• We'd like to take this opportunity to wish you a Happy Holidays and a very Merry Christmas from all at Golf Monthly. Thank you for sharing your 2025 with us!

Coronavirus - how is it/has it affected you?

She simply said what if down the line evidence shows it does?

You've got to trust someone, do the research yourself and trust the science.

In the months to come, hopefully she will realise there is no evidence the vaccine affects fertility, she will take the vaccine and everything will be fine.

It's just one of the curses of social media where one person's wacky idea can spead round the world in seconds and become very dangerous.
 
You've got to trust someone, do the research yourself and trust the science.

In the months to come, hopefully she will realise there is no evidence the vaccine affects fertility, she will take the vaccine and everything will be fine.

It's just one of the curses of social media where one person's wacky idea can spead round the world in seconds and become very dangerous.

But people assume it's from social media

Can't somebody just be worried about it without it be blanketly be branded brain washed by social media?
 
Where else did she get the idea from, certainly not any creditable source.

People can actually have ideas without it being from somewhere ...

Do you never hear something and think woah that sounds a bit worrying?

Doesn't have to be based on case by case anaylise can just be a gut feeling ?

But easier to judge label anyone's fears as social media listeners ...
 
However Bob, read that again carefully

There is currently no evidence

That's what I read to her when discussing it

She simply said what if down the line evidence shows it does?

Again fair enough

There is not "bottom line"

It's far far far too easy for us men to second guess what a lady would think of something that we just brush off because our level our understanding is different

There are others who won't even question it , but if somebody is worried all this "oh it's far more risky to get covid and die" phrase of speaking just makes people switch off and even less likely to listen to reason.

This is not a gender question. The gender mix of people who conduct these trials, and who issue the advice, is very gender balanced. I suspect the Royal College of Midwives, who have opined on this, is not well gender balanced but in a way that should assure the punter.

It is not only that there is no evidence, there is also no plausible mechanism by which the vaccine could cause infertility. For a fertility problem to occur, you would need some part of the vaccine reaching, either directly or indirectly, the reproductive organs or some of the hormones involved in signalling. The vaccine simply does not move around the systemic circulation, it stays locally in the muscle, and the person's immune system takes care of the immune response. The antibodies and other substances generated have been extensively studied and all are either familiar and specific to the covid response, or are reasonably well understood, for example the antibody causing clotting problems with AZ.

Someone saying in an ever increasingly loud voice "Prove to me that it doesn't" will never be satisfied. Proving a negative is often impossible. Would the punter suggest a clinical trial of thousands of women who get the vaccine shortly after a positive pregnancy test, follow them for the course of their pregnancy, maybe follow the kids to school to check for neuro-developmental delay?

Although, to be fair, some people experience a headache after the vax, so I suppose "Not tonight, darling" could affect fertility, but hopefully not for very long.
 
I have no problem with someone’s right to believe whatever they like and to decide that what goes into their bodies but they must realise that they have the responsibility to act accordingly and not risk spreading the disease to others.
 
I have no problem with someone’s right to believe whatever they like and to decide that what goes into their bodies but they must realise that they have the responsibility to act accordingly and not risk spreading the disease to others.

You have the right to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.
 
I have no problem with someone’s right to believe whatever they like and to decide that what goes into their bodies but they must realise that they have the responsibility to act accordingly and not risk spreading the disease to others.

They also have a choice not to risk their own lives for the benefit of others.
 
You have the right to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.

That I agree with entirely, and if facts are incorrectly stated should be corrected

Whitty stated the vaccine was a choice and he believed everyone should have the right to choose wasn't it? But In his opinion everyone should want to take it

Nobody should be shamed into taking
 
Although I don’t agree with the lady I do agree with her right to choose providing she understands fully the implications to her and others.
Understanding without any consequences or responsibility for her or any others actions is pointless though.
 
But whatever they decide after exercising their "rights", they must accept the consequences. So, if they become disadvantaged by vaccine passport then so be it. Don't start moaning about " our rights being eroded."

Bingo

I think the passports are a clever idea to get uptake levels up

If they come in I would bet my house on her taking the jab as she loves holidays

Be interested to see what she actually does when it's her time to decide properly

Problem is her age group (mine aswell but I had precondition) have had more time to overthink things

I mean I'll be honest I had my AZ I was excited in Feb. Didn't give a second thought

Then when came to second dose the blood clots started being reported

Now it's not for the under 40s

So I was a bit scared for My second dose but I took it

Wifes is Friday. She takes the pill so I'm worried for her but she will take it

I can see how people get more worried as time goes on with all the new decisions and out comes
 
To be fair, some of the opinions being expressed on here have changed in the last few months. Previously, caution was being suggested by many in light of negative side-effects, rather than some of our more cavalier approaches to vaccination.
The only difference is that most of us are now vaccinated and feeling a little more confident in it. She hasn't had that little confidence boost and is cautious about the health of her future children.
I think her nervousness is more understandable than my previous lack of concern.
 
She, like many others will make the judgment on what best suits her and not what the professionals will say. I suppose things like thalidomide is still to raw in some peoples memories.
Was more thinking along the lines of what risk (if any) they will pose to the greater population and if we’ll eventually get to the point of having restrictions placed on their lifestyle that can be backed up by legislation.
 
Everyone has the right to decide whether they want the vaccine or not. What cannot be negotiable is everyone else having to suffer continuous restrictions because of them.

No vaccine? Fine - stay inside, don't go to pubs, don't go on holiday, don't mix with other people. Your choice.
 
I feel it best to suggest, those that don't understand what Amber means with regards to travel they stop driving.

For those normal suspects that don't want to understand what Amber means, carry on as normal, it's entertaining.
Amber means essential travel only - and according to Matt Hancock and the one in charge that absolutely does not encompass a need for a holiday...and so 150 flights out of U.K. yesterday filled with travellers with essential travel needs...of course...yes. Everything clear and being followed.
 
Top