Covid vaccine during pregnancy

[Eleano]

I couldn't find a recent thread so I'm posting a new one.

I'm 11 weeks pregnant and have had no encouragement from my midwife to get the Covid vaccine. I've booked it for tomorrow and wanted to get some opinions.

I got vaccinated for Covid a few times when everyone was being called for vaccination and have no issue with being vaccinated but I'm nervous now that I'm pregnant since it seems that most pregnant women don't get vaccinated due to fear and a lack of guidance.

I heard a few womens' midwives told them to avoid it since pregnant women weren't in the clinical trials and since the current variant isn't severe.

However, my husband's a teacher and brings Covid home about twice a year and I catch it every time and it makes me ill for about a week.

I'm the only pregnant woman I know in my social circle getting the vaccine. Am I doing the right thing?

in fact, they were the ones arguing for informed consent

I have no idea how making up crap about vaccines and COVID for profit could in any way be considered helping people give informed consent, but heyho @vinegarasacleaner

(includes hits such as the vaccines contain infective COVID, the vaccines cause prion disease, it was a mistake to offer vaccination to the general public, the vaccines make you magnetic, masks contain "worms" (?!) - these are all claims that have been verified and have been the subject of many-a MN thread)

While I think anti-science is lucrative for those spreading misinformation - I also think it relies on a cult-like following. It’s interesting that you describe fear/control because similarly being part of a cult involves charismatic leaders who control their followers. The fact that you ‘question the narrative’ but don’t apply similar scepticism to the sources you chose to believe would suggest to me that a similar degree of fear (of science) and control is being exerted over you by these sources.

@pinkred I don't remember HART saying anything about magnetic vaccines and worms? Wonder if you're conflating your sources? They certainly wrote about how NHS processes around informed consent were being violated, though - and I agree with them there.

@WhalePolo I'm actually pretty ambivalent, personally. I certainly don't have any cult-like devotions, to HART or anyone else. The characterisation of HART as "anti-science" is quite funny, though - in many areas, I do think they apply a scientific rigour that was missing in many of the ways Covid was managed. Again, they might have got it wrong sometimes. The "official" stuff certainly did.

If you find anything cult-like or anti-science in the approach of (for example) Jonathan Engler (key leading member of HART), please do let us know. I've found him to speak huge amounts of sense, and think he's a highly intelligent guy, with no apparent conflict of interest.

You're completely diverting off the original points you were trying to make and ignoring all replies to your other questions/statements! Why does everyone have to answer your endless new questions, but you'll never acknowledge other peoples?

Why are you spamming a thread about vaccines in pregnancy like this?

And no, I'm very aware of all the fake claims HART and it's members have made - I'm not sure why I should take the time to pull up evidence for this specific statement when you'll just ignore it like every other reply reputing your posts.

Again more ignoring.

Why should posters have to reply to your posts time and time again, when they'll just go on forever.

What has Jonathan Engler specifically said that suggests women should not be vaccinated in pregnancy? If he hasn't, then why are you bringing him up?

The characterisation of HART as "anti-science" is quite funny, though - in many areas, I do think they apply a scientific rigour that was missing in many of the ways Covid was managed.

Ok - so provide any of this evidence that shows "scientific rigour" they have produced that was asessing vaccination of pregnant women against COVID @vinegarasacleaner

Posters have given specific examples of the the claims HART have made that are not true - not sure why you're ignoring every one of them

This is bonkers. What kind of argument is it to pull a name out of thin air and then tell other people to just disprove him? You're not even explaining what is is that he's said?

Nor how it relates to vaccination of pregnant women?

Or why it means all the evidence showing why this vaccine is recommended in pregnancy should be dismissed?

Baffling!

Quite frankly, if I hired someone from the FBI to make sure "disinformation" was countered online, and all they came up with was "vaccines are wonderful, don't worry about Moderna" I'd sack them pretty quickly and hire @henlee instead who does a far more credible job.

I engaged with the posts to say that I believe that despite all the studies it is possible that with hindsight we will see that the risks outweighed the benefits. Pharma have got it wrong before, and it's taken years to establish this. We're never going to agree, but hopefully OP has got lots of things to read if she wants to...

to say that I believe that despite all the studies it is possible that with hindsight we will see that the risks outweighed the benefits.

These vaccines are one of the most scrutinised health interventions to have ever been used in human history. It has been equivocally shown that vaccination in pregnancy reduce the chance of severe illness and complications for baby including premature delivery @AreYouVeryAnti, and that they are not associated with side effects beyond those seen the in general population.

Vaccine side effects emerge in the short term, and those claiming that we will see negative side effects 3, 5, 10 years down the line fundamentally do not understand how vaccines work.

It's just such a psychologically difficult thing to suggest to people it is safer to take action than not take action. Because of course if a vaccine works well, people don't notice anything at all.

I agree you can never be 100% sure of anything, but it seems strange to completely dismiss the known risks of COVID in favour of a hypothetical risk that has been heavily looked for and not found, and that expert opinion (i.e., "the consensus view" is confident does not exist @AreYouVeryAnti

But again this is the psychology of doing something to prevent harm rather than not doing something that could cause harm

It's a personal choice and my only gripe is that people should be directed to reputable sources to help them make a decison (e.g., RCOG) rather than terrified by fake claims by some of the sources linked here.

Weird to be asked relevance of Jonathan Engler in relation to HART being slated. He's the co-chair, and I think writes many of the articles.

I was also commenting on the idea of "anti-science" which someone mentioned (and which I found funny). So this is a general thing, about groups like HART and whether they are generally "anti-science" - beyond the pregnancy jab question which I have their link about. You want an example? They were loudly questioning mask mandates, because they made little scientific sense. And lo and behold, the latest Cochrane review of evidence finds very little (or no) impact of mask mandates on infection rates. The loudly questioned the messaging around the jabs and their alleged impact on transmission - and lo and behold, this had (as HART had said) been hugely overstated. There are plenty more examples. HART are not "anti-science". The political decision making, however, could be said to be so....

(sorry for typos)

I don't understand why you're swerving to yet another unrelated point @vinegarasacleaner

None of this is suggesting why pregnant women should not be offered vaccination in pregnancy.

Nor is it addressing any of the fake claims HART have made, or suggesting any robust research they have done that counters mainstream views.

You're conflating loads of different things and I'm not sure why you're suddenly bringing up COVID policies, for which we know various governments did not use the most up to date evidence to inform.

And lo and behold, the latest Cochrane review of evidence finds very little (or no) impact of mask mandates on infection rates
And to be factually correct, no it did not. It was not able to draw conclusions (i.e., the evidence is of such low quality that conclusions could not be drawn)

....their alleged impact on transmission
Again, this is not factually correct. Effectiveness relating to transmission and onward transmission was identified from population based studies, there was never any issue regarding the quality of findings, but such that estimates quickly became outdated in an ever-changing pandemic with a rapidly mutating virus.

It remains the case that if you do not get infected with coronavirus you cannot pass it on, and given that vaccines still do reduce the likelihood of an infection, they provide some benefit in reducing transmission.

There were many actual scientists, not just the charlatans in HART, who urged caution and caveats in reporting the benefits of vaccination, and said it was impossible to keep suppression policies up to date with the current evidence.

Again, this is all irrelevant to the current thread though!

Weird to be asked relevance of Jonathan Engler

Well it is given you're spamming a a thread about vaccines in pregnancy, yet are bringing up someone who appears to be entirely unrelated and demanding people prove he's wrong on something you have not stated? @vinegarasacleaner

Surely it would make more sense to reference a specific claim someone in HART had made about vaccines in pregnancy being either unsafe or inffective, and then it could actually be discussed in a useful way.

I just don't see how any of this is of any use to someone pregnant who's wondering whether to get vaccinated or not - I feel that if this was a genuine concern of yours you'd reference evidence rather than all the off piste ramblings about HART, "straw men", masks, and transmission

I disagree with you so much in that post @leafyygreens. But you're right - lots of this is irrelevant.

So, here's what I'd like to say. I think pregnant women should read more widely than around the alleged "consensus" about the jabs. Official statements do not tell the whole story. For example, I think the HART group raise some good points, and I think these should be considered and appraised alongside other materials. I posted an example on the thread. There was, as always, ad hominem degrading of HART in response., presumably to discourage people engaging with the material they produce. I have therefore defended HART, because I think they are worth listening to (even if you disagree with them). So this is the relevance of many of the above posts.

I know that if I was pregnant, I would not be at all sure I wanted this jab. There are plenty of others (including many medics and scientists) who feel the same. So if you find yourself doubting those who attempt to present this as a clear cut decision, please do not feel invalidated or alone.

Good luck to all in making difficult decisions in a difficult context.

OP, I'm sorry to have been part of a derail. I hope the above explains where it comes from. All the very best with your pregnancy and new baby :)

Ah, the widely misinterpreted Cochrane review

What the Cochrane Review Says About Masks For COVID-19 - and What It Doesn’t - FactCheck.org

This does not address whether masks work (there's some pretty basic physics saying it does). It's looking at people's behaviour - testing the effectiveness of interventions encouraging people to wear masks, rather than testing the effectiveness of masks themselves

Official statements do not tell the whole story.

Round and round we go!

@vinegarasacleaner As laboured, there are over indepedent 40 studies that have gone into informing this recommendation - these demonstrate both the safety and benefits of vaccination in pregnant women.

These have been evaluated by various public health bodies and governments worldwide - who again independently - have decided based on this evidence that it makes sense for pregnant women to be offered this vaccines. There is no blanket "official statement".

There was, as always, ad hominem degrading of HART in response.,
Giving specific examples of fake claims HART have made, is not "ad hominem" nor is it "degrading".

You've chosen to ignore all of these, and it is largely irrelevant when you can't seem to provide a single statement or evidence from them that demonstrates why pregnant women should turn down a recommended vaccine.

For example, I think the HART group raise some good points, and I think these should be considered and appraised
Again, you haven't been able to give a single statement, from HART, that explains why women should not be vaccinated in pregnancy. If you did this, at the very least people could discuss it.

There are plenty of others (including many medics and scientists) who feel the same.
You have not been able to name a single credible scientist or clinician (i.e. someone with relevant expertise, who's views are backed up by robust evidence) who says pregnant women should turn down this vaccine.

@AreYouVeryAnti

I engaged with the posts to say that I believe that despite all the studies it is possible that with hindsight we will see that the risks outweighed the benefits. Pharma have got it wrong before, and it's taken years to establish this. We're never going to agree, but hopefully OP has got lots of things to read if she wants to...

You know, I find it frustrating that this is a question at all. We are incredibly privileged to have access to these vaccines at all. We are privileged to choose to have it, or not. It is a privilege to think that "I'm going on holiday soon, so I should probably get a booster," or "winter is approaching - perhaps it time I thought about an update." Millions of people don't have that luxury, and three years ago we didn't have a vaccine at all.

The vaccine isn't a stop-everything cure-all. But Covid isn't the killer it once was, and we have our lives back. I, for one, I bloody thankful for the scientists across the globe that worked so hard on the vaccine. The benefits far, far outweigh any risks.

@vinegarasacleaner

I was also commenting on the idea of "anti-science" which someone mentioned (and which I found funny). So this is a general thing, about groups like HART and whether they are generally "anti-science" - beyond the pregnancy jab question which I have their link about. You want an example? They were loudly questioning mask mandates, because they made little scientific sense. And lo and behold, the latest Cochrane review of evidence finds very little (or no) impact of mask mandates on infection rates. The loudly questioned the messaging around the jabs and their alleged impact on transmission - and lo and behold, this had (as HART had said) been hugely overstated. There are plenty more examples. HART are not "anti-science". The political decision making, however, could be said to be so....

The Cochrane review on masks has been poorly interpreted. Perhaps you should have a read of the review sometime.

On the 'News' web page of HART currently:

^"The Pro-Mask Eccentrics are Squealing Again:
"^It’s that season again. As we wave goodbye to summer and enter the coughs-and-cold season – where sniffles are, inevitably, more common – the usual pro-mask suspects are, once again squealing for our attention..."

I'm not sure how you prefer your news, but I Iike it without such malicious bias.

I was the only pregnant one in my social circle to get the vaccine, and there was 4 of us tot. Glad I did . Would rather be safe.

By anti science I mean anti global scientific consensus opinion, anti the normal robust scrutiny, regulation, peer review and procedures that guidance needs to go through before : advising a pregnant women and her unborn child to follow the safest course of action for the health and well-being.
To me : lobbying MP’s or contacting Richard Tice (ReformUK very right wing) with an aim to distribute anti vax leaflets in pubs doesn’t scream of safe, sound medical practice.
“Jonathan Engler has also been in touch with Tice, and says he asked him if he could put them in contact with Tim Martin. To talk about distributing HART anti-vax leaflets in Wetherspoons pubs!”

Why is : anti vax leaflets being distributed in pubs any less of a tactic in terms of fear/control than government messaging?

Why are medical assertions that are on the fringe/not properly tested/have no peer backing (other than members of their group)/have strong political affiliations safer than consensus medical opinion?

So say I'm pregnant - I have a booster SARS-COV-2 vaccine booked in. I've done this because my HCP advised me to, gone through the info she's provided which sets out we know vaccination reduces the chance of me being very ill, risk of stillbirth and complications for my baby like early labour and, pre-eclampsia. It also sets out where these stats came from. I'm also reassured by the fact that this is a random NHS/UK decision, but worldwide.

Posts like those from @vinegarasacleaner and @AreYouVeryAnti discouraging me to get it aren't helpful because they're not giving me any specific info. They're talking about all sorts of things like masks and vaccine passports and the COVID reponse which are obviously highly contentious politicised things and conflating it with the idea that I can't trust this vaccine.

If someone is saying I shouldn't get vaccinated, I want to know specifically why, "e.g., a study of X women showed it increased your risk of X complication". These posts are incredibly unhelpful to @Eleano and anyone pregnant looking on MN for advice, it's such a vulnerable time.

The Cochrane review on masks has been poorly interpreted. Perhaps you should have a read of the review sometime.

It's also completely illogical.

Masks were a policy implemented without an evidence base (or at least very limited studies that existed pre-pandemic). As described at the time, it isn't considered appropriate to run an RCT to determine effectiveness for every single public health intervention before implementing them (e.g., handwashing, giving out condoms)

Vaccines were implemented after development and testing in line with how all prior vaccines have been (yes..with no funding blocks and some stages running in parallell which allowed it to happen faster than normal).

For mask wearing, as PP described, the cochrane review identifed we still don't have a good evidence base for how well they work. This doesn't gives validity to HART, who have been crying out about how they shouldn't be used (and nor should vaccines or any other suppression policy) since the beginning of the pandemic.

In contrast, all the evidence that has come out after vaccine rollout has demonstrated a good profile of safety and efficacy, including in pregnant women.

It's just not a comparable thing at all and demonstrates @vinegarasacleaner is just flinging whatever they can onto the thread to deflect and distract.