The Student Room Group

This discussion is no longer active so you won't be able to reply.Check out other Related discussions

I'm concerned about getting the vaccine

I'm concerned regarding whether or not the vaccine is safe for me, and unsure if I should get my second dose. My family has all gotten covid at some point, including me (16F) and my 77-year-old grandad who easily survived and some members of my family are already fully vaccinated and have received boosters on top. I had my first dose a couple of months ago and I feel like the jab affected my period, as I felt worse pains compared to before my previous periods. I've also heard that there are many claims of women who report their periods being affected by the vaccine, and the BBC have acknowledged this too

I'm not one of those idiots who believe that the vaccine will make you a magnet or something, and I do acknowledge that the many testimonies may be mixing correlation with causation, but I don't feel completely comfortable with simply ignoring all of these women's experiences. Although the government says that the change in period is only temporary, I can't help but think 'how do you know? we haven't studied the long term effects of this vaccine', as egotistical as it sounds

It seems like a lot of people are militant about the idea that everyone should get the vaccine, and I understand where they're coming from, but they don't really address these women's concerns in favour of calling any and all worries regarding the vaccine as bogus. This is especially the case because my mother is a bit pushy about me getting the vaccine, even when I expressed to her my concerns.

I guess I just want to hear other people's thoughts on this. Am I being irrationally paranoid?
You are not being irrationally paranoid. :smile:
Always trust your gut instinct and listen to what your feelings are telling you.
I won't be having any of the covid vaccines.
The only vaccine I've had was for polio as a child, I'm very unlikely to have any more vaccines.
The facts:

Covid "vaccines" have not yet been tested for long term safety, testing is ongoing, the vaccine trials will run for a full 2 years

Pfizer
"Assessment of long-term safety and efficacy for this vaccine will occur, but it cannot be in the context of maintaining a placebo group for the planned follow-up period of 2 years after the second dose"

https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMoa2034577


Moderna

"Participants were monitored for unsolicited adverse events for up to 28 days following each dose and follow-up is ongoing.
Serious adverse events and medically attended adverse events will be recorded for the entire study duration of 2 years"



Long term safety is imo important as there have been past disasters with medical products/treatments that only came to light years later.

Thalidomide being an obvious example. The Swine Flu "pandemic" also saw disaster:

These NHS Staff Were Told The Swine Flu Vaccine Was Safe, And Now They're Suffering The Consequences
https://www.buzzfeed.com/shaunlintern/these-nhs-staff-were-told-the-swine-flu-vaccine-was-safe

Brain-Damaged UK Victims of Swine Flu Vaccine to Get £60 Million Compensation
https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/brain-damaged-uk-victims-swine-flu-vaccine-get-60-million-compensation-1438572

The link between Pandemrix and Narcolepsy has been established and accepted by GSK, the manufacturer.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/07/why-pandemic-flu-shot-caused-narcolepsy

Pandemrix has now been withdrawn from use in the European Union
https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/medicines/human/EPAR/pandemrix


There is also the problem that Public Health England data shows which is that from 1st Feb - 12th Sep 2021 there were proportionately more fully vaccinated people being hospitalised by and dying from Delta variant than unvaccinated people.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1018547/Technical_Briefing_23_21_09_16.pdf

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1014926/Technical_Briefing_22_21_09_02.pdf


This holds true overall across all age groups. If you only cherry pick specific age groups then the situation looks different.


The other important fact is in regards to Natural Immunity for which there is a recent and important study, the largest of its kind.

Comparing SARS-CoV-2 natural immunity to vaccine-induced immunity:

Reinfections versus breakthrough infections

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v1.full.pdf


It tracked

673,676 MHS members 16 years and older who were fully vaccinated with Pfizer vaccine but had never had Covid (SARS-CoV-2-naïve)
62,883 unvaccinated people who HAD previously been infected (Naturally Immune)
42,099 people who HAD previously been infected (naturally immune) and who subsequently had a single-dose of Pfizer vaccine.

It tracked these people over the same period when the Delta variant was predominently circulating.


It found that:

- The fully vaccinated were 13 times more likely to become infected than those with natural immunity.

- The fully vaccinated were 27 times more likely to get symptomatic infection than those with natural immunity.

- The fully vaccinated group saw 8 of the 9 cases (88.8%) of hospitalisations



Please read the full report. There was some limited benefit in young people who have already had Covid in getting vaccinated but for me personally it wouldn't remotely convince me to get vaxxed. For me, natural immunity is the way forward and frankly always was. I totally get that the "at risk" vulnerable people needed to go the vaccine route but I don't personally believe it's necessary for the vast majority of people because in my opinion they are at extremely low risk of getting serious Covid illness. Thus far only 0.2% of the UK population have died as "Covid Deaths" meaning that 99.8% of people have not died.

As I am not "at risk" or vulnerable I see absolutely no reason at all to take risks with my health with "vaccines" that are still being tested and whose long term safety has not yet been established. I've had Covid already. I will now have strong and lasting immunity imo. End of story.
Follow your heart, don't get coerced by those counter-pandemic fascists forcing their will on others.
Reply 4
Probably best to ignore pilgrims antivax sentiments, he just spends his time bashing ther various vaccines for reasons best known to himself.

In terms of it affecting your reproductive capabilities, well, theres been next to no cases of it having any serious impact on it (a few dozen or what not out of hundreds of millions) rather speaks for itself. Either way youve already had dose so may as well have the second. It vaguely effecting the frequency of when your period is isnt exactly the worst side effect. Personally, if i were you, i'd go with what the scientists say on the matter in that (whilst yes we dont know the long term effects of the jabs) there is, as of yet, no evidence to say there are any significant adverse effects regarding fertility and the only ones who tend to try and emphasize that there are ntend to be the talking heads from Fox and OANN (tbh thats probably a great reason to get it if theyre saying its bad).

Also, bear in mind, when you say 'all these womens concerns' its a tiny tiny minority of women (and men actually) who're raising said concern.. most people are absolutely fine with it and hold no such reservations.

But, your body your choice. If you really dont want to get the 2nd jab no ones making you.
Reply 5
Hi, as far as any qualified scientific boards are currently aware there are no long-term negative effects of taking the vaccine in the vast majority of cases (the key exceptions being people with allergies to specific ingredients or those who are immunocompromised in some way) and anyone who says otherwise is knowingly or unknowingly spreading misinformation. There's of course no direct necessity to get the vaccine, but there are no proven drawbacks for the vast majority of people and the increased resistance to the virus is strong enough that for your own sake it makes more sense to take it than to avoid it.

Original post by PilgrimOfTruth

Comparing SARS-CoV-2 natural immunity to vaccine-induced immunity:

Reinfections versus breakthrough infections

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v1.full.pdf


It tracked

673,676 MHS members 16 years and older who were fully vaccinated with Pfizer vaccine but had never had Covid (SARS-CoV-2-naïve)
62,883 unvaccinated people who HAD previously been infected (Naturally Immune)
42,099 people who HAD previously been infected (naturally immune) and who subsequently had a single-dose of Pfizer vaccine.

It tracked these people over the same period when the Delta variant was predominently circulating.


It found that:

- The fully vaccinated were 13 times more likely to become infected than those with natural immunity.

- The fully vaccinated were 27 times more likely to get symptomatic infection than those with natural immunity.

- The fully vaccinated group saw 8 of the 9 cases (88.8%) of hospitalisations



Please read the full report. There was some limited benefit in young people who have already had Covid in getting vaccinated but for me personally it wouldn't remotely convince me to get vaxxed. For me, natural immunity is the way forward and frankly always was. I totally get that the "at risk" vulnerable people needed to go the vaccine route but I don't personally believe it's necessary for the vast majority of people because in my opinion they are at extremely low risk of getting serious Covid illness. Thus far only 0.2% of the UK population have died as "Covid Deaths" meaning that 99.8% of people have not died.

This poster has fundamentally misunderstood what this study is saying. To be clear, I am only talking about this one because it was the one that most piqued my interest, and I have not read the papers for the other studies cited. I'm not going to judge their content because that would be intellectually dishonest of me. Having read this one, however, it becomes immediately clear that the way you have cited those figures is incredibly misleading. In the cited stats, all the use of the phrase "natural immunity" refers to people who have ALREADY CONTRACTED THE VIRUS AT LEAST ONCE. "Natural immunity" refers to the immune system's response after having already fought off the infection unaided once. The vaccine works by taking small mRNA extracts from samples of the virus and injecting it into your body as to familiarise your immune system with the genetic code of the virus so it essentially knows what to look out for, because the way your immune system works is that some of your white blood cells will "remember" certain parts of the genetics of microbes which attack you, so the first time you get a disease you likely won't have much natural defense at all and it can be very dangerous but then in further cases your body has developed protection against the disease because the cells that "know" that particular pathogen have reproduced and can combat it much more effectively. Vaccines work by activating this response without actually infecting you with the pathogen (as opposed to innoculation, which is fairly commonly used for things like chickenpox - see spreader parties), but as a result it's not at all uncommon for a lesser immune response from the vaccine than if you have suffered through the actual disease before.
Using the statistics laid out in the Model 1 subsection of the Results section of that study, we see that 257 out of the 16,215 people in that group contracted the virus in the period of time, which accounts for less than 2% of the group (approx. 1.5% vaccinated, 0.1% pre-exposed). According to the NHS website, infection rates at the time of the study (as best as i can estimate using the resources available to me after 5 minutes of googling) amounted to about 4%, including those who have been vaccinated and those with some natural immunity from prior infections. This means that having either the vaccine or natural immunity MORE THAN HALVES the likelihood of contracting covid (~4% to ~2%), with the vaccination lowering the rate by nearly two thirds alone. Additionally, the reduction is likely to be even more substantial against unvaccinated covid cases, since the figures provided by the NHS included people who have been vaccinated up to twice, and those who had previously contracted the disease. This means the unvaccinated rate of infection is significantly higher (forgive me, I haven't been able to find the exact unvaccinated rate at that time) than 4%, which means the vaccination provides even more than that, likely approaching the realms of THREE TIMES THE RESISTANCE to the virus when vaccinated.

If you're going to cite a study, for the love of god please read what it actually says before you wave it around like some fantastic trump card when its contents debunk your own manipulative and dangerous ideology. Vaccines work, and they're worth getting for everyone's sake. Refusing to get vaccines not only puts yourself at higher risk of disease, but it also puts the entire population at a higher risk. Don't condemn those around you with your selfishness.
Original post by LazyLexi
Hi, as far as any qualified scientific boards are currently aware there are no long-term negative effects of taking the vaccine in the vast majority of cases (the key exceptions being people with allergies to specific ingredients or those who are immunocompromised in some way) and anyone who says otherwise is knowingly or unknowingly spreading misinformation.

I very much disagree but this is not a discussion we can have here due to the limitations of TSR policy.

LazyLexi
the increased resistance to the virus is strong enough that for your own sake it makes more sense to take it than to avoid it.


If that's your personal opinion then good for you but many others don't share that opinion including myself. It's a balance of weighing up the risks that Covid present to an individual vs the risks presented by the vaccine. Data matters here and there is plenty of it. Let's look at the UK Government data showing the number of people that have to be vaccinated to prevent ONE case of Covid hospitalisation. Here's the UK Gov document:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1131409/appendix-1-of-jcvi-statement-on-2023-covid-19-vaccination-programme-8-november-2022.pdf

Here's Table 3 from that document which I have added highlights to:


We can see for example that for those who are not in any risk group and are 30-39 years old, we would have to vaccinate (autumn boost) 210,400 of them just to prevent one Covid hospitalisation. That's staggering imo. Even those in a risk group of that same age you have to boost 7800 of them to prevent one Covid hospitalisation.

Let's look at Table 4 in the document:


Look at those 40-49yr olds who are not in a risk group. You need to vax 932,500 of them just to prevent one severe Covid hospitalisation. That's not far from a million people!!! Personally I find these numbers staggering. They are for me a far cry from the appalling scaremongering we had to endure from the MSM.

Finally let's look at Table 1 from this data. It tells us much about the true level of risk that Covid represented to different age groups by showing how many actual Covid hospitalisations there are PER MILLION cases.


Look at those young kids in the first 2 age groups 5 - 15yrs. There are only 4.2 / 4.6 hospitalisations PER MILLION cases for those who haven't had any doses of vaccine. That's absolutely tiny, minuscule. Even if you look at the 60-69yr olds who are unvaxxed there are only 119 hospitalisations per million cases (1 in 8403).

People are free to take on-board this data or ignore it as they wish. For me personally it's an incredible eye-opener that tells me what the real risk levels are of being hospitalised by Covid. Very small imo and I am appalled at the MSM scaremongering we saw during the pandemic.

LazyLexi
"The vaccine works by taking small mRNA extracts from samples of the virus and injecting it into your body as to familiarise your immune system with the genetic code of the virus so it essentially knows what to look out for


Sorry to say this is not correct. There is no part/extract of the actual virus in the mRNA vaccines. The mRNA is a molecule containing genetic code, essentially a set of instructions. It instructs your own body to build/create an artificial spike protein that mimics the spike protein of the virus. Your body then mounts an immune response to the spike protein it created for itself. In short, the mRNA treatment turns your own body into a vaccine maker.

There is however a very marked difference in my opinion to the immune response from the vaccine and the immune response from the Covid virus itself. It's all to do with immunoglobulins and B-cells and T-cells. You can research this at your leisure. For me personally, I believe the immune response from the actual virus to be far superior to that from the vaccine. Each to their own.

I remain utterly convinced that I made totally the right decision for myself in not having the vaccine at all. I had already imo had Covid by the time the vaccines appeared and so knew that I had good strong and lasting natural immunity already.

I weigh up the risks of all vaccines against the risks of the disease / illness in question and I look carefully at the list of ingredients in each one. It's a personal decision for every individual to make. I don't care what anyone else does. I'm happy for them to make their own personal decisions.
(edited 9 months ago)

Latest