Seems reasonable and data driven. From what could learn- VERY low odds of negative long term effects for pregnant woman and child. I just can’t equate the decision of a well informed lady to choose not getting the vaccine during pregnancy to the crazy shit like the microchip nuts. Especially when, as our Purdue friend points out- due to the spike protein the vaccines are new.
I get that...
But I think that my discussion about the psychological aspect is an interesting one.
A pregnant lady can choose to get the vaccine or not get the vaccine. But in the world in which we live, that pregnant lady most likely CANNOT choose whether or not she's going to get COVID while pregnant.
But that pregnant lady most likely doesn't think about the potential long-term effects of COVID infection on her unborn child because she's not
choosing to get COVID.
The proper way to make the decision would be to look at the potential negative effects of the vaccine * 100% (because you're choosing the vaccine and you know whether or not you'll get it) balanced against the potential negative effects of COVID *
the likelihood of contracting COVID naturally.
But nobody really knows the likelihood of contracting COVID naturally, as it's dependent on a whole bunch of factors, personal behavior notwithstanding. So most people in the calculation never look at the right side of the ledger because "I'm sure I won't get COVID in the next 9 months!"
I think the issue is that people underestimate the likelihood of getting COVID, because they all think they're being MUCH more careful than they actually are. Just like 90% of people think they're above-average drivers.
When you balance the decision using only the left side of the ledger, caution is always the best policy, because you're not accounting for the danger on the right side.