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

[wishingitwasspring]

Not sure what the legal stance is.

I'm not in favour of removing "misinformation" because our understanding of what is true is constantly changing.

The idea that Covid leaked from a lab was once "misinformation". Now it's at least considered a plausible theory.

The idea that the vaccinated could still spread Covid was once "misinformation". Now it's accepted fact.

It would be the height of arrogance to assume that we know now with certainty what is true and what isn't.

Where misinformation is flagrant and easily disputed, I think it's best left to other posters to do so.

Yes. And those who get repeatedly comments deleted because of misinformation should be banned.

Thanks @PAFMO - I agree. I don't like censorship and think everyone should be allowed an opinion but some of the opinions being expressed are really crossing a line at the moment. One of the threads removed yesterday (I think this is the one you were referring to?) asked people if they thought the unvaccinated should not be treated in hospital if they got ill. You only need to replace the word 'unvaccinated' for any other group of people to see how close to hate speech this is getting. It worries me that people are feeling empowered to speak out in such a prejudiced and inflammatory way and I can't help but feel threads like this and some of the very negative recent news article blaming the unvaccinated for lockdowns are helping to fuel it. I love all my friends and family, vaccinated and unvaccinated, and I hate that people are being pushed apart by this.

l think Mumsnet should limit the amount of corona related posts full stop, its literally taking over the whole forum.
l refuse to read them.

@Moonface123

l think Mumsnet should limit the amount of corona related posts full stop, its literally taking over the whole forum. l refuse to read them.

As we can see.

@user1745

I'm not in favour of removing "misinformation" because our understanding of what is true is constantly changing.

The idea that Covid leaked from a lab was once "misinformation". Now it's at least considered a plausible theory.

The idea that the vaccinated could still spread Covid was once "misinformation". Now it's accepted fact.

It would be the height of arrogance to assume that we know now with certainty what is true and what isn't.

Where misinformation is flagrant and easily disputed, I think it's best left to other posters to do so.

Thank you for rather more eloquently making the same point that I was trying to, albeit more clumsily than your post.

@DottyHarmer

I’ve threatened on another thread to report “be kind” posts. A large number follow the line, “I’m really worried about being vaccinated as I know so many people who’ve been left infertile/it doesn’t stop the spread/I have a needle phobia and anxiety - please don’t bully me and be kind!”

People are allowed to be worried. Why should they be shut down from talking about their worries? What MN guideline are they breaking?

I have seen threads and comments about health anxieties/needle phobias, and the vast majority of replies have been very helpful. Many anxious people have gone on to get the vaccine due to the advice offered. And they all get told how brave they have been, and get more encouragement to get more jabs.

Why would you want to stop that? I see that you don't actually believe anyone could be so anxious about the jab, and still write them off as anti-vaxxers anyway. What is your agenda?

@PAFMO

I agree posts talking about personal experiences are tricky.

This is the way I see it; there are 2 different kinds of threads - general discussions and personal discussions.

I think it is fine to post stuff on a general thread about adverse events saying that they are rare /common /whatever / linking to papers which suggest them to be rare / common / whatever.

Dismissing or downplaying or linking as above on a personal thread talking about personal experiences seems wrong to me.

This is the internet - there will always be people posting stuff that's not true but it works both ways. Like the posters who claim that everyone they know has had covid about 3 times.

I think MN do a good job and find a good balance. I don't think people should be deleted or banned for holding opinions that others do not like. And that works both ways too.

From what I've seen on this board there are about equal volumes of misinformation posted (intentionally or otherwise) on both sides of the debate.

If Mumsnet removed everything that was factually incorrect half the posts on every thread would have to go!

who would decide what was incorrect though?

@anniegun

If Mumsnet removed everything that was factually incorrect half the posts on every thread would have to go!

I suspect that the "Sex" topic and the "Gifted and Talented" topics would be particularly hard hit 😀

I think misinformation should be monitored so that people can make choices based on true and accurate information.

I don't think all people who choose not to have the vaccine can be labelled anti vaxers, and I don't think all people who have chosen not to have the vaccine have done so based on being misinformed.

We are people and people will always choose different things whether right or wrong in someone else's eyes.

Back to your original question though social media and forums should certainly monitor information posted but it's that vast is it even possible?

During normal times - where there isn’t so much pressure on hospitals, where it isn’t potentially a life or death situation for others - debate and alternative viewpoints is probably more acceptable?
But - because this is science, because this is advice given by the best medical minds in the world - because we are not so well qualified - we shouldn’t be persuaded or swayed by random people on social media platforms to make critical health choices. We should be getting our advice from the NHS website!

Why? The vast majority of adults in the UK have aready been vaccinated 2 or 3 times. I don't think the anti vaxxers are as big of a threat as they may like to think.

@Coffeeshopcookies

I have a feeling MN is becoming a "safe space" for anti-vaxxers in the same why it was controversially associated with being anti-trans. If you look at the questions about not complying with lockdown rules, about 80% of responses were no. That's a bonkers ratio compared to real life where the vast majority of people are fully vaccinated and will still follow lockdown rules if required.

I agree with this

@Beadebaser

During normal times - where there isn’t so much pressure on hospitals, where it isn’t potentially a life or death situation for others - debate and alternative viewpoints is probably more acceptable? But - because this is science, because this is advice given by the best medical minds in the world - because we are not so well qualified - we shouldn’t be persuaded or swayed by random people on social media platforms to make critical health choices. We should be getting our advice from the NHS website!

In your opinion.

Not all posters are in the UK. I'm in France and the advice is different for certain things for example. Switzerland is different again. I think it's OK to discuss that, no?

Also you mention hospitals again. I already linked on this thread to the UK Health Security Agency COVID-19 vaccine surveillance report. The data shows that the group which is the most represented in terms of admissions is vaccinated people of age 80 and above. The next highest group is vaccinated people aged 70 to 79. It is to be expected that a large proportion of hospitalisations occur in vaccinated people because a larger proportion of the
population are vaccinated. But it is perfectly legitimate to look at those figues and say that you don't think that a healthy 20 year old who has already had covid (for example) needs to be vaccinated. No?

@Newrunner29

What makes you think that the 80% of people you say post they would not comply with lockdown rules are also unvaccinated??

@Beachcomber

My understanding is that it us about controlling the infection rate for society as a whole, and not solely about personal risk.

A healthy 20 year old who has had Covid, could still catch it/infect others - even if their personal risk is low. A vaccine, timed with boosters when the efficacy of the vaccine is predicted to lessen - is the better option surely - and what people are advised to do.
The healthy 20 year old can still pass it on to an unhealthy 80 year old.
So it’s about reducing the infection rate in the community so the hospital can function adequately across all its services.
But somebody with a better brain than me has worked it out to the best of their ability already - so I shall follow that advice!

MN isn't a propaganda site for either side on any debate. They do remove posts already.

If they start fact-checking everything, there would be no content eg OP you say you're a medical professional with the implication that somehow makes your opinion of your colleague's opinion more valid. For MN to fact check, they'd need to check your role, employment history and whether or not all your colleagues support your stance. Plus is an NHS HCP's opinion more or less valid than a global virologist - hmm, tricky. So many variables that it's not really practical.

fwiw I'd be interested in the correlation between posters who complain about MN modding on this; posters who claim a medical qualification and posters who are mixing and socialising a lot . Most medical professionals (at consultant level) I know would consider most MNers' behaviour reckless regarding socialising and mixing, (whether vaccinated or unvaccinated). But take out all the threads about parties and holidays, and there's not a lot left.

[quote Beadebaser]@Beachcomber

My understanding is that it us about controlling the infection rate for society as a whole, and not solely about personal risk.

A healthy 20 year old who has had Covid, could still catch it/infect others - even if their personal risk is low. A vaccine, timed with boosters when the efficacy of the vaccine is predicted to lessen - is the better option surely - and what people are advised to do.
The healthy 20 year old can still pass it on to an unhealthy 80 year old.
So it’s about reducing the infection rate in the community so the hospital can function adequately across all its services.
But somebody with a better brain than me has worked it out to the best of their ability already - so I shall follow that advice![/quote]
But this is typical of what we are talking about. There is much that is unknown on the subject of reinfection. It is being studied currently - the CDC in America clearly state that on their website for example.

This was added to the NHS information in August for example.

www.swlpath.nhs.uk/a-new-study-shows-that-previous-covid-19-infection-protects-against-reinfection-even-without-antibodies/

www.journalofinfection.com/article/S0163-4453(21)00266-8/fulltext

And then we have the subject of the ethics of vaccinating healthy young people with vaccines they don't need in order to protect a health system that has been underfunded for years. And then we have the question of how come the vaccine of the 80 year old is not doing its job and protecting them...

So you see how there are legitimate discussions to be had on all manner of subjects which may seem cut and dried to you but they do not to others.

You appear to think that the risk of reinfection and then transmission to a vulnerable person is high (or certainly high enough to indicate that vaccination of the young recovered people will have a significant impact on the outcomes for older people and on our health service). The emerging data does not currently support your view.

No, they shouldn't.

Although I do think it's OK to remove anything that is clearly fake news. But peoples opinions, etc should stay.

I agree with @Coffeeshopcookies that MN seems to be a safe space for anti-vaxers and indeed fantasists.

I was just reading the “should I get a booster” thread and the side-effects being claimed! Well, you would have thought these people would have made world headlines for the dreadful things they were suffering. Believe me, I felt crap for a week after my first dose, as did many other people I know, but the dramatic things on that thread were on a level such that I can’t believe these posters are not being studied at Porton Down

@DottyHarmer

I agree with *@Coffeeshopcookies* that MN seems to be a safe space for anti-vaxers and indeed fantasists.

I was just reading the “should I get a booster” thread and the side-effects being claimed! Well, you would have thought these people would have made world headlines for the dreadful things they were suffering. Believe me, I felt crap for a week after my first dose, as did many other people I know, but the dramatic things on that thread were on a level such that I can’t believe these posters are not being studied at Porton Down

It is a feature of the internet that only people who have severe side effects post about them. I had minimal side effects from the booster and nearly all my friends are in the same boat, but we haven't posted that anywhere. Because it is a non-event.

@Beachcomber sorry I’m skim reading while painting!

The vaccine IS doing is job and protecting them! As with the flu vaccine, it needs a booster.

Emerging science is - of course - necessary. BUT - it needs robust, peer reviewed validation before it can be given as advice to the population of the world. And this is what is happening!

@Cherryblossoms85

Quite a gap between antivaxx and having a few concerns about the direction of travel of a very authoritarian government..

Agree