[J-dawg]

The UK government has already stated that pregnant women won't be getting the vaccine. (https://inews.co.uk/news/health/covid-vaccine-pregnant-women...)

This seems at odds with the gung-ho "it's 100% safe" rhetoric of our politicians.

I am by no means an anti-vaxxer, but I'm already finding it creepy the way any concerns are simply being dismissed. It's also just bad policy: it means that any unexpected side-effects that do emerge (even if very rare / not serious) will look much worse and immediately stink of a cover-up.

What's wrong with saying: "We are confident, to a reasonable degree of certainty, that the risk of taking this vaccine is lower than the risk of contracting Covid"? Not "This vaccine is definitely safe". I am sick of politicians treating the electorate as if they are morons who can't understand the slightest bit of nuance.

As you mention, vaccines can cause harm and have done in the past. Some degree of caution might be warranted.

[natex]

The concerns are not being "simply dismissed". You just didn't take the time to read any of the material.

"JCVI recognises that the MHRA’s advice is based on the absence of evidence in pregnancy, and not on the presence of evidence to implicate toxicity in pregnancy."

It's all laid out for anyone with true concerns. Here you go: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...

[J-dawg]

Thanks for that. And you're right, I hadn't seen that document before.

But concerns absolutely are being dismissed. I've personally listened to Matt Hancock and other ministers doing it.

The idea that someone might want to wait just a little longer to see if any side effects emerge is not necessarily irrational.

Would you not concede that, if and when any unexpected side-effects do emerge (however rare or insignificant), this gung-ho attitude will backfire?

[natex]

> The idea that someone might want to wait just a little longer to see if any side effects emerge is not necessarily irrational.

In general, yes it is irrational. There is evidence that the benefits of vaccines (including this one) far outweigh the risks of side effects.

> Would you not concede that, if and when any unexpected side-effects do emerge (however rare or insignificant), this gung-ho attitude will backfire?

Sorry, but no, this is wildly irrational. Why are rare and insignificant side effects concerning when the lives of more than 60,000 people in the UK have already ended due to this virus?

[h_anna_h]

"60,000 people in the UK have already ended due to this virus" how accurate is this? I do not know about the UK but here (Greece) they asked family members to sign that their relative died from covid when dying from something unrelated otherwise they are not allowed to retrieve the body for weeks. They also count 80-90 year olds that died as covid victims.

[natex]

> they asked family members to sign that their relative died from covid when dying from something unrelated otherwise they are not allowed to retrieve the body for weeks.

At least in the UK and US this is misinformation and false. Cause of death is certified by doctors or coroners and added to a database that reported COVID deaths are pulled from. Family members do not have to sign anything before cause of death is determined. I'd wager that Greece is no different.

COVID deaths are well known. There are many scholarly articles out there on how they are counted for people who don't get their information from Facebook. Here's a quick little article for example. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-covid-19-deat...

[h_anna_h]

I would certainly expect that to be the case in a sane system. Sadly I have seen too many bureaucratic insanities around so it does not seem far-fetched to me.

"and added to a database that reported COVID deaths are pulled from." database or excel spreadsheet? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24689247

I don't use facebook, my sources are my aunt (my uncle died 5 days ago due to falling and hitting his head, combined with a stroke history) and a family friend who is a doctor (and claims to be aware of 11 of such cases), note that said doctor and my aunt do not know each other.

[tim333]

I've yet to hear anyone say "it's 100% safe". Any sources?

I mean really it's one of those things like driving to the shops that is pretty safe but not 100% and I think most people can figure that.