3 ms·

> The conclusion has been in for a while that COVID-19 leads to a higher incidence of hospitalizations and complications Yes just about any symptomatic illness

> The conclusion has been in for a while that COVID-19 leads to a higher incidence of hospitalizations and complications Yes just about any symptomatic illness is going to lead to hospitalization and complications during pregnancy. I understand how the language on the CDC page you cited may lead you to believe that vaccines are conclusively recommended, but take a look at this page from the CDC [1] (updated August 11th) for a more balance appraisal. They say that evidence about the safety is "limited" but "early data" is reassuring. Almost all of the links on the page you cited are to ongoing trials. It's a misrepresentation of science to say that the recommendation to vaccinate pregnant women is conclusive. And if we're trading anecdotes, my wife's OBGYN advised her not to get vaccinated yet, because it's unclear what the long-term risks are for mother and baby, and because it's unclear if vaccination provides any additional benefits for mothers who have acquired immunity through natural infection. If you can provide any citations to primary sources supporting your claim that vaccination is conclusively recommended I would appreciate it - I'm keeping an open mind here. [1] https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/recommendations/pregnancy.html#anchor_1628692520287 https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/recommend...

XorNot 5y ago
If your wife has had COVID before she got pregnant, or during and recovered just fine, then that's a very different proposition to my wife who has not had COVID. You're burying the lead hard and frankly if you want to argue against the CDC and ATAGI[1] (the Australia advisory board) then the onus is on you to provide the extraordinary evidence that they shouldn't be believed. Your proposition is "a virus many times deadlier then the flu in a target group who have more serious outcomes from anything, what could go wrong?" And your evidence is: "well for someone who currently has effective natural immunity.." [1] https://www.health.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/2021/08/covid-19-vaccination-shared-decision-making-guide-for-women-who-are-pregnant-breastfeeding-or-planning-pregnancy-covid-19-vaccination-shared-decision-making-guide-for-women-who-are-pregnant-breastfeeding-or-planning-pregna_0.pdf https://www.health.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/2021...
- AuryGlenz 5y ago
  I think he’s arguing against absolutism. If you’re pregnant and have had COVID or can keep your chances of catching it low by staying/working from home the potential risks probably outweigh the benefit of the vaccine. But that’s not what’s being communicated.

XorNot 5y ago

If your wife has had COVID before she got pregnant, or during and recovered just fine, then that's a very different proposition to my wife who has not had COVID. You're burying the lead hard and frankly if you want to argue against the CDC and ATAGI[1] (the Australia advisory board) then the onus is on you to provide the extraordinary evidence that they shouldn't be believed. Your proposition is "a virus many times deadlier then the flu in a target group who have more serious outcomes from anything, what could go wrong?" And your evidence is: "well for someone who currently has effective natural immunity.." [1] https://www.health.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/2021/08/covid-19-vaccination-shared-decision-making-guide-for-women-who-are-pregnant-breastfeeding-or-planning-pregnancy-covid-19-vaccination-shared-decision-making-guide-for-women-who-are-pregnant-breastfeeding-or-planning-pregna_0.pdf https://www.health.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/2021...

AuryGlenz 5y ago
I think he’s arguing against absolutism. If you’re pregnant and have had COVID or can keep your chances of catching it low by staying/working from home the potential risks probably outweigh the benefit of the vaccine. But that’s not what’s being communicated.