If you didn't get the jab, would you consider having it now?

[AreYouVeryAnti]

You'd better be quick if you're healthy and under 50...

"The Telegraph understands the Government is also preparing to wind down the open offer of the first two doses over the coming months. The move will mean unvaccinated healthy under-50s will soon not be able to get a Covid jab unless one is recommended by a medical professional."

Well it's anecdotal because it's you posting stories anyonymously on a forum, if that makes sense.

Side effects occur and compensation has been given out who have suffered adversely. You can see the numbers for both which are publicly available. It remains the case that it was better to be vaccinated than unvaccinated even for those in low risk groups- we know this from replication population level data.

I was given a drug that nearly killed me. It is simultaneously true that I wish I hadn't been given the drug, and that doctors were correct to give it to me. I just happened to be one of the unlucky ones who got an established, rare but serious, side effect.

Just because I was that person, I don't think doctors should now not offer it to anyone, nor that it was their fault for giving it to me in the first place.

It’s anecdotal. Whether you like it or not! “Not necessarily true or reliable, because based on personal accounts rather than facts or research.”

Although definitions, facts, reliable evidence seem to be thrown completely out the window.

Minky : your post has been deleted
SS : no it’s not - you’re odd
Minky : yes it has
SS: no it’s not - you’re odd
Minky : gives evidence
SS : No answer or a flounce/you lot are all horrible/it’s a Mumsnet conspiracy/what you are seeing with your eyes is not the ‘real truth’/my anecdote (which of course is not an anecdote because dictionary definitions are a conspiracy) should be what all medical professionals everywhere should be basing their advice on : rather than their meticulous research which is all ‘wrong’.

Is this how the ‘real truth’ works? Doesn’t sound safe or reliable or effective to me…

@MinkyGreen
@statementstate
luckily, after appealing to mumsnet they unbanned my account as they had an erroneous report that i was making fun of autistic people on a thread 😱
i think @statementstate might be arguing the fact that her posts are being deleted because the one you mentioned at 19:?? was a very simple message of support to me. i can't imagine how that was removed as it did not come close to breaking any guidelines. @statementstate, if you have the time to contact mumsnet, i'm sure they would see how wrong it was to delete your post and perhaps the person doing the reporting might be more ethical in their future misinformation reports. mumsnet was very helpful and understanding and i am grateful to have been reinstated, although i'm sure many of you are not.

@MinkyGreen
@twitterexile

MinkyGreen out of interest - do you accept that many people have been harmed by the covid vaccines?

i was wondering if you were planning to answer this question posed to you by twitterexile?

See previous reply @peppathe3rd

No one is denying side effects occur.

A huge amount of research in invested into identifying prevalence, risk groups, prognostic factors etc.

@peppathe3rd im so exhausted reading these responses from Minky that I don’t even have the energy to appeal to the moderators.

My one post where I showed you support has been deleted. I’ve seen enough, and I’m no longer going to participate in this toxic exchange.

@biokult point is, they’re not for everyone. Yet people were forced to take it. The friend I’ve mentioned in the comments was forced to take it by her firm. Then within 8 months, her and a few others were made redundant. She was happy to take the first jab, just like everyone else was at the time, but she had a bad reaction within 24 hours for which she was hospitalised. At the time, they just said it was nothing serious, and she should get the second when due.
When the second was due, she expressed her concerns with the firm, but they were adamant that she should take it because she had no official medical document to say that the first adverse effect was truly attributed to the jab. Also, in our line of work, we travel a lot, so being vaccinated for entry into countries was necessary. Another pointless line of discrimination.

Point is, fair enough we needed something to get us out of the situation we were in, great…offer it to everyone. Fortunate that we should be offered a vaccine to such a virus. However, should people decide against taking it, that should be their prerogative based on their own personal informed risk/benefit analysis derived from the information given to them. There were mandates in professional and educational settings that forced people to take the jab. Along with offers or discounts, cash back, and an array of other monetised incentives in other countries like the states.
You were ostracised and labelled if you didn’t want to get vaccinated. That was wrong, because for many ppl the risk of being vaccinated posed a greater risk to their health than Covid.

You made an informed choice to take the drug offered to you, and yet you could still probably claim compensation for the harm it caused. Not sure you’d take it again though?

There were mandates in professional and educational settings that forced people to take the jab. Along with offers or discounts, cash back, and an array of other monetised incentives in other countries like the states.

I have said before I am anti vaccine mandates due to the harm they cause. This is a seperate issue to fake claims surrounding vaccine efficacy and safety though. In an ideal world, I would have liked to have seen everyone offered the vaccine take it up back in 2020, based on an understanding of the risks v benefits.

Incentives are another thing entirely - ethics boards decide what is appropriate and what is not - and generally as long as it is something someone can turn down (e.g., voucher, entry into a raffle, slice of pizza), it is not considered coercive.

This is you swerving into an entirely different set of issues though @statementstate

You made an informed choice to take the drug offered to you, and yet you could still probably claim compensation for the harm it caused. Not sure you’d take it again though?

No of course I wouldn't take it again & have this emblazoned on my medical notes. But my point was - with the knowledge available, it was the right choice for me to take it. And my terrible experience doesn't mean policy should change in terms of it being offered - this isn't how evidence based medicine works.

And it's the same with offering vaccines to the general population. It was better to be vaccinated than unvaccinated. This is not helpful to the minority who have had severe side effects, and I really empathise to anyone in this situation, but this is the reality of weighing and risks and benefits, and no intervention is 100% safe.

@biokult
i believe the point was that her friend was "forced," to take the jab twice. she didn't want to but was made to in order to work. you said that of course you wouldn't have taken the medicine that harmed you twice, but you must see how different a situation that is to the one described to you. thank goodness you had that choice, but many people did not in this case.

@peppathe3rd Welcome back!

I did answer the question.

I have no idea what was posted by yourself/SS - but I think there are fair few glitter bombs of misinformation and dubious links zapped by Mumsnet in the past few months.

Mumsnet’s stance : Our overall aim is to make parent's lives easier and we moderate with this in mind. Clearly, 'fake news' or bad science isn't helpful for anyone, least of all parents - though we do find this kind of thing is quickly and robustly challenged on the boards - and we'll also remove links to dubious sources when reported.

where did you answer the question?

Today at 13.33 👍

oh yes, i see now. compassionate as ever.

@peppathe3rd

Yes - consensus science tends to be more compassionate than the views of far right politicians.

@MinkyGreen
do you feel good about yourself when you sling insults?

@peppathe3rd

I was responding to your insult. Did you feel good about yours??

stating that your response lacks compassion is not an insult. linking me to the far right is very hurtful and i explained why in a pretty vulnerable way last night.

@peppathe3rd

Because you linked a far right Idaho politician! Why link a far right politician if you don’t want any association with far right politics?? Of course people are going to question that, and quite rightly!!

i've explained ad nauseum why i was concerned about that bill being proposed. i would really appreciate if you would leave me alone. i find interactions with you to be highly unpleasant. if you wouldn't mind, i'd be very grateful to not receive anymore posts from you. you wrote something yesterday that i thanked you for, but, at least with me, you seem to be incapable of basic human kindness. i'm going through a hard time and am sincerely asking if you would please stop. i'm sorry i asked you a question before. i was seriously interested in your answer which i missed. thank you for hopefully understanding how i feel.

Ok well I find misinformation harmful and upsetting due to vulnerabilities with myself and my family. So I’ll stop when the misinformation and links to extreme politics stop. I’m posting within Mumsnet guidelines as far as I’m aware. But don’t include or link me in your posts if you don’t want me to give an answer. Or you can report me. Otherwise this is an open forum.

i'm very sorry to hear that you and your family have health vulnerabilities. i truly wish you and yours nothing but health, and i won't link you in posts.

You seem to be misinterpreting what I said which was in relation to another point.

Vaccines (and medications) cause side effects. Risks must be balanced against benefits, and when it is clear the benefits outweigh the risks, they are offered.

Someone's anecdotal experience shouldn't outweigh existing recommendations based on robust evidence because this is nonsenical. This is the case for the drug I was given, and for the SARS-COV-2 vaccines.

I also have a friend who developed myocarditis after his second dose. Like me, he does not think this means no one in age his age group should have been given it, or that the recommendations were a mistake. Or indeed that he shouldn't haven taken it in the first place. The data is very clear on this.

As I have stressed, I am anti vaccine mandates due to the harm they cause, and obviously if a vaccine is contraindicated it should not be given. I am assuming the PP is referring to a story from abroad, as we did not have any mandates here for the general population.

From a recent large scale study in the USA:

Analyzing the most extensive datasets in the United States, researchers from the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai have revealed that vaccination against COVID-19 is associated with fewer heart attacks, strokes, and other cardiovascular issues among people who were infected with SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19.

https://mdpi-res.com/dattachment/tropicalmed/tropicalmed-07-00196/articlee_deploy/tropicalmed-07-00196-v2.pdf?version=1661135151

i realise this study has a small sample size, but do the findings carry any weight? if not, does anyone know if any similar studies have been done - i.e. follow up after dose 2 of pfizer on children under 18 regarding cardiac issues