Vaccine after covid

[SonnetForSpring]

My ds is turning 12 this week. He has missed out on vaccine at school as they did it last week and he wasn't 12. I have seen 12 year olds may be able to use walk in centres soon to get the vaccine. How, he has just tested positive for covid. How long do you have to wait after a positive result before you can be vaccinated?

@PurpleDaisies

If you search “bumbleymummy vaccine”, you’ll see a long history of anti vaccine posts predating Covid.

Posters need to be aware of this when reading their posts.

Yup, 10 years of posting minimising the impact of infectious disease (HPV, 'flu, hepatitis, measles, rubella etc) and downplaying the importance of vaccination, whilst exaggerating their risks.

All the arguments are recycled for coronavirus.

@bumbleymummy

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk guidelines.

The fact you often add in a disclaimer that you think the coronavirus vaccines are a good thing for high risk people doesn't negate the problems with your many many other posts.

I'm not sure what sane person would argue someone CEV/elderly shouldn't be vaccinated tbh.

@bumbleymummy

Just going to repost what I wrote above.

“I’m very pro-vax for the people who need it. It has saved lots of lives and reduced the risk of serious illness in many.”

Some MNers have a very strange idea about what it means to be ‘anti-vax’. I think purpledaisies (and a few others) have an ‘anti-bumbley’ agenda

Your history is there for all to read.

Posters can make up your mind about how pro vaccination they think you are. This is absolutely nothing personal and it’s disappointing that you’ve decided that it is.

Absolutely second what @purpledaisies has said. I’ve seen much of what bumbley has said over the years. Her posts are definitely thinly-veiled anti-vax, very carefully mixed in with many a ‘disclaimer’ just to give it the right amount of credibility. You are being seen @bumbleymummy

Yes, I haven’t namechanged. Unlike some posters, I’m happy to stand by what I’ve written over the years. :)

I don’t think that saying that the single measles vaccine should have been kept available on the NHS when the Wakefield scandal broke, so that children could still be vaccinated against measles is anti-vaxx. It is still a vaccine after all.

Nor is saying that rubella is mild in children minimising it as an illness for pregnant women. That information is given on the NHS website.

Saying that most cases of HPV resolve without treatment and that vaccinated people should still have regular smears is true and again, not minimising it. I’ve had to have Lletz procedures for cervical changes myself so I’m well aware of where it can go and that’s why I strongly encourage people to have smears and not rely on being vaccinated. I don’t think that is being anti-vax either but yes, people can read my posts and make up their own mind.

There you go again.

On the other hand, some of us are extremely grateful for vaccines and medical advances - they have after all saved literally millions of lives.

Yes, they have @herecomesthsun. I’m very grateful for them too. :)

@bumbleymummy

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk guidelines.

You think some posters would get bored posting their anti vax stance. Don't want it don't have it but stop spreading your rubbish. Apart from a couple if fruit loops on social media and a solitary neighbour that still insists covid is made up most people seem to realise that vaccines do work.

What epidemiology qualifications or other medical or science qualifications do you actually have bumble or is it just personal opinion. 🤔

Here’s some up to date info on vaccine verses natural immunity, because my July one was not good enough. www.nebraskamed.com/COVID/covid-19-studies-natural-immunity-versus-vaccination

@PurpleDaisies

If you search “bumbleymummy vaccine”, you’ll see a long history of anti vaccine posts predating Covid.

Posters need to be aware of this when reading their posts.

Why are some people so determined to bash vaccines and spread anti vax stuff. What exactly do they get from it. It's very odd. At least others are calling this out

Thanks hope.

28 days after the day your child had their positive test.

@StiggyZardust

28 days after the day your child had their positive test.

Yes thats what a freinds also been told so basically a month / 4 weeks

@REDHERO think Bumbleymummy has finally name changed or is having a rest from her anti-vax stance. Must be exhausting trawling through all the covid threads and saying the same things time and time again.

[quote Hopeisallineed]@REDHERO think Bumbleymummy has finally name changed or is having a rest from her anti-vax stance. Must be exhausting trawling through all the covid threads and saying the same things time and time again.[/quote]
Nope, still here. Just enjoying half term with my children :) Hope you are too!

@bumbleymummy

www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-26479-2#Sec2

What do you think of this? Seems like 24% don't develop antibody, especially if you are older or have it light. On the other hand, if you have severe illness, the protection lasts longer. So people need to have a severe symptom to have lasting protection from natural immunity, against vaccine immunity that can be topped up with boosters or infection after vaccination witch tends to be mild for those vaccinated?

@winterisaroundthecorner

I predict you will be linked to the HIQA review (despite Ireland themselves recommending vaccination after infection)

@winterisaroundthecorner

From the paper -

“ We found 24% of participants did not seroconvert after testing PCR positive. However, if we restricted to participants with strong evidence for a true-positive PCR result (Ct ≤ 32, ≥2 genes detected), a lower proportion, 595/5230 (11%), did not seroconvert. ”

And -

“ Non-responders likely reflect a combination of genuine non-responders, false-positive PCR results, and false-negative antibody results.”

Also, they are purely focussing on antibodies and whether or not they exceed a specific threshold. We already know that not having a certain level of antibodies does not mean that someone is not immune. There have been several papers published that discuss the differences in the immune response between children and adults and how it may explain why children tend to have have milder symptoms.

There are also several studies showing that the majority of children do develop antibodies. I linked to one on the other thread. And, as discussed at length on the other thread, if children weren’t developing immunity then we would expect to see a high rate of reinfections in them and there is no evidence to suggest this.