To vaccine or not to vaccine

[kokotg]

17 minutes ago, Masers said:

Last time I talked to her, she was feeling like, “I just want to lie and tell everyone I got it!” She has a friend with major health anxiety, and last time they were together, her friend asked whether she had gotten it, and when she said no, she said that her friend visibly recoiled and stepped away from her (unconsciously, I’m sure), then demanded her reasons and shot them down one by one. I told her that she really doesn’t owe anyone an explanation. 

I hope she's kidding and wouldn't really lie about it since, of course, that would be taking someone else's ability to make informed decisions about their health away from them. And this is one area where I think there really aren't any easy answers about how we all just need to respect each other's decisions. That's easy enough to say on a message board, but in real life someone's vaccine status might well impact how/whether you choose to interact with them. I can see that someone would feel defensive and maybe further entrenched in their position if a friend says they don't want to hang out together if they're not vaccinated, but that's a totally legitimate position. The current recommendations about getting together in person are very different depending on who's vaccinated and who's not. So, sure, she doesn't owe anyone an explanation, but I could also see that attempting to her convince her might be the only alternative her friend saw to just not seeing her anymore. As more people get vaccinated and feel comfortable getting together with other vaccinated people, this will be an issue more and more. And there's no bad guy in the situation; everyone has a right to choose whether to get vaccinated, but everyone also has a right to choose to follow guidelines and not include unvaccinated people in gatherings. But everyone having a right to do it doesn't mean it won't lead to an awful lot of anger and hurt feelings all around.

[frogger]

21 minutes ago, Masers said:

Thank you! I have heard of that strategy but haven’t talked to her about it, haha. I will! Last time I talked to her, she was feeling like, “I just want to lie and tell everyone I got it!” She has a friend with major health anxiety, and last time they were together, her friend asked whether she had gotten it, and when she said no, she said that her friend visibly recoiled and stepped away from her (unconsciously, I’m sure), then demanded her reasons and shot them down one by one. I told her that she really doesn’t owe anyone an explanation. 

You are right that she doesn't owe anyone an explanation. I do think lying is wrong. It would probably be better to say, "I like you and if you ever feel comfortable being around someone not immunized, give me a call but for now I'll do my own thing."  And leave it at that. It is wrong to lie and if people don't want to hang with the non vaccinated that should be their choice just as it should be the choice of the individual whether they get the vaccine or not. 

But try to leave on good terms because people may realize in the future that it isn't worth missing out on this friendship over a vaccine. No need to burn bridges, but both should respect the others decision. 

[kokotg]

(and x-posted with like 3 other posts of course)

[frogger]

6 minutes ago, Masers said:

 

She did tell her friend her reasons, and her friend dismissed all of them and was argumentative with her. Hence her saying to me, “I FEEL like just lying.” She hasn’t lied, and she won’t, because she’s not that kind of person. But she IS a very passive, non confrontational person, so this has been very tough for her. I don’t think she’s ever really found herself going against the grain like this.

I'm sorry. You wrote this while I was typing my response about lying. I got it now. 

[Masers]

-

Edited April 9, 2021 by Masers

[Not_a_Number]

26 minutes ago, Masers said:

I haven’t seen many good stats—I’ve seen everything from that they barely last at all to that they give long-lasting broad immunity. Assuming the truth is probably somewhere in the middle. 

I’ve seen reports like you mention, but no stats. No one’s done a survey?

[Not_a_Number]

10 minutes ago, Masers said:

Like I just said, she said she FELT like just lying, not that she has or will. And she won’t. She wasn’t “kidding” per se, because she definitely wasn’t in a jokey mood—she felt downright sad. 

i have zero qualms about getting together with unvaccinated people. I’ve seen my sister throughout the entire pandemic and will continue to do so. But of course people always have a right to choose who they hang out with, so if her vaccinated, physically healthy 29 year old friend is uncomfortable hanging out with her, that’s her decision and business and my sister will accept that, but it doesn’t mean she can’t be sad and vent to me about it. 

Weren’t you just talking about never judging people’s decisions? There’s quite the feeling of judgment about her friend’s decision in what you just said. 

[Dmmetler]

10 hours ago, Not_a_Number said:

But is anyone under the age 40 honestly getting vaccinated to avoid death? I don't really understand this discussion. I feel like practically everyone I know who's younger is trying to avoid other outcomes, including sequelae and getting someone else sick. 

I don't know if that is S's reason for getting vaccinated, but it's definitely the reason I, and her bio family and her boyfriend want her to be. When you've had two strokes before you reach age 25, the last thing you need is a disease that is known to affect clotting. 

 

Most of the teens I know who are or plan to be vaccinated ASAP want it so that they won't get other people sick and so they can go back to normal life. For my 16 yr old, opening to 16+ means that it is a lot more likely that grandparents can come to celebrate graduation, that a summer job is possible, and that seeing friends regularly over the next few months will be feasible. After a year of social isolation, all are powerful motivators. 

[frogger]

Well, I have had a lot of judgement from my parents and in laws for vaccinating. My step mom spent a lot of time trying to convince me the vaccine was dangerous. Yes, I said the vaccine. I asked her which one and she didn't know.

I also allowed my kids to visit when numbers were really low last summer because I really am going out of my way to keep up relationships but both my step mom and in laws at different times grilled my children about masks. Told them how dangerous they were with lowering O2 levels and bacteria etc. We just stepped back and didn't talk or visit again until the winter hump was over. They just saw them again this weekend for the first time since last summer but with a new wave coming on we might wait it out again. 

Honestly, it just isn't fun to visit anymore so it isn't like this is a one sided thing as far as being judgemental is a concern. They are older and cantankerous and have never studied any math or science in any way so we can't even discuss it really. They won't get a vaccine (although my step dad finally did but he was less extreme politically) and honestly, I'm frustrated with the misinformation but they are adults. 

[Not_a_Number]

23 minutes ago, Dmmetler said:

I don't know if that is S's reason for getting vaccinated, but it's definitely the reason I, and her bio family and her boyfriend want her to be. When you've had two strokes before you reach age 25, the last thing you need is a disease that is known to affect clotting. 

Yeah, I overstated it. Obviously some young people have health issues and will vaccinate to avoid the chance of dying of COVID. 

 

23 minutes ago, Dmmetler said:

Most of the teens I know who are or plan to be vaccinated ASAP want it so that they won't get other people sick and so they can go back to normal life. For my 16 yr old, opening to 16+ means that it is a lot more likely that grandparents can come to celebrate graduation, that a summer job is possible, and that seeing friends regularly over the next few months will be feasible. After a year of social isolation, all are powerful motivators. 

Yeah, that's my sister's motivation as well. 

[Not_a_Number]

Here's a study about antibodies declining, if anyone's interested. So there's definitely evidence some people have them decline relatively quickly. I assume we'll know more about the range of antibody duration as time goes on: 

https://www.aha.org/news/headline/2020-11-25-cdc-study-covid-19-antibodies-decline-over-time

[Pam in CT]

re whether private sector vaccination "passports" and other private institutions' requirements will stand legal challenge- this thread has flown off this issue, which anyway maybe warrants a thread of its own since it's somewhat distinct from the individual decision focus of the OP.

Nonetheless, I offer up this perspective on the legal issues, which, headline: are NOT definitive one way or another.  We haven't been in this particular situation before (the closest public health comparables are the 1919 Flu, for which there was no vaccine; and polio, where the vaccine was developed and rolled out much more slowly and also where public DESIRE for the vaccine was nearly universal).  So the tradeoff issues between public health vs individual choice/preferences/rights haven't been litigated.

The Biden Administration has "emphatically" indicated that any movement in this direction will not be in the form of any federal mandate or program, but rather private-sector led, as the Excelsior Pass in New York City has been (consortium of sports & arts & entertainment venues, partnering with IBM, to enable NYC's re-opening).  Connecticut's governor has indicated that something similar may be coming our way.  Texas' governor has indicated that any effort by Texas businesses to implement anything of the sort will be shut down.

Individual universities and employers will almost certainly be able to require vaccination subject to fairly narrow ADA/ medical exemptions, as already happens with meningitis and other vaccines.  Whether such institutions also allow other exemptions is a choice -- employment in the US is at will, college is a choice, vaccine hesitancy is not a protected class category.

 

To that point, re workplace accommodations to folks who choose not to vaccinate

11 hours ago, kokotg said:

Weird that it's understood that employees have to be given reasonable accommodations if they don't want to be vaccinated but not if they don't want to....get covid. Although it remains to be seen whether there will be a ton of lawsuits about that in the future, I guess. I read about one where a family whose father had died of covid was suing Publix because they wouldn't ALLOW him to wear a mask at work (back in spring 2020). And there are plenty of school systems that dismissed everyone or almost everyone's requests to work remotely while refusing to follow any CDC guidelines about masking, distancing, etc.  

This.

The prior POTUS literally signed an EO to exempt businesses from liability in the event that workers were found to have contracted COVID due to inadequate safeguards in their workplace. As did a number of state governments.

Workers had no rights to PPE, no rights to ventilation, no rights to distance markers, no rights to contract tracing, no rights to time off if they were exposed.  No accommodations to reduce transmission -- all public policy was in the other direction, keep businesses open, keep profits up, mandate all schools resume all in-person classes. 

That was then, this is now, and there's no way to write over the mistakes we made in the past. But when we speak of an ethical imperative to extend "accommodations" in workplaces, it is only ethical to look long and hard at the question FOR WHOM.  There's a whole lotta privilege packed pretty tight into the argument that "accommodations" are owed to personal choice not to vaccine when "accommodations" are NOT extended to basic workplace safety.

Edited April 9, 2021 by Pam in CT
typo

[MotherGoose]

5 hours ago, Ausmumof3 said:

I think it’s for any sports of physical activity.  Or that’s how it read to me.  It is most likely very precautionary though 

I saw the “competition and training” mention. I certainly haven’t heard of anything along these lines from the numerous kids I’ve known with COVID. 

[TCB]

I, myself, don’t have a lot of negative emotion around  people choosing not to be vaccinated. I think that is because it is the first thing that people can do to really protect themselves without having to rely on the good will and good actions of others. I think I just feel resigned.  I’m extremely thankful that everyone here has the opportunity to get it and get protected. I am  very sorry for those who are unable to get vaccinated due to health reasons and I would like this virus to be crushed so that they aren’t at risk. I really hope that the at risk population in my area are getting vaccinated if at all possible, because I don’t want to watch them going through the suffering and death that could come again.

I will say, though, that many of the people in my area who seem to be ideologically against this vaccine have also been the same ones who have done absolutely nothing to help during this pandemic. They started out by scoffing and saying it was the flu, they were militantly anti-mask and anti making changes to protect people, and now they are spreading disinformation about the vaccines. I am so incredibly sad that many of them are my friends and acquaintances. Fortunately for me my family are not in this group. This is the greatest disillusionment with people that I have experienced in my 57 years. I guess I’m lucky I made it to 57 before I experienced it. 

[SKL]

14 hours ago, ktgrok said:

Right, that number about showing symptoms was not about women hospitalized for covid. Just pregnant women that happened to be hospitalized. And admittedly, we need way more research on this. But they also found:odds of pregnant women with a COVID-19 diagnosis being admitted to the intensive-care unit (ICU) were 62% higher than for non-pregnant women of reproductive age, and the odds of needing invasive ventilation were 88% higher. A study⁵ by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) echoed these findings. The study included more than 400,000 women with a positive test and symptoms of COVID-19, of whom 23,434 were pregnant, and found similar increases in the odds of ICU admission and invasive ventilation in pregnant women (see ‘COVID risks in pregnancy’).

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00578-y

 

Wouldn't it make more sense to compare the odds of a pregnant woman with Covid being admitted to the ICU vs. the odds of a pregnant woman without Covid being admitted to the ICU?  Lots of pregnant women get admitted to ICU whether they have Covid or not.  Your link does show the comparison of pregnant women with vs. without Covid, and yes, the ICU numbers are higher.  One wonders how much of this is out of extra care that pregnant women in any kind of distress or illness normally receive.

Early numbers from the vax also showed increased risks though, including risk of stillbirth.  IMO it seems wiser to take other preventive measures to avoid Covid rather than get the vax during pregnancy.  Women planning to get pregnant should probably plan to get their vax sequence and wait period done first.

[ktgrok]

4 minutes ago, SKL said:

Wouldn't it make more sense to compare the odds of a pregnant woman with Covid being admitted to the ICU vs. the odds of a pregnant woman without Covid being admitted to the ICU?  Lots of pregnant women get admitted to ICU whether they have Covid or not.  Your link does show the comparison of pregnant women with vs. without Covid, and yes, the ICU numbers are higher.  One wonders how much of this is out of extra care that pregnant women in any kind of distress or illness normally receive.

Early numbers from the vax also showed increased risks though, including risk of stillbirth.  IMO it seems wiser to take other preventive measures to avoid Covid rather than get the vax during pregnancy.  Women planning to get pregnant should probably plan to get their vax sequence and wait period done first.

That's good info too, but wouldn't address the specific question of wether pregnancy put you at higher risk for severe covid. 

Regarding the second bolded point - was that in the article and I missed it? Or from something else? I haven't seen anything saying the vaccine may cause stillbirth in pregnant women. Source?

Edited April 9, 2021 by ktgrok

[SKL]

1 minute ago, ktgrok said:

Regarding the second bolded point - was that in the article and I missed it? Or from something else?

There was an article out probably over a month ago, but I hope there is something more recent or will be soon.  Obviously the numbers of pregnant women already vaxed were pretty low until recently.

[ktgrok]

2 minutes ago, SKL said:

There was an article out probably over a month ago, but I hope there is something more recent or will be soon.  Obviously the numbers of pregnant women already vaxed were pretty low until recently.

I've searched and can't find anything like that - any idea where you saw that? It's a pretty big deal if true. 

This is what I found (similar info in multiple places) 

Q: Are COVID-19 vaccines safe for someone who is pregnant?

A: Recent information released by the V-safe registry of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) found that there were no safety issues from pregnant patients receiving either the Pfizer or Moderna COVID-19 vaccines. The registry did not include the Johnson & Johnson vaccine as it had not received emergency use authorization during the time of data collection.

For those involved in the study, the data collected showed no significant difference between those who received the vaccine and those who didn’t as far as miscarriage, stillbirth and pregnancy complications affecting mom or baby.

Q: Were COVID-19 vaccines tested in people who were pregnant?

A: Pregnant individuals were not part of clinical trials, but research trials have begun in some centers. We do know that COVID-19 vaccines have been given to people who were part of Tiers 1a and 1b, and we haven’t seen adverse effects. The vaccines were tested in tens of thousands of people, and there were no serious side effects. COVID-19 vaccines do not contain ingredients that are known to be harmful to pregnant individuals or their babies.

https://nortonhealthcare.com/news/pregnancy-fertility-and-the-covid-19-vaccine/

[ktgrok]

More details, pregnancy stuff is toward the end. https://www.fda.gov/media/146269/download

[SKL]

9 minutes ago, ktgrok said:

I've searched and can't find anything like that - any idea where you saw that? It's a pretty big deal if true. 

This is what I found (similar info in multiple places) 

Q: Are COVID-19 vaccines safe for someone who is pregnant?

A: Recent information released by the V-safe registry of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) found that there were no safety issues from pregnant patients receiving either the Pfizer or Moderna COVID-19 vaccines. The registry did not include the Johnson & Johnson vaccine as it had not received emergency use authorization during the time of data collection.

For those involved in the study, the data collected showed no significant difference between those who received the vaccine and those who didn’t as far as miscarriage, stillbirth and pregnancy complications affecting mom or baby.

Q: Were COVID-19 vaccines tested in people who were pregnant?

A: Pregnant individuals were not part of clinical trials, but research trials have begun in some centers. We do know that COVID-19 vaccines have been given to people who were part of Tiers 1a and 1b, and we haven’t seen adverse effects. The vaccines were tested in tens of thousands of people, and there were no serious side effects. COVID-19 vaccines do not contain ingredients that are known to be harmful to pregnant individuals or their babies.

https://nortonhealthcare.com/news/pregnancy-fertility-and-the-covid-19-vaccine/

Yeah, this is like when they say the vax is "safe" without explaining that it's not totally safe and not safe for everyone.

I saw the raw numbers and there were more miscarriages in the vax group.  (I think this may have been a group of women who were in the trials and didn't know they were pregnant or got pregnant after the trials started.)  The summary described it as "not significant," partly because the raw numbers were too low, as there wasn't an intention to test pregnant women at that time. 

To me, it's enough to wait if I'm pregnant, and use other methods to avoid catching Covid.

"Not significant" is a technical term that doesn't mean no risk.  It doesn't mean no deaths.  Prospective moms should be given more info before deciding IMO.

[SKL]

1 hour ago, ktgrok said:

More details, pregnancy stuff is toward the end. https://www.fda.gov/media/146269/download

This shows higher than average pregnancy loss rate in people who have had the vax.

Edited April 9, 2021 by SKL

[kokotg]

5 minutes ago, SKL said:

This shows higher than average miscarriage rate in people who have had the vax.

Does it? I'm coming up with 18.8% and then they have this footnote about the rate in the population as a whole: "The frequency of clinically recognized early pregnancy loss for women aged 20–30 years is 9–17%, and this rate increases sharply from 20% at age 35 years to 40% at age 40 years and 80% at age 45 years. Reference: ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 200: Early Pregnancy Loss. Obstet Gynecol. 2018132(5):e197-e207."

So as I'm reading it, we would have to know what the ages were for the women studied to know if it was higher or not. (maybe that's in there; I looked at it fairly quickly)

[kokotg]

oh, it says median age is 33 for pregnant women, and that the average rate is 20% for women who are 35. So it doesn't seem like we can conclude that it's higher based on the information they give.

[Jean in Newcastle]

4 hours ago, Spryte said:

I don’t argue or try to persuade people in person, or demand reasons, so I’m not debating that point, I’m not asking for explanations from someone who doesn’t get a shot. I’m a pass the bean dip girl. Hoping you won’t take this question as an indication that I’m arguing for aggressive behavior re: persuading friends.  

But I’d like to ask this, and truly want to know your answer...  Would you say your friend should be honest?  With her friend who has medical anxiety?

I haven’t asked anyone about the shot, and am not sure if I will.  But between friends - it’s been a huge part of our conversations.  I mostly know who will vaccinate and who will not, and I love them no matter what.  I’m looking forward to following the CDC recommendations and hanging out with other vaccinated people soon, and will wait to hang out the same way with my friends who don’t choose the shot.  

If someone lied to me, directly, and told me they had had their shot when they had not, and then joined my family to hang out per CDC recs for vaxxed people ... it would destroy my trust in that friend. I have made an effort not to alienate my friends who think differently from me on Covid, and I’m not pro-cutting people off, but I can’t even imagine how I’d feel if I learned that a friend had lied about that.  It would be a character issue at that point, and my trust would be utterly destroyed.  It’s one thing to be who you are, and own it. It’s another to manipulate others into doing something they would not feel comfortable with otherwise. That might be a friendship-breaker here.

Yeah.  I firmly think that a person's decision to vaccinate or not should be between them and their doctor.  I tell friends that I have gotten vaccinated but it's up to them to volunteer whether they have gotten it or not.  I don't care in the sense that I don't feel like it's my business to tell them to get it.  I am not their family nor their healthcare provider.  Having said that, though,  I do feel better when I hear that people I know and am around have gotten vaccinated because it is one more layer of protection for me in addition to my own vaccination.  And I did care a lot when my dh got vaccinated first because he was my primary disease vector. 

As far as caring about what others on the internet are doing, I don't care at all other than in a general societal sense because of herd immunity.  So anyone feeling like they are "forced" do something because of what strangers on the internet say, is very strange to me.  I do check the percentages of vaccination in my state and am thrilled that as of yesterday 21.7% of my state is fully vaccinated and 34.2% have at least one dose.  So I guess if you live in my state, I do care a bit more in a general "contributing to potential herd immunity" sense. 

[wathe]

1 hour ago, SKL said:

"Not significant" is a technical term that doesn't mean no risk.  It doesn't mean no deaths.  Prospective moms should be given more info before deciding IMO.

Are you talking about the term "significant" with respect to statistics?  Because you were using the term with respect to data in a study, I am assuming you are. 

A lot of people think that "significant" means meaningful, or important. But it doesn't.  It means a detectable difference not due to chance. 

In a statistical sense, "not significant" literally means no difference between groups, that the outcome for each group is statistically the same, that statistically, the difference is due to chance, that a difference was not statistically detectable.  The opposite of what you seem to be saying. 

That's different than no risk, you are right.  But if there is no statistically significant difference in outcome between groups, then the risk was statistically the same in both groups - pregnancy has a risk of miscarriage and stillbirth, whether vaccinated or not.  "Not significant" lets us conclude that the mc/sb risk was not increased by the vaccine (within the limits of the data and study design).

An aside:  Sometimes studies can be too small to detect small significant differences between groups (concept of statistical power, a.k.a beta error).

Very large studies can have results that are statistically significant, but so trivially small as to not be meaningful or important.

 

[SKL]

3 minutes ago, wathe said:

Are you talking about the term "significant" with respect to statistics?  Because you were using the term with respect to data in a study, I am assuming you are. 

A lot of people think that "significant" means meaningful, or important. But it doesn't.  It means a detectable difference not due to chance. 

In a statistical sense, "not significant" literally means no difference between groups, that the outcome for each group is statistically the same, that statistically, the difference is due to chance, that a difference was not statistically detectable.  The opposite of what you seem to be saying. 

That's different than no risk, you are right.  But if there is no statistically significant difference in outcome between groups, then the risk was statistically the same in both groups - pregnancy has a risk of miscarriage and stillbirth, whether vaccinated or not.  "Not significant" lets us conclude that the mc/sb risk was not increased by the vaccine (within the limits of the data and study design).

An aside:  Sometimes studies can be too small to detect small significant differences between groups (concept of statistical power, a.k.a beta error).

Very large studies can have results that are statistically significant, but so trivially small as to not be meaningful or important.

 

The number of cases in the studies I've seen have been very small, which, as you noted, is an issue for statistical significance.

I am saying we need more research before I would recommend this vax for a pregnant woman.

Common sense tells that with the side effects many people are experiencing, they wouldn't want to intentionally subject a pregnancy to that unless the alternative (getting the vax some months/weeks earlier or later) was clearly more dangerous.

[ktgrok]

1 hour ago, SKL said:

 

I saw the raw numbers and there were more miscarriages in the vax group. 

Again, can you steer us to where you saw this, cause I'm not finding anything like this anywhere. 

And it's a pretty big thing. 

[SKL]

2 minutes ago, kand said:

That was what I wondered initially when there were reports of pregnant women being more likely to require ICU care, but with an 88% higher chance of being mechanically ventilated, that wouldn’t be explained by an abundance of caution. They wouldn’t want to do that unless absolutely necessary, since the outcomes are so poor. 
 

 

 

Yes, but 88% of what, given that the rates of ventilation of women of pregnancy age are extremely low.  And is it never the case that pregnant women are ventilated for reasons other than Covid?  I'm not a pregnancy expert, but I've known a lot of people who had very serious problems during pregnancy without having Covid.

[ktgrok]

nevermind - I see the info now. 

Edited April 9, 2021 by ktgrok

[SKL]

1 minute ago, ktgrok said:

Saying we need more research before you would reccomend it is very different than saying it causes stillbirths and miscarriages, which is what you claimed earlier today. I can totally respect wanting more research, but claiming it causes stillbirth is different, and needs evidence behind it. 

Don't misquote me please.  I said early numbers showed increased risks.  You have enough education to know what that means and what it doesn't mean.

[wathe]

1 minute ago, SKL said:

The number of cases in the studies I've seen have been very small, which, as you noted, is an issue for statistical significance.

I am saying we need more research before I would recommend this vax for a pregnant woman.

Common sense tells that with the side effects many people are experiencing, they wouldn't want to intentionally subject a pregnancy to that unless the alternative (getting the vax some months/weeks earlier or later) was clearly more dangerous.

I see.

Where I am, I think the calculus for pregnant women is in favour of the vax, by a wide margin.  We are in pandemic conditions here, with cases spiking.  We have good reason to believe that pregnant women do worse with covid than non-pregnant women; and  more importantly,  people with covid definitely do worse than people who don't get covid; and that the vaccine is 95% effective.  We do not have any evidence to suggest the vaccine is harmful for pregnant women, and we do not have a plausible mechanism by which the vaccine might be harmful to pregnant women.  SOGC strongly recommends vaccinating pregnant women.  In my province they qualify as "at risk" and can get the vaccine before others in their age group.

IME vaccination for covid while pregnant is much less risky than not vaccinating while pregnant.  I really think that advising women to wait will result in unnecessary excess deaths and morbidity.

[ktgrok]

Just now, SKL said:

Don't misquote me please.  I said early numbers showed increased risks.  You have enough education to know what that means and what it doesn't mean.

My bad. Increased risk of stillbirth, and I just saw where that was coming from. 0.6 vs 1 %. 

(although miscarriage rates were 10% less, i think?)

I definitely understand pregnant women wanting more research...I think personally I'd get vaccinated if I were pregnant, but I'm also in an area with a lot of Covid and people not taking precautions. In another area, I might feel differently. 

I was just rying to figure out where that claim was coming from, but someone else pointed it out. 

[wathe]

1 minute ago, kand said:

What the research is saying at this point is that yes, the risk of Covid is more dangerous (and in a society where a lot of people are declining the vaccination, a pregnant woman can’t be kept totally safe from catching it, especially since she will need to venture into medical facilities frequently for care). Further, as a bonus, they are finding that babies born to vaccinated women are born with antibodies, giving them some initial protection. 

When the difference is not statistically significant, by definition, that means no increased risk was shown.

Quoting to super-"like"

[Ausmumof3]

4 hours ago, MotherGoose said:

I saw the “competition and training” mention. I certainly haven’t heard of anything along these lines from the numerous kids I’ve known with COVID. 

They are new just released recommendations so it would make sense.  I don’t think an ECG is overly intrusive/expensive so it’s probably just a precaution.  They recommend them as a precaution here any time anyone has had an electric shock.

[ktgrok]

4 minutes ago, Ausmumof3 said:

They are new just released recommendations so it would make sense.  I don’t think an ECG is overly intrusive/expensive so it’s probably just a precaution.  They recommend them as a precaution here any time anyone has had an electric shock.

truth, takes a few minutes, no pain, etc. 

[Not_a_Number]

12 minutes ago, kand said:

I see it in this chart: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_wHIYX-tGkGBPwuax7N8BxZPR4PTTCDm/view 

The same document shows the increase in miscarriages amongst those not vaccinated for Covid.

These numbers are meaninglessly small. I wouldn’t feel reassured by them if I were pregnant, but I wouldn’t be more concerned, either.

I don’t know if I’d do if I were pregnant. It might depend on my level of exposure. I wouldn’t be surprised if a strong immune reaction was bad for a fetus, frankly...

[Ausmumof3]

I have to admit if I was pregnant I probably wouldn’t risk it myself right now unless I was in a really peak area I’d just do extreme precautions.  I’m pretty paranoid about anything drug related when pregnant though.  I’m really glad this didn’t happen at that time in my life.  I will also likely wait a while on the kids.  The risk here is super low.  If I was elsewhere I’d probably do it though.

I wouldn’t rule out 100pc that some rare adverse event will show up with the other vaccines - it took a while for the Astra Zeneca one to emerge.

[SKL]

Well if people are following recommendations to vax while pregnant, then I pray that the ultimate numbers prove this to be safe.  Meanwhile I would personally advise against it until more data are available.

I would again remind people that the logical comparison isn't vaxed vs. symptomatic covid.  It's vaxed vs. not vaxed.  Most people who are not vaxed are still not catching Covid during the pregnancy timeframe, especially if sensible precautions are taken.

[Not_a_Number]

1 minute ago, SKL said:

Well if people are following recommendations to vax while pregnant, then I pray that the ultimate numbers prove this to be safe.  Meanwhile I would personally advise against it until more data are available.

I would again remind people that the logical comparison isn't vaxed vs. symptomatic covid.  It's vaxed vs. not vaxed.  Most people who are not vaxed are still not catching Covid during the pregnancy timeframe, especially if sensible precautions are taken.

I think you need to do a comparison like “risks of vaccine” vs probability of COVID multiplied by the risks of COVID.

[SKL]

5 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

I think you need to do a comparison like “risks of vaccine” vs probability of COVID multiplied by the risks of COVID.

Once there are more data, yes, that would make sense.  Though "probability of covid" is affected in part by choices that could change the calculation.

Meanwhile I fully support anyone planning a pregnancy getting the vax and then waiting until the likely reactions are past.  That should solve the problem for most prospective moms.

Edited April 9, 2021 by SKL

[wathe]

8 minutes ago, SKL said:

 

I would again remind people that the logical comparison isn't vaxed vs. symptomatic covid.  It's vaxed vs. not vaxed.  Most people who are not vaxed are still not catching Covid during the pregnancy timeframe, especially if sensible precautions are taken.

Vaxed vs not vaxed in pandemic conditions. 

Lots and lots of people are catching covid during the pregnancy time frame.

Vs no evidence of harm from the vaccinec (and no plausible mechanism for harm)  ETA and very good evidence of protection from the vaccine.

Edited April 9, 2021 by wathe

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, wathe said:

Vaxed vs not vaxed in pandemic conditions. 

Lots and lots of people are catching covid during the pregnancy time frame.

Vs no evidence of harm from the vaccinec (and no plausible mechanism for harm)

I’ve actually seen things about infections early in pregnancy not being great for the fetus. I would be unsurprised if a strong immune response isn’t a good thing in pregnancy.

[wathe]

34 minutes ago, Ausmumof3 said:

They are new just released recommendations so it would make sense.  I don’t think an ECG is overly intrusive/expensive so it’s probably just a precaution.  They recommend them as a precaution here any time anyone has had an electric shock.

It is expensive at a systems/population level though.  Most kids with covid have mild cases, and, here at least, most don't get any formal follow up at all (and beyond a test and a public health phone call, many may never have even seen an MD at all throughout their course of illness).  And there are a lot of them.  Necessitating an MD visit for return to rec level sport is a whole lot of MD visits that otherwise wouldn't take place.  I'm interested to see if Canada follows suit - I suspect we won't.

Edited April 9, 2021 by wathe

[Not_a_Number]

4 minutes ago, kand said:

There are bigger samples if you click through to the numbers collected from v-safe.

Are those randomized, though?

[wathe]

3 minutes ago, kand said:

 That’s part of what frustrates me about people wanting it both ways—wanting everything open while advocating against the vaccine, while also advising at risk people to keep themselves protected from Covid. Those things are incompatible with one another. 
 

Also, thinking again about having said I would probably wait until the second trimester, looking at the data again, I would probably be wrong to make that decision, even though on an emotional level, I can see myself doing that from a place of fear of doing the wrong thing. But, from looking at the data, I probably would actually be increasing my risk of something happening to the baby if I did that rather than get the vaccine.

Yes to the bolded.

Re what I would do personally if pregnant:  I would vax.  My exposure risk is higher than average and the benefit would clearly exceed the risk.  FWIW, my pregnant (n=3) and breastfeeding (n=3) MD colleagues got vaccinated at the first opportunity (January for us). None declined.

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, wathe said:

Yes to the bolded.

Re what I would do personally if pregnant:  I would vax.  My exposure risk is higher than average and the benefit would clearly exceed the risk.  FWIW, my pregnant (n=3) and breastfeeding (n=3) MD colleagues got vaccinated at the first opportunity (January for us). None declined.

I would get vaxxed if I had your levels of exposure. Absolutely.

[Penelope]

The WHO reads a little more cautious on these vaccines in pregnancy. At first they said “ do not recommend”, but have updated to this:

https://www.who.int/news-room/feature-stories/detail/safety-of-covid-19-vaccines
 

Quote

While pregnancy brings a higher risk of severe COVID-19, at present, very little data is available to assess vaccine safety in pregnancy. However, people at high risk of exposure to the COVID-19 virus (such as health workers), or who have a history of underlying medical conditions that increase their risk of severe disease, may be vaccinated during pregnancy after consultation with their health care provider. There is no evidence that suggests vaccination would cause harm during pregnancy.

It’s such an individual decision. I think if I were in this situation, I’d avoid or delay as far into pregnancy as I could, also hoping that more info would come out one way or the other as I was avoiding. At least the chance of contracting it in the hospital during delivery is probably much lower than it once was.

[Penelope]

6 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

Are those randomized, though?

Yeah, no. VAERS is voluntary reporting, AFAIK.

[wathe]

The idea that pregnant women should instead be careful and limit their exposure (ETA as an alternative to vax) seems flawed to me.  1) lots and lots of pregnant women just can't - essential work etc and 2) even those who think they are being very careful usually aren't as careful as they think they are- limiting exposure is actually really, really hard.  If I had a dollar for every covid patient I've seen who tells me "but I've been so careful" and "I don't go anywhere", I would have quite a lot of money!

Edited April 9, 2021 by wathe

[Not_a_Number]

1 minute ago, Penelope said:

t’s such an individual decision. I think if I were in this situation, I’d avoid or delay as far into pregnancy as I could, also hoping that more info would come out one way or the other as I was avoiding. At least the chance of contracting it in the hospital during delivery is probably much lower than it once was.

Yeah, I probably would do this if my exposure was low.  

I normally don't mind the outcomes of a strong immune response, but realistically, it IS a whole body phenomenon, and the mother/fetus relationship is very specific. 

Like, I wasn't at all surprised to hear that people were getting breakthrough herpes virus infections after the vaccine -- shingles, etc. I took that seriously enough to get an antiviral, and yep -- I got a cold sore after the first shot. And that's FINE. It's worth it to me. But if I was in early pregnancy and the fetus was developing rapidly? Yeaaah, I don't know about whether the strong immune response would be good for the fetus. 

Now, I don't KNOW that this is true (although I think I've read some evidence that infections early in pregnancy, including "harmless" ones, are actually linked to higher risks), but I would certainly be concerned. And at that point, I'd really have to weigh my rates of exposure. 

(And note that I'm not immediately swayed by the fact that most people that agree with me about the vaccine don't agree with me on this one, lol. I'm not a very compliant member of the sheeple herd, I guess.)