I’m concerned about the amount of misinformation on the Covid threads. Mumsnet have a duty of cars to their readers.

[Beadebaser]

A few days ago I reported a post that linked to an unverified claim about a child with vaccine damage from the Covid jab. It is a case that has been weaponised by anti vaxxers and is highly controversial.

The response from Mumsnet was that the post didn’t break guidelines. I pointed out why it was misinformation and was told that their decision had been made - and I could simply turn off the Covid threads if I didn’t agree. I then linked a credible news article explaining why it was misinformation and that the case was being weaponised by anti vaxxers - and Mumsnet didn’t respond.
Misinformation is an online harm and Mumsnet has a duty of care to its readers.

Mumsnet is perhaps different to other social media platforms, as it’s readers often come looking for advice and support. Some readers may be vulnerable. This is why Mumsnet’s duty of care is particularly important.
I think Mumsnet should be doing more to tackle misinformation.
Debate is good, but many posters are being encouraged not to follow the NHS guidelines. If one vaccine hesitant person is deterred from making the right choice due to misinformation - this could lead to a chain of events that could mean someone is unnecessarily in iCU.
Things are pretty critical for hospitals right now, so I think it’s vital that Mumsnet does more to address the issue.

Again I agree with hamster and cornetto I believe you are being disingenuous. The narrative from science and the government is that vaccines will solve this. They were peddled as a way of stopping you getting covid, two vaccines were the answer...until they weren't. I will find and post some articles later showing this

@hamstersarse but surely the best thing is to look at the most reliable evidence possible, niche/controversial/one off case studies are going to be risky. And what fumes me more is that (I can’t remember the name of the guy responsible for the video) - cases like that are often weaponised by people with an extreme political agenda. There ARE people out there who want a survival of the fittest type scenario and with manipulate to push an extreme view. Boris with his ‘let the bodies pile high’ view is probably pretty saccharine compared to some.

I did - a while back - investigate the political leanings of some of the authors of these anti vaxx think tanks - and it wasn’t great reading.

What influence could they have, when there are vulnerable people out there?
Another poster spoke about Brittney Kaiser calling out FB - and how misinformation was used to influence people politically?

@Dinosauria - yes, that would be good. Because I genuinely do think my perception was ‘the virus mutates, but the vaccine is our best defence’. I don’t think vaccine evasion is a new thing, I’m sure I was discussing it last summer….

I dont belive that the vaccine was going to solve everything and i dont belive that was the message the message was take vaccine and wont get as sick as someone who doesnt take vaccine which has been case.

Im also not sure how that relates to misinformation and disinformation being shared on mumsnet and people believing it and it influencing them

The vaccine was going to help us out of it, and it has we r no longer in lockdowns and less people r going hospital and dying.

[quote hamstersarse]Again, it depends on your point of view. Facebook certainly do do a lot of fact checking, but it is not true to say that is not contentious.

Even the BMJ have things to say about this 'fact checking' on social media - science is not black and white as I know everyone here knows. Things are never as straightforward as we would all like them to be, things surprise us, things are unexpected and for that reason, censoring information and conversation has always been the road to ruin - we can never have absolute certainty. Even this pandemic has shown that things we said a year ago as 'fact' simply aren't true now, and that includes 'facts' about the vaccine efficacy - do you want to censor people who are talking about the current effectiveness of the vaccines (not booster) and stick to the fact that last year they were 90% effective, but now can be less than 30% - do you class that as misinformation now?

You have to trust that people can make their own minds up and you don't need to caretake for people all the time.

www.bmj.com/content/373/bmj.n1170[/quote]
Absolutely this. Stop trying to treat people like children!

www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/politics/2020/dec/02/the-scientists-have-done-it-boris-johnson-hails-covid-vaccine

Guardian, so acceptable for some on MN

We have been waiting and hoping for the day when the searchlights of science would pick out our invisible enemy and give us the power to stop that enemy from making us ill. And now the scientists have done it, and they have used the virus itself to perform a kind of biological jiu-jitsu, to turn the virus on itself in the form of a vaccine.”

But he didn't mean 'stopping from making us ill'

@Newrunner29

The vaccine was going to help us out of it, and it has we r no longer in lockdowns and less people r going hospital and dying.

This maybe because the new variant is less severe. Two doses are worthless according to the government.

We also saw yesterday the evidence from Public Health England that a single dose of either vaccine provides 60 per cent protection against getting COVID.

Single dose prevents you from getting it, so by implication a second dose would shorten these odds further

www.gov.uk/government/speeches/pm-statement-at-coronavirus-press-conference-18-march-2021

www.google.com/amp/s/www.newyorker.com/news/letter-from-the-uk/boris-johnsons-vaccine-miracle/amp

Selling it as The Answer. I'm not questioning that the op was pointing out months ago that the vaccine wasn't a panacea, but it was being promoted as such.

@Dinosauria - I'm a bit mystified how anyone gets from 'the vaccine doesn't protect as much as we'd hoped' (unsurprising - new virus, vaccine developed at lightning speed) to 'the vaccine is actively harmful and we should say no to it'.

Because that's what the antivaxxers are arguing. Do you support that POV?

Because all the science says that's wrong.

So basically - I am really happy for MN to host a discussion about the efficacy of the vaccine. I think that's a valid and interesting discussion. But stuff like Naomi Klein is posting should be deleted I think.

@Dinosauria

Again I agree with hamster and cornetto I believe you are being disingenuous. The narrative from science and the government is that vaccines will solve this. They were peddled as a way of stopping you getting covid, two vaccines were the answer...until they weren't. I will find and post some articles later showing this

Fair enough, that’s not what I’ve gathered at any point over the last couple of years, granted not so much from the government but certainly from Chris Whitty and Jonathon Van Tam who’ve had fair exposure alongside BJ at media briefings, but please do feel free to post as many links as you like but maybe this digression would be better off on the coronavirus board?

[quote Clymene]@Dinosauria - I'm a bit mystified how anyone gets from 'the vaccine doesn't protect as much as we'd hoped' (unsurprising - new virus, vaccine developed at lightning speed) to 'the vaccine is actively harmful and we should say no to it'.

Because that's what the antivaxxers are arguing. Do you support that POV?

Because all the science says that's wrong. [/quote]
Not at all, I'm all booster, vaccine supporter, kids have been jabbed and booked in for second. I do believe in vaccines (and before covid, we travel and have been vaccinated against everything)

I just don't think censorship is the way to promote things, would rather strong rebuttal.

@dinsauria

One of your links states this : although he stressed that people should not get carried away with “over-optimism”, insisting that they continue to abide by the rules.

And I read one other and I could see anything in there that suggested it was a 100% magic cure.

Couldn’t!

It said it was dependant on the data.