[–] [Deleted] 22 points Edited

amid unfounded fears – partly fuelled by anti-vax campaigners – that getting jabbed could harm the mother, her baby or both.

Ah yeah the famous unfounded fears perpetuated by the NHS and UK government? The ones who told pregnant women not to get vaccinated and then suddenly expects mothers to just accept they've changed their mind and do what they originally said may harm their baby? Wtf.

A large part of that in medicine is simply that if we don't have enough data to suggest a medication is safe for a pregnant woman, we don't want to take the risk that it will harm their child. Most of the time, medications probably won't harm the fetus - but do we want to take the risk if we don't have evidence to prove it?

That's why it's taken so long for the vaccine to be approved for pregnant women, science needed time to produce the data and the evidence that it's safe for them. And unfortunately for some people 'we don't know if its safe yet' still means 'not safe at all' regardless of the evidence.

[–] [Deleted] 8 points Edited

That's because for all pharmaceuticals, we demand that companies prove they're safe before we prescribe them to the unwashed masses.

And we do that because we know that pharmaceutical manufacturers, left to their own devices, have absolutely no qualms pretending that their products are safe and then often later have to admit that their products were, in fact, not safe enough.

And we know that because companies like Pfizer et alii have track records of doing that.

The problem is that these vaccines were not initially tested on pregnant women. Which means that every woman who gets vaccinated now is part of the trial group, which in turn means that we now rely on patients and physicians to correctly report negative outcomes and adverse events to the authorities - the same authorities that insist that vaccinations are safe because if they weren't safe, their use hadn't been authorized.