3 ms·

Have we seen a vaccinated person conceive and have a healthy birth? I’m not at all saying that’s a risk but just that it’s an example of something we haven’t h

Have we seen a vaccinated person conceive and have a healthy birth? I’m not at all saying that’s a risk but just that it’s an example of something we haven’t had time to test.

standardUser 5y ago
Right, I am only arguing that we are not flying totally blind here. Is the risk 0%? No, never. But the people who know the science best think the risk of something occurring beyond the timeframe we have good data for is very, very low. And the idea that there is a certain amount of years or decades, or a certain life event that changes the expectations of how this impacts human health, is something that we are only guessing about. Whereas the people with the knowledge and background to make educated guesses generally have little to no concern.
- chitowneats 5y ago
  Higher or lower than the chance of hospitalization for women of childbearing age for covid-19? Many people suspect that the answer to this question is "we don't really know". But public health agencies are trying to boost vaccination rates, period. So they say "just get the vax". It's getting exhausting trying to parse out the truth from the various "noble lies". This leads many people who already mistrust "the system" to tune out future guidance and legitimate information. Black Americans, and Republicans, for example.
  - standardUser 5y ago
    I upvoted this. I strongly agree that public health communication has been awful at times and has absolutely diminished trust. Especially the recent f*ck up at the CDC where they spread disinformation about vaccinated people and their ability to spread the Delta variant.
    - chitowneats 5y ago
      Thank you. I have appreciated your engagement. Referring to unsettled science as "disinformation" seems premature. Is it not the case that we have some preliminary evidence that this may be the case? I've seen lots of criticism of the study that led to their updated guidance about this. Confounding variables, etc. But these are experts giving us their expert opinion. Surely it should at least be considered a possibility worthy of more study? Does referring to it as "disinformation" create a chilling effect around truth seeking? Are there other studies, or a "preponderance of evidence", so to speak, that refutes their position? I'm not aware of any. Most often I hear people make "common sense" or "just so" arguments about vaccines in general and how they work. Nothing specific about the covid vaccines. The majority of which, at least in USA, utilize novel tech.
      - standardUser 5y ago
        Fair points, and I don't stand by calling it disinformation. This particular incident has just really frustrated me. I'm not sure exactly what the CDC was thinking by elevating this study so much, or why it was leaked before publication. But it does look suspect to me. The study: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7031e2.htm https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7031e2.htm The limitations discussed in the paper seem to have been completely ignored by the media. That isn't surprising at all, but it is a little suspiring that the CDC made a such a quick and resolute policy change based on a study with such obvious (and some might say peculiar) limitations.
- vekker 5y ago
  That's an appeal to authority and we know there's a big problem with censorship right now. (Medical) doctors and professors who ask questions about the effectiveness of vaccination policy have a high chance of getting fired. In my country a researcher got fired a few months ago after publicly saying there's no guarantee that getting vaccinated means you will no longer spread the virus. By now he's been proven right of course, but meanwhile he did lose his job, his income, his reputation, and his voice in the media. So how is it possible to have an honest, open discussion (not to mention conduct proper science) in such a highly censored environment? (For the record, I'm not antivax and not against these new vaccines, and I think it's also worrying in and of itself that many people like me feel this needs to be said every time in these discussions in order to minimize the chance of name-calling and personal attacks.)
notJim 5y ago
The frustrating thing about weaselly antivax nonsense like this is that if you just google your question, there is a clear answer: > Over 20 women enrolled in the initial adult Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine trial became pregnant during the study period, and none suffered pregnancy loss or perinatal complications. https://www.forbes.com/sites/ninashapiro/2021/03/17/vaccinated-mother-gives-birth-to-first-newborn-with-covid-19-antibodies/?sh=42f2b16c191e https://www.forbes.com/sites/ninashapiro/2021/03/17/vaccinat... I understand that some people are not as plugged into the internet, or have various difficulties understanding information, but I doubt that describes you as a hacker news commenter. There is really no excuse for you to be ignorant about things that you can find an answer to in mere seconds.

Have we seen a vaccinated person conceive and have a healthy birth? I’m not at all saying that’s a risk but just that it’s an example of something we haven’t had time to test.

standardUser 5y ago

Right, I am only arguing that we are not flying totally blind here. Is the risk 0%? No, never. But the people who know the science best think the risk of something occurring beyond the timeframe we have good data for is very, very low. And the idea that there is a certain amount of years or decades, or a certain life event that changes the expectations of how this impacts human health, is something that we are only guessing about. Whereas the people with the knowledge and background to make educated guesses generally have little to no concern.

chitowneats 5y ago
Higher or lower than the chance of hospitalization for women of childbearing age for covid-19? Many people suspect that the answer to this question is "we don't really know". But public health agencies are trying to boost vaccination rates, period. So they say "just get the vax". It's getting exhausting trying to parse out the truth from the various "noble lies". This leads many people who already mistrust "the system" to tune out future guidance and legitimate information. Black Americans, and Republicans, for example.
- standardUser 5y ago
  I upvoted this. I strongly agree that public health communication has been awful at times and has absolutely diminished trust. Especially the recent f*ck up at the CDC where they spread disinformation about vaccinated people and their ability to spread the Delta variant.
  - chitowneats 5y ago
    Thank you. I have appreciated your engagement. Referring to unsettled science as "disinformation" seems premature. Is it not the case that we have some preliminary evidence that this may be the case? I've seen lots of criticism of the study that led to their updated guidance about this. Confounding variables, etc. But these are experts giving us their expert opinion. Surely it should at least be considered a possibility worthy of more study? Does referring to it as "disinformation" create a chilling effect around truth seeking? Are there other studies, or a "preponderance of evidence", so to speak, that refutes their position? I'm not aware of any. Most often I hear people make "common sense" or "just so" arguments about vaccines in general and how they work. Nothing specific about the covid vaccines. The majority of which, at least in USA, utilize novel tech.
    - standardUser 5y ago
      Fair points, and I don't stand by calling it disinformation. This particular incident has just really frustrated me. I'm not sure exactly what the CDC was thinking by elevating this study so much, or why it was leaked before publication. But it does look suspect to me. The study: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7031e2.htm https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7031e2.htm The limitations discussed in the paper seem to have been completely ignored by the media. That isn't surprising at all, but it is a little suspiring that the CDC made a such a quick and resolute policy change based on a study with such obvious (and some might say peculiar) limitations.
vekker 5y ago
That's an appeal to authority and we know there's a big problem with censorship right now. (Medical) doctors and professors who ask questions about the effectiveness of vaccination policy have a high chance of getting fired. In my country a researcher got fired a few months ago after publicly saying there's no guarantee that getting vaccinated means you will no longer spread the virus. By now he's been proven right of course, but meanwhile he did lose his job, his income, his reputation, and his voice in the media. So how is it possible to have an honest, open discussion (not to mention conduct proper science) in such a highly censored environment? (For the record, I'm not antivax and not against these new vaccines, and I think it's also worrying in and of itself that many people like me feel this needs to be said every time in these discussions in order to minimize the chance of name-calling and personal attacks.)

notJim 5y ago

The frustrating thing about weaselly antivax nonsense like this is that if you just google your question, there is a clear answer: > Over 20 women enrolled in the initial adult Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine trial became pregnant during the study period, and none suffered pregnancy loss or perinatal complications. https://www.forbes.com/sites/ninashapiro/2021/03/17/vaccinated-mother-gives-birth-to-first-newborn-with-covid-19-antibodies/?sh=42f2b16c191e https://www.forbes.com/sites/ninashapiro/2021/03/17/vaccinat... I understand that some people are not as plugged into the internet, or have various difficulties understanding information, but I doubt that describes you as a hacker news commenter. There is really no excuse for you to be ignorant about things that you can find an answer to in mere seconds.