Should Mumsnet be removing anti vax thread/info/supporters?

[wishingitwasspring]

Not sure what the legal stance is.

@ollyollyoxenfree

Yup *@Saucery*

they (MNHQ) are not epidemiologists and would like posters to refute misinformation on the threads. So basically, do their job for them.

There is an actually tsnami of misinformation on MN. The board is swimming with it. Even if one person was doing it full time, it's not possible to engage with all of it (and the format of MN makes it much harder than somewhere like reddit or twitter).

Added to the fact that you posters repeating the same misinformation time after time on threads, not giving a shiny shite that they've been corrected multiple times the past.

Then when you reply for the umpteenth time with the same info you get told you're "boring", "repetitive", accused of stalking, or my personal fave "either a big pharma CEO or an idiot" and the personal attacks start.

It makes it impossible to engage with important things on the board (i.e., government policies, vaccines mandates, safety concerns, vaccination of various groups) because every thread turns into just this pit of nonsense.

Thank you for persisting though, it's very heartening.

@ollyollyoxenfree very well said and put. 100% agree.

MN already heavily moderate threads thats discuss not having the vaccination.

Where you not aware?

Some people are so very sure of their opinions. You see it on all threads. Recently there was a “will” thread and I couldn’t believe the advice that was being given. It wasn’t even “I think…” but “What you should do, OP, is….” The utter bollocks that was being spouted!

@leafyygreens

Are you saying something about vaccination that is not true?

If the answer is yes, then it's misinformation.

If no, then crack on

+++

What you propose at first read seems perfectly reasonable.

However the truth is that there are known unknowns and unknown unknowns on the vaccine and what is true today may not be in the future as events change.

For example when the vaccine was first rolled out it was widely believed by many that it was a one off vaccine 90 to 95% effective at preventing catching Covid, transmitting it, hospitalisation and death. We now know that the vaccine effectiveness drops over time (hence need for boosters) and whilst it does significantly reduce hospitalisations and deaths we now know is less than 90 to 95%.

To have raised such a concern on the effectiveness of the vaccine 12 months ago would have been seen as heretical ant vaxx misinformation but 12 months later is mainstream and accepted.

Similarly we learn more about the virus over time, at first it was thought to have been contracted through touch but now we know it's airborne.

Lastly given the uncertainties (even amongst the scientific community) on what is a very much a new virus then by what definition and who makes the decision on whether something is "true" or not?

The Government with backing from their scientific advisors??

[quote 1dayatatime]@leafyygreens

Are you saying something about vaccination that is not true?

If the answer is yes, then it's misinformation.

If no, then crack on

+++

What you propose at first read seems perfectly reasonable.

However the truth is that there are known unknowns and unknown unknowns on the vaccine and what is true today may not be in the future as events change.

For example when the vaccine was first rolled out it was widely believed by many that it was a one off vaccine 90 to 95% effective at preventing catching Covid, transmitting it, hospitalisation and death. We now know that the vaccine effectiveness drops over time (hence need for boosters) and whilst it does significantly reduce hospitalisations and deaths we now know is less than 90 to 95%.

To have raised such a concern on the effectiveness of the vaccine 12 months ago would have been seen as heretical ant vaxx misinformation but 12 months later is mainstream and accepted.

Similarly we learn more about the virus over time, at first it was thought to have been contracted through touch but now we know it's airborne.

Lastly given the uncertainties (even amongst the scientific community) on what is a very much a new virus then by what definition and who makes the decision on whether something is "true" or not?

The Government with backing from their scientific advisors??[/quote]
I don't think anything you have said here is unreasonable and it is true that the science is changing, but if we do not take advice from the scientific advisors, whom should we take it from?

@Whyevencare

They did remove the disgusting thread I reported earlier suggesting the unvaccinated should not get hospital treatment.

This is exactly my thought aswell those posts shouldn't be aloud they are vile and causing alot of distress to people reading them that arent vaxxed for reasons far more complex than just thinking it's a hoax or they are having a chip put in them

@JanisMoplin

Still waiting for the pro-vaccine misinformation. I think I will be waiting a while because all of it is backed by the scientific establishments of every country.

I think when posters say that the vast majority of people hospitalized with covid are unvaccinated and that the NHS is overwhelmed with treating unvaccinated people, that is false information.

Table 9 assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1039677/Vaccine_surveillance_report_-_week_49.pdf

I consider it to be very divisive and unhelpful misinformation which tends to get people a bit whipped up into a frenzy calling for "antivaxxers" to be denied medical treatment / jobs / freedom of movement. It also creates an atmosphere of blame around lockdowns. Any upcoming lockdowns will also be due to the waning of vaccine protection (not just to infection in unvaccinated people).

I have also seen people minimizing other posters' experience of serious side effects (cardiac events for example) which is pretty irresponsible behavior.

@1dayatatime

This is a problem with a fundamental level of scientific understanding, including by those in the media

For example when the vaccine was first rolled out it was widely believed by many that it was a one off vaccine 90 to 95% effective at preventing catching Covid, transmitting it, hospitalisation and death.
This may have been widely believed (although the trial data was 2 doses not 1), however it is not what scientists were saying. We already knew from previous and the current coronavirus that the mutation rate is high, there would be high transmissibility, reinfection was possible. This meant that repeated doses plus an annual vaccination schedule was likely.

To have raised such a concern on the effectiveness of the vaccine 12 months ago would have been seen as heretical ant vaxx misinformation but 12 months later is mainstream and accepted.

Again - I think this would show a lack of understanding. Questioning science, based on evidence, is never "heretical". This forms the basis of peer review? Scientists regularly defend their work against criticisms, outline limitations, and describe the caveats along with their rcommendations.

The issue is when you get people with no or very little background knowledge, making definitive statements like "natural immunity is better than vaccine immunity", "vaccines cause miscarriage", "vaccines don't stop infection or transmission" etc etc.

@JanisMoplin

but if we do not take advice from the scientific advisors, whom should we take it from?

+++

Personally I would choose to look at the advice of a pool of mainstream scientific advisors, but that is just my preference.

My concern is where the Government goes against the advice of mainstream advisors such as currently not putting in the restrictions they are recommending or equally at the other end of the spectrum the initial scientific advice that it wasn't worth vaccinating the 12 to 16 year olds which the Government went against.

I recognise Governments have to take other factors into consideration such as economic damage, education etc but as for what is true or not then I unequivocally prefer the "truth" straight from a pool of the research of established scientists rather than the Government's interpretation of what is true.

But equally I recognise that other people are happy to accept the Government's advice or at the other end of the spectrum a website espousing 5G risks or whatever.

In summary it is up to each individual to form their own opinion, there is no "one truth" and to whilst it is entirely correct indeed our responsibility to challenge opinions stated as facts, I think we are in danger of entering a very scary world where only one set of opinions that are in line with the Government "advice" are valid and that other opinions should be censored such as by MNHQ.

I think we are in danger of entering a very scary world where only one set of opinions that are in line with the Government "advice" are valid and that other opinions should be censored such as by MNHQ.

I see this type of post a lot @1dayatatime - I don't think anyone is suggesting MNHQ should delete anything that isn't government advice nor is that already happening.

As we know, the government regularly go against scientific advice, make nonsenical recommendations, lie, U-turn, make promises that obviously can't be delivered because our PM seems to have inability to give realistic reports that will be unpopular.

I've given examples of scientific misinformation above that should be deleted though.

@dreamingbohemian

I appreciate your sentiment here, BUT, with the examples you gave people often make their own decisions on top of the trusted/researched opinions.

Eg:

• trusting doctors and dentists and surgeons to save their health (many don't, and will seek alternative medicine or take their own risks in life such as being overweight, smoking, drinking etc)

Pilots and train drivers to deliver them safely (very different to scientific research! Motor and mechanical skills seem a lot more concrete and trustworthy to many people so less daunting than medical research )

• food hygiene experts to feed them safely (people often store and eat food using their own judgement - for example how many MN threads are there about sell by date/best before date etc)

• police and fire services to protect their neighbourhoods (many people don't trust the police as an organisation for various reasons! Many injustices and hidden corruptions. Fire service is different as they deal specifically with one thing)

• teachers to teach their children (some people home school, many parents bolster their childrens education by teaching skills they find to be just as important)

@MNHQ

I think these boards are rife with misinformation. Mumsnet rely on others to report, but that’s insufficient.

There are certain posters here who are obviously very highly qualified like @ollyollyoxenfree - and are doing a sterling job of combatting it all.

Mumsnet are not expert enough to see through the misinformation - a lot of it is subtle, and perpetuated by the same posters who are manipulative.

A while ago there were links to far right video hosting sites like bitchute etc, and far right think tanks. There appears to be less of that now.

Misinformation and fake news IS harmful. It is an online harm listed with bullying, racism, exploitation etc.

@ollyollyoxenfree

"The issue is when you get people with no or very little background knowledge, making definitive statements like "natural immunity is better than vaccine immunity", "vaccines cause miscarriage", "vaccines don't stop infection or transmission" etc."

+++

But even if we take what you see as definitive statements and statements most would agree with you, then we can see how there is no "one truth" , how "truth" gets distorted or what I personally believe (rightly or wrongly) is true is different to what you see as true. Such as;

"vaccines don't stop infection or transmission" - I actually don't think vaccines stop infection or transmission, I think they greatly reduce it but would disagree with the statement that they stop transmission or infection.

"natural immunity is better than vaccine immunity", - I think neither the vaccine or previous infection confer immunity but both do provide enhanced resistance. As to which is better it is impossible to say, so given that natural resistance (ie infection) runs a much greater the risk to me of death then I personally would much prefer to go with the vaccine. But I do believe that a previous infection does provide a level of natural resistance.

"vaccines cause miscarriage" - this is a clear cut statement that I personally would fundamentally disagree with. But I do believe that there are well founded and documented concerns about the impact the vaccine has on periods, the long term impact of which I have no idea.

I hope the above helps clarify how difficult it is show what is the "one truth " and how dangerous it is to have that one truth decided for us.

@ollyollyoxenfree

Sorry I should clarify that those statements you gave are clearly not statements you personally espouse but are simply given as examples of clear cut misinformation.

My post was intended to show that (with the exception of the miscarriage statement) that actually they are not so clear cut misinformation after all.

@1dayatatime I think there is a difference between the general consensus of medical thought, and what is speculation/science that is not yet robust enough or sufficiently well peer reviewed.

While we are potentially in a critical situation, I think we should be careful of science that is the not the general consensus of thought - as we need a cohesive effort from all.

[quote Beadebaser]@MNHQ

I think these boards are rife with misinformation. Mumsnet rely on others to report, but that’s insufficient.

There are certain posters here who are obviously very highly qualified like @ollyollyoxenfree - and are doing a sterling job of combatting it all.

Mumsnet are not expert enough to see through the misinformation - a lot of it is subtle, and perpetuated by the same posters who are manipulative.

A while ago there were links to far right video hosting sites like bitchute etc, and far right think tanks. There appears to be less of that now.

Misinformation and fake news IS harmful. It is an online harm listed with bullying, racism, exploitation etc.[/quote]
I actually like @ollyollyoxenfree's posts and find them informative and truthful. She is also polite and non-aggressive when interacting which I appreciate. I think there's this slightly paranoid notion that anybody unvaccinated must be on here trying to spread misinformation. I don't think that's true. Sometimes mistakes are made on both sides of the argument with facts and figures as few of us are genuine experts in this area and are usually quoting from sources like the media. It is always good when someone with the correct data then comes along to clarify. I think honest and open debate is really important and it would be a real shame to shut it down.

I don't like censorship. Yes, some things need to get deleted. I think Mumsnet has done a great job so far.

Pro-vaccine misinformation?

Yes, it happens.

fullfact.org/health/dr-hilary-lorraine-kelly-90-percent/

Raab on Sky News the other day: ‘A large proportion of those who are in hospital are unvaccinated’ when it’s actually 40% of 5% total Covid.

Very subtle, but also, misleading & undoubtedly designed to push the vax.

Also, what counts as ‘unvaccinated’ these days? Only two jabs?

@MummyPop00 - Good post. I think when politicians like Raab are caught using figures in a misleading way to push their agenda all it does is create more distrust and make people less likely to listen to government advice. I think there needs to be more transparency and less of the 'nudge' tactics currently employed, as this approach is fairly easy to spot now & I'd imagine is starting to have the opposite effect on many people.

@nojudgementhere

I think it’s a fine line. I’ve read a few of your posts - and I think you come across well.

Debate is good, but when we are potentially heading for a critical situation - I think it’s vital that people are encouraged to follow what the best scientific advice is globally.

There are some posters here who manipulate data, or present scientific papers out of context, who are arrogant and don’t listen to reason. It’s this that I have a huge with.

MNHQ are much more likely to remove
threads (and ban those that started them) that challenge anti-vaxxers in my experience of deleted threads (and a friend who got banned).

@Hazelnutbean

MNHQ are much more likely to remove threads (and ban those that started them) that challenge anti-vaxxers in my experience of deleted threads (and a friend who got banned).

Your experience is just one among the very wide readership of Mumsnet. If you have some figures (x threads banned in x amount of time on xyz topics - something that I suspect only MNHQ has) then it would make your argument a bit more valid.

@Beachcomber- the kind of posts where people say they've had adverse side effects are very difficult to deal with. They can't be proved one way or the other. But I'd eat my hat if one or two of the prolific posters were genuine. There's one who claims ad infinitum to have a strangely high number of Covid vaccine damaged people in her own circle of friends and family. May be completely and totally true. In which case, that's terrible (and terribly unlucky). When you AS the user name though and in March 20 they were saying Covid didn't exist, then refused to wear a mask, then spent months railing against vaccines (it's now obviously vaccine passes) you do wonder if it's a chicken and egg situation.

There have been 9 (I think) confirmed deaths as a result of events following and thought to be caused by, the Covid vaccine in the UK. When AZ was first discussed as having the potential to cause myocarditis there were 1332 cases worldwide.
Likelihood of so many of the above (as would seem) being on MN?
Nah.

I also tend to do a chinny reckon at anyone who prefaces their post with "I am saying this as someone who has had both jabs"
But obviously, none of the above can be proved, though AS is often useful. The "frontline HCP" anti-vaxxer who 2 months ago WFH for a call centre shot herself in the foot by using the same user name for example.

I do agree that the astroturfers are fewer than a few months ago. You don't see quite so many links to bitchute and Unherd.

Though of course the clever anti-vaxxers will link to the BMJ. Just not peer-reviewed and checked out stuff. Or they link, but cherry pick half a paragraph from a 30 page report.

All told, I think HQ are doing a grand job in deleting the lies.

@Hazelnutbean

MNHQ are much more likely to remove threads (and ban those that started them) that challenge anti-vaxxers in my experience of deleted threads (and a friend who got banned).

Only if the "challenging" is saying things like the thread yesterday said. And quite rightly.