Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Covid

Mumsnet doesn't verify the qualifications of users. If you have medical concerns, please consult a healthcare professional.

Original poster

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

379 replies

BrutusMcDogface · 01/08/2021 15:17

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!

OP posts:
sleepwouldbenice · 03/08/2021 14:05

@riveted1

Across MN, people are saying that the vaccine does not reduce transmission and using it as a reason to not get vaxxed. I have reported Bexxe's thread and it has been deleted. Perhaps that is OTT, but I am sick of anti-vax misinformation.

Yes @MareofBeasttown it's just floods of misinformation either about vaccines not working or not being safe. Decline it if you want to but no need to justify it with reams of crap that will confuse others.

Exactly this
bumbleymummy · 03/08/2021 14:09

@sleepwouldbenice actually, I would argue that you are ignoring that vaccinated people can still contract and transmit the virus and therefore can still be a risk to others. Therefore, they should still need to be tested prior to mass events etc. ‘Reduced risk’ doesn’t mean ‘no risk’.

bumbleymummy · 03/08/2021 14:11

But the risk of them getting it in the first place would be lower if the relative got vaccinated....

That assumes that the relative isn’t immune already and that the parents never go out anywhere and never have any contact with other unvaccinated people eg children.

Why are you so unwilling to admit that there is still a risk with the vaccine? It doesn’t mean that it is useless you know.

sleepwouldbenice · 03/08/2021 14:18

You see I woukd be willing to be tested as well as vaccinated... funny that
Good friends of mine are ill now despite vaccination
I fully understand risk and stats thanks

sleepwouldbenice · 03/08/2021 14:21

@bumbleymummy

But the risk of them getting it in the first place would be lower if the relative got vaccinated....

That assumes that the relative isn’t immune already and that the parents never go out anywhere and never have any contact with other unvaccinated people eg children.

Why are you so unwilling to admit that there is still a risk with the vaccine? It doesn’t mean that it is useless you know.

The risk would still be lower if a relative they see regularly got vaccinated It's really quite simple
riveted1 · 03/08/2021 14:31

@bumbleymummy

But the risk of them getting it in the first place would be lower if the relative got vaccinated....

That assumes that the relative isn’t immune already and that the parents never go out anywhere and never have any contact with other unvaccinated people eg children.

Why are you so unwilling to admit that there is still a risk with the vaccine? It doesn’t mean that it is useless you know.

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.

I don't understand why it's so hard to see past a binary construct of the vaccines being either 100% effective or not at all.

riveted1 · 03/08/2021 14:33

Why are you so unwilling to admit that there is still a risk with the vaccine?

Where has anyone stated that @bumbleymummy? Literally every post is repetition of the same explanation that is being ignored - reduced risk.

bumbleymummy · 03/08/2021 14:45

Yes, and ignoring that reduced risk is not no risk.

And I really don’t think I’m the one looking at this as binary tbh. Unvaccinated = risk and needs to be tested. Vaccinated = no risk and doesn’t need to be tested? Hmm

riveted1 · 03/08/2021 14:48

@bumbleymummy

Yes, and ignoring that reduced risk is not no risk.

And I really don’t think I’m the one looking at this as binary tbh. Unvaccinated = risk and needs to be tested. Vaccinated = no risk and doesn’t need to be tested? Hmm

Who has stated the risk should be ignored? Who has even mentioned testing or vaccine passports on this thread, beyond yourself?

As stated multiple times, this (false) claim is being used simply to discourage people from being vaccinated and that is the issue.

bumbleymummy · 03/08/2021 14:51

What false claim?

Oh good, you agree that we shouldn’t ignore the risk. So you disagree with the idea of exempting vaccinated people from testing and isolation then?

bumbleymummy · 03/08/2021 14:56

Even in the situation where there is breakthrough infection and transmission, your viral load is lower, further reducing your risk to others.

Where did you get this from?

riveted1 · 03/08/2021 14:56

@bumbleymummy

What false claim?

Oh good, you agree that we shouldn’t ignore the risk. So you disagree with the idea of exempting vaccinated people from testing and isolation then?

Nice swerve tactic, it's a classic technique. The false claim that there is no difference in transmission between those vaccinated and unvaccinated.

This isn't a thread about testing or isolation and yet you insist on shoehorning it in as your other arguments break down. There are a huge number of others discussing these issues.

IMO, interventions that have little impact on the individual and economy should stay for everyone - so masks and testing.

Given the reduced risk of infection/transmission from those vaccinated, I can understand isolation exemption as this allows people to still go to work/university so has a large individual and societal benefit. But this has been said to you multiple times on various threads (where it is actually relevant) and you just ignore it so...

bumbleymummy · 03/08/2021 14:56

The risk would still be lower if a relative they see regularly got vaccinated

Not if they’re already immune Hmm

bumbleymummy · 03/08/2021 14:59

Nice swerve tactic, it's a classic technique. The false claim that there is no difference in transmission between those vaccinated and unvaccinated.

I didn’t say there was so I’m not swerving at all. You replied to my post referencing a false claim and I asked what it was. That claim was not in my post.

So you think we should ignore the risk in relation to isolation?

riveted1 · 03/08/2021 14:59

@bumbleymummy

Even in the situation where there is breakthrough infection and transmission, your viral load is lower, further reducing your risk to others.

Where did you get this from?

It is very basic biology, that if you are vaccinated you clear viral particles quicker. It has been demonstrated in studies of other variants, and there is currently no robust evidence that this is completely negated by delta.

But sure, ignore all other points that demonstrate the issues in your logic and latch onto anything you can.

riveted1 · 03/08/2021 15:00

@bumbleymummy

Nice swerve tactic, it's a classic technique. The false claim that there is no difference in transmission between those vaccinated and unvaccinated.

I didn’t say there was so I’m not swerving at all. You replied to my post referencing a false claim and I asked what it was. That claim was not in my post.

So you think we should ignore the risk in relation to isolation?

This isn't a thread about testing or isolation and yet you insist on shoehorning it in as your other arguments break down. There are a huge number of others discussing these issues.

IMO, interventions that have little impact on the individual and economy should stay for everyone - so masks and testing.

Given the reduced risk of infection/transmission from those vaccinated, I can understand isolation exemption as this allows people to still go to work/university so has a large individual and societal benefit. But this has been said to you multiple times on various threads (where it is actually relevant) and you just ignore it so...

bumbleymummy · 03/08/2021 15:14

Now @riveted1 surely you know better than to try to pass a bold statement like that off as ‘basic biology’ without any supporting evidence? We have very limited info on delta so far but we can see that it is behaving differently to previous strains irt infecting vaccinated people.

My arguments aren’t ‘breaking down’. You just acknowledged that we shouldn’t be ignoring the risk from vaccinated people by exempting them from testing. That was my argument.

bumbleymummy · 03/08/2021 15:15

And we’re discussing treating people differently based on their vaccine status so yes, I think vaccine passports are relevant.

bumbleymummy · 03/08/2021 15:16

Limited data in comparison to other strains*

sleepwouldbenice · 03/08/2021 15:20

@bumbleymummy

The risk would still be lower if a relative they see regularly got vaccinated

Not if they’re already immune Hmm

Depends from when Vaccine would likely build further immunity 🙄
bumbleymummy · 03/08/2021 15:27

Riiiight… because being immune to something isn’t good enough. You want to be extra immune to it 🙄

sleepwouldbenice · 03/08/2021 15:39

@bumbleymummy

Riiiight… because being immune to something isn’t good enough. You want to be extra immune to it 🙄
You don't know much about immunity strength and duration then Funny that.....
bumbleymummy · 03/08/2021 15:52

I suppose you get the mmr, varicella and tetanus jabs for you and your children every year just to ‘build further immunity’ and make sure it is extra strong, right? :)

sleepwouldbenice · 03/08/2021 16:00

@bumbleymummy

I suppose you get the mmr, varicella and tetanus jabs for you and your children every year just to ‘build further immunity’ and make sure it is extra strong, right? :)
I follow national advice, flu jabs etc
bumbleymummy · 03/08/2021 16:08

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