needs to be bolstered with vaccination.

Their recommendation is that everyone, previous infection or not, gets vaccinated.

It would also have implications for the implementation and roll-out of the proposed ‘green certificates’.

The green certificate also includes people who have recovered from covid.

They are literally saying previous infection cannot be considered enough to make someone immune

No, they’re not.

Beginning to wonder if you have a vested interest in AZ as part of your role as a research scientist in a ‘U.K. university’…

@bumbleymummy

They are literally saying previous infection cannot be considered enough to make someone immune

No, they’re not.

Beginning to wonder if you have a vested interest in AZ as part of your role as a research scientist in a ‘U.K. university’…

Yes they are- hence the quote above.

And do bore off with trying to imply I work for astrazeneca, oldest trick in the book. I imagine people in scary big pharam have better things to do than prowl around on mumsnet trying to improve the optics for their vaccine.

Huh, a very quick search on your username demonstrates you've been posting various anti-vaccine stuff since 2007 @bumbleymummy. They're literally the majority of threads you've contributed to

Fascinating.

Yes, we could use this in relation to vaccines too when people say things like, "After vaccines were introduced, deaths from these diseases declined." ignoring the major decline that had occured prior to the vaccine being introduced. Funnily enough the same decline that was occurring with things like scarlet fever and that continued even without a SF vaccine. Dare anyone suggest that the same may have happened with the other diseases that we do vaccinate against?

Also, I would really like to hear how vaccinating against diseases that are usually mild in childhood such as mumps and rubella comes out in the whole 'weighing the benefit to society' argument. They weren't even considered dangerous enough to require notification until the vaccine was being introduced.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/general_health/a1246565-Debate-on-Vaccines

Yes they are- hence the quote above.

No, they aren't, hence the quotes above and the purpose of the document:

"The purpose of this report is to outline the advice provided to NPHET by HIQA, with
consideration of the scientific literature, international public policy and input from the
COVID-19 EAG regarding the policy question: “How long does protective immunity
last in individuals who were previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 and subsequently
recovered”. "

Wow, you really are reaching aren't you. So Hiqa is 'antivaxx' now?

(btw I hadn't joined MN in 2007 so your research skills aren't that great when it comes to AS either )

eh? At no point have I called HIQA anti-vaccine, I'm pointing out their recommendations are that people who have been previously infected are still vaccinated with one dose. This directly contradicts what you've been saying.

I literally gave you a link to anti-vaccine content you've been posting as long as a decade ago. I'm afraid it makes me take your arguments even less seriously, I don't see the point when you are clearly very biased and anti-science.

You're trying to dismiss me as 'anti-vaxx' when we're discussing a HIQA document. I'm pointing out that their findings are that presumptive immunity could be extended to 9 months. Currently, presumptive immunity is 6 months for most countries using the green pass - which includes previous covid infection alongside vaccination or proof of a negative test.

Those posts aren't anti-vaccine and I'm really not 'anti-science' given how many years I've given to studying and writing about it!

In any case, it's not my arguments I'm asking you take seriously, it's HIQA and I'm pretty sure you're not going to accuse them of being anti-science :)

@bumbleymummy

You're trying to dismiss me as 'anti-vaxx' when we're discussing a HIQA document. I'm pointing out that their findings are that presumptive immunity could be extended to 9 months. Currently, presumptive immunity is 6 months for most countries using the green pass - which includes previous covid infection alongside vaccination or proof of a negative test.

Those posts aren't anti-vaccine and I'm really not 'anti-science' given how many years I've given to studying and writing about it!

In any case, it's not my arguments I'm asking you take seriously, it's HIQA and I'm pretty sure you're not going to accuse them of being anti-science :)

I repeat, as it doesn't seem to be getting through.

The majority of your posts from the last decade have been anti-vaccine and minimising the impact of infectious disease. This is why I am saying you are biased and anti-science. Mike Yeadon and Wakefield have "given many years to studying and writing about it" so it's not necessarily a prerequisite for evidence-based thinking in terms of vaccination. That is why I am saying you are anti-vaccine and I don't think there's much point in continuing this discussion further.

The HIQA document is a totally separate thing - as I have said, three times now - At no point have I called HIQA anti-vaccine, I'm pointing out their recommendations are that people who have been previously infected are still vaccinated with one dose. This directly contradicts what you've been saying.

No, their recommendation is that presumptive immunity be extended to 9 months. That was the purpose of the document, as stated (several times) above. Why is that not getting through to you? Why so much resistance to finding that immunity after infection is long lasting? It's great news! (and doesn't contradict what I'm saying at all - that natural infection is also protective and long lasting).

No, not anti-vaccine. What you've linked to was quite an interesting discussion about whether vaccinations should have been given sole credit for the decline in disease and deaths in developed countries, and I argued that clean water and sanitation (WHO),as well as access to good healthcare and antibiotics, had a massive impact so it wasn't entirely down to vaccination. Thanks for the trip down memory lane though:)

You can check out some of my posts earlier this year about why it was a good idea to increase the length of time between doses because it actually improved antibody levels Really 'anti-vaxx' stuff there too . Along with all the acknowledgement that the cv vaccines have done a great job of reducing serious illness and death... Tbh I'm not really sure you know what 'anti-vaxx' means but oh well, there are plenty of other MNers in the same boat!

Hope you have a pleasant evening.