“Despite the categorization of pregnancy as a high-risk condition for severe COVID-19, hospitalization, and mortality, pregnancy remains an exclusion for participation in vaccine trials. The Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (SMFM) and other leading organizations, including the National Academy of Medicine, have consistently advocated for the inclusion of pregnant and lactating women in vaccination trials, particularly when the following criteria are met: (1) pregnancy poses increased susceptibility to or severity of a disease; (2) the best approach to protect the infant is through passive placental antibody transfer, which provides the most efficient and direct protection to the newborn before an infant can be vaccinated, and (3) there is an active outbreak.”
“In general, SMFM strongly recommends that pregnant women have access to COVID-19 vaccines in all phases of future vaccine campaigns, and that she and her healthcare professional engage in shared decision-making regarding her receipt of the vaccine. Counseling should balance available data on vaccine safety, risks to pregnant women from SARS-CoV-2 infection, and a woman’s individual risk for infection and severe disease. As data emerge, counseling will likely shift, as some vaccines may be more suitable for pregnant women. mRNA vaccines, which are likely to be the first vaccines available, do not contain a live virus but rather induce humoral and cellular immune response through the use of viral mRNA. Healthcare professionals should also counsel their patients that the theoretical risk of fetal harm from mRNA vaccines is very low.”
[1]: https://www.smfm.org/covidclinical
[2]: https://s3.amazonaws.com/cdn.smfm.org/media/2591/SMFM_Vaccin...
1. HN is a mostly technical forum, with a technically inclined user base.
2. Statistics show that there are less women working in Tech than men [1,2]. This can be translated in interest in Tech.
3. Only a fraction of those women would be on HN, and only a fraction of them would be pregnant.
4. One more data point: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5520342
You can therefore safely assume that it's a very tiny number, which can not explain the NO responses of this poll.
[1] https://www.womentech.net/en-fr/women-technology-statistics
[2] https://www.isemag.com/2020/10/telecom-the-latest-stats-on-w...
You could create a poll if you doubt it, I trust my gut :)
If you’re in the 0.1% of the population with severe allergies, you should skip most vaccines. Herd immunity is a thing, and (most — probably these) vaccines will protect you by making the people around you stop spreading it.
If you’re in this category, you’d have already been told so by your doctor.
Also, most people carrying epi-pens don’t know full severity of their allergies since there is no way to test it.
The poll’s intent is to understand why one would not want to take it, not whether they should. The government already makes that choice for you. See “People with allergies should avoid the vaccine.”
Will you quit drinking alcohol?
1. Why do many people say no?
2. Well it isn’t recommended for the pregnant [therefore either a large proportion of hn is pregnant or the vaccine is generally bad]
3. [not many people on hn are pregnant so] do you also refuse alcohol because that is bad for the pregnant?
4. [I think you’re suggesting that pregnant people often drink alcohol so I put it to you that] in my experience pregnant people don’t drink alcohol.
5. This comment
Yes alcohol should be avoided if pregnant. Smoking as well. Cat litterboxes can pose a risk.
Many other products are removed because of unknown risks.
Bullshit.
I'm honestly unaware of where the 70% number came from (I may simply have missed it), but he, alongside former Council of Europe Parliament chair Wolfgang Wodarg jointly filed a document with the EMA urging that a large-scale roll-out of the vaccine be delayed until further trials could be ran on it which accounted for pregnancy [5].
His primary concern was that it would impact placental development.
Michael Yeadon worked with Pfizer between 1995, and 2011 where he was the Chief Science Officer, and Vice President of the company's R&D division focused on allergy and respiratory illness [0].
In 2011, Pfizer decided to narrow its focus down to five distinct areas of research, and closed down Yeadon's lab [1, 2].
Yeadon, along with two other colleagues secured venture funding from Pfizer's investment fund, and license from Pfizer to continue their research as an independent company called Ziarco, which continued to operate until it was purchased by Novartis in 2016 in 2016[3, 4]
Since cashing out, Yeadon has operated as a research consultant [0].
Yeadon is notably a lock-down skeptic, and has made claims that London has long since reached herd-immunity. He's a biochemist, not a virologist. I don't know how correct he is or isn't. But his history suggests that he's not someone who's opinion on pharmaceuticals should be taken lightly. Wodarg has similarly suggested that the COVID pandemic is overhyped. Wodarg's a politician with some medical education. I don't know that he's anywhere near authoritative.
[0] https://www.linkedin.com/in/mike-yeadon-3818613/
[1] http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/kent/hi/people_and_places/newsid...
[2] https://www.sfgate.com/business/article/Pfizer-narrows-its-f...
[3] https://drug-dev.com/ziarco-pharma-acquires-pfizer-drugs-sec...
[4] https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnlamattina/2017/03/15/turnin...
[5] https://dryburgh.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Wodarg_Yeado...
Honestly this whole poll post should be shut down. The amount of misinformation being shared is astounding.