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!

And just to keep this very clear for anyone else who has stuck with us for the last few pages . Here is the actual advice from HIQA in relation to the above referenced document:

Advice
Arising from the findings above, HIQA's advice to the National Public Health Emergency Team is as follows:

Current public health policies assume a period of presumptive immunity of six months post-infection with SARS-CoV-2.

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. In light of these findings, consideration should be given to extending the period
of presumptive immunity from six to nine months post-infection. Any such changes to policy should be clearly communicated and consistently applied.

Our understanding of the impact of new variants on natural immunity is
evolving rapidly and should be kept under review. Future policy changes should be informed by the international evidence in addition to national surveillance data.

Source: www.hiqa.ie/sites/default/files/2021-06/Duration-of-protective-immunity_Advice-to-NPHET_25-May-2021_0.pdf

As you can see, they did not advise NPHET that 'people who have been previously infected are still vaccinated with one dose', as @speckledostrichegg has tried to claim. It was not the purpose of this document to do so, as you can all read for yourselves (page 9 from the link above).

Give me strength, I never said it was in that document. They didn't mention whether people should be vaccinated or not after infection. Just going to copy and paste my original post as yet again you're going round in circles.

copy and pasted below

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.”

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.

I read it fine the first time, thanks. Clever that way .

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.

They haven’t made that recommendation, as you can see from the quoted advice section above. So you are making false statements about that.

It does not contradict what I’ve been saying - previous infection provides long lasting immunity. Hence their actual recommendation (not your made up one) that presumptive immunity be extended to 9 months from 6.

@bumbleymummy

I read it fine the first time, thanks. Clever that way .

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.

They haven’t made that recommendation, as you can see from the quoted advice section above. So you are making false statements about that.

It does not contradict what I’ve been saying - previous infection provides long lasting immunity. Hence their actual recommendation (not your made up one) that presumptive immunity be extended to 9 months from 6.

How are you not getting it though? It's literally there in black and white. They recommend a single vaccination after infection, as infection alone is not considered to give someone the best level of immunity.

Here's it phrased in a different way.

People aged under 50 years and who are not immunocompromised and who have had a Covid-19 infection in the last six months should receive just one dose of a vaccine, at which point they should be considered fully vaccinated, the Cabinet agreed on Tuesday.

www.irishtimes.com/news/health/healthy-under-50s-who-had-covid-to-be-considered-fully-vaccinated-after-one-jab-1.4548886

No, they (Hiqa) don’t recommend it. That is the current advice from NIAC. Hiqa are not making any recommendations in relation to vaccines here. The purpose of this report was to advise on the following questions:

“How long does protective immunity (that is, prevention of antigen or RT-PCR confirmed reinfection) last in individuals who were previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 and subsequently recovered?”
and
“What is the duration of immune memory responses (T-cell and B-cell memory and or their components’ responses) following SARS-CoV-2 infection?”

Seriously, how are you not getting this? It’s literally written in black and white and I’ve quoted the relevant sections several times. I’m wondering if you’re being deliberately obtuse or if you just struggle with basic comprehension.

They recommend a single vaccination after infection, as infection alone is not considered to give someone the best level of immunity.

No, they don’t and they made no comments in relation to the quality of immunity provided either. The only comment made that compares natural immunity and vaccination is:

“While limited evidence from one study supports the hypothesis that natural infection and vaccination both result in robust immune responses, including against the variant B.1.1.7, the emerging evidence relating to new variants and vaccinated populations should be kept under revieW.”

Once again, you’re trying to undermine any finding that previous infection provides lasting immunity.

Correction: No comments irt ‘the best level of immunity’ provided either.

www.independent.co.uk/news/science/delta-variant-vaccine-covid-uk-b1898190.html

Of relevance to some of this discussion, I think

Yes. Hopefully another nail in the vaccine passport coffin.

[quote speckledostrichegg]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[/quote]
Well this is certainly revealing..

@GrassIsRiz

www.independent.co.uk/news/science/delta-variant-vaccine-covid-uk-b1898190.html

Of relevance to some of this discussion, I think

The headline of this article is Vaccination may not fully stop transmission of Delta variant, early analysis suggests

This is not surprising, and as I think has been heavily laboured on here, does not negate the importance of vaccination in reducing transmission.

@leafyygreens read the article, not just the headline, and the data the article is based on.

[quote GrassIsRiz]@leafyygreens read the article, not just the headline, and the data the article is based on.[/quote]
Uhuh, I have read the CDC manuscript.

What about my post do you disagree with? The reasoning as to why vaccinated reduces transmission has been repeatedly explained here.

See my PP on this (amongst many from other posters)

I think MN needs to put up some kind of PSA on this as it keeps getting repeated. Vaccination greatly reduces your chances of being infected with COVID. If you do not have COVID you cannot pass it on to anyone else.

This study has identified that in people who are infected there is not a substantial difference in viral load between vaccinated and non vaccinated, at a specific point in time. This is not conclusive evidence that there is no difference in transmission, as emphasised by the authors.

My understanding of the real world data (not initial clinical trials) is that the effectiveness in preventing infection is also far lower than hoped, @leafyygreens. Haven't some analyses placed this at around 33% reduction? I have no axe to grind here in either direction - I'm just not a fan of single sided arguments/people presenting different courses of action as right or wrong on the basis of very limited real world info.

@GrassIsRiz

My understanding of the real world data (not initial clinical trials) is that the effectiveness in preventing infection is also far lower than hoped, *@leafyygreens*. Haven't some analyses placed this at around 33% reduction? I have no axe to grind here in either direction - I'm just not a fan of single sided arguments/people presenting different courses of action as right or wrong on the basis of very limited real world info.

Your initial comment was just the article linked and "of relevance to the current discussion"

So it's hard to know what the point you were making specifically was? But the argument that vaccination does not reduce the risk of transmission, based on the CDC data, is incorrect and has been discussed a fair bit on this thread.

Efficacy is lowered by delta, and will be by further variants, but not to 0%. This means that the risk of transmission is reduced, and therefore vaccination benefits both yourself and others.

@leafyygreens, I suppose my point/perspective on this is: judging other people for their decisions (the main gist of the thread) is even less reasonable in the light of the most up to date information. As far as I can tell, the effect of the jabs on transmission is much lower than hoped (because of both lower efficacy against infection and much lower lack of efficacy on transmission once someone is infected than had been promoted to the public in the media). So yes, there is some evidence of reduced transmission, but it's not very impressive and in my opinion not sufficient to treat people differently based on their vaccination status. Or to use in the coercion of people to get vaccinated on the basis of "social responsibility". There are far too many unknowns for that (e.g., what will the effect of the jabs be on development of variants in the light of this new information? We just don't know, but it's not at all clear that we're better off with the jabs in this respect).

(much lower or lack of efficacy on transmission)

[quote GrassIsRiz]@leafyygreens, I suppose my point/perspective on this is: judging other people for their decisions (the main gist of the thread) is even less reasonable in the light of the most up to date information. As far as I can tell, the effect of the jabs on transmission is much lower than hoped (because of both lower efficacy against infection and much lower lack of efficacy on transmission once someone is infected than had been promoted to the public in the media). So yes, there is some evidence of reduced transmission, but it's not very impressive and in my opinion not sufficient to treat people differently based on their vaccination status. Or to use in the coercion of people to get vaccinated on the basis of "social responsibility". There are far too many unknowns for that (e.g., what will the effect of the jabs be on development of variants in the light of this new information? We just don't know, but it's not at all clear that we're better off with the jabs in this respect).[/quote]
So I fear you're pulling the wrong person into this conversation

My only agenda is that people make the decision to get vaccinated based on the best available evidence.

This thread has been chock-a-block with posters crying out that there's no difference in transmission between unvaccinated and vaccinated people, so there's no point getting vaccinated for others benefit. This isn't true, and the only point I'm making here really.

There are far too many unknowns for that (e.g., what will the effect of the jabs be on development of variants in the light of this new information? We just don't know, but it's not at all clear that we're better off with the jabs in this respect).

With this point, are you suggesting that vaccination could increase the risk of new variants?

It is in fact clear that rolling out vaccination as quickly as possible is the best course of action in terms of slowing the emergence of new variants - credible experts and public health bodies agree on this which is why countries are unanimously attempting mass vaccination, rather than stopping when at risk people have been offered it.

My only agenda is that people make the decision to get vaccinated based on the best available evidence.

I assume you mean make the decision whether to get vaccinated? If so - yes, absolutely.

For variations - is that with the most recent knowledge of how very many vaccinated people will be infected and transmitting? The policies predate that, in my understanding.
I have seen credible experts consider the high levels of unpredictability around variants now wrt vaccinations, including consideration of escape mutations etc.

@GrassIsRiz

My only agenda is that people make the decision to get vaccinated based on the best available evidence.

I assume you mean make the decision whether to get vaccinated? If so - yes, absolutely.

Well semantics? I'll rephrase if it makes it clearer..

"My only agenda is that people make the decision to get vaccinated or not based on the best available evidence."