If passive immunization (vaccinated mother-to-fetus) benefits outweigh the risks (as claimed in the text), then how much protection were the babies born with, & for how long? Was it truly substantial enough to "overweigh" the extremely high risk of 1 out of 5 mothers developing (or having worsening) inflammatory autoimmune diseases? That's glossed over so optimistically when that's actually horrible odds.

And the fact that many of them had to be managed with steroids could NOT be good for their nursing babies. And certainly not good for their health. Steroids make it difficult to lose weight (which so many mothers are desperate to work on after birth, usually), especially more so for people with painful, debilitating autoimmune disease. Might it not also interfere with her ability to produce milk? And mess up the baby's developing hormone levels?

All this is FAR from reassuring! (Though at least the honesty is appreciated... just not the slant put on it!)

Then there's the "conclusions" that low antibody levels in medically immuno-suppressed patients doesn't seem to put them at risk for serious Covid 19 infections.... when just a few lines ago, it was pointed out that ones with higher antibodies fared better? Contradictory, isn't it?

AND assuming that people with IRDs aren't more likely to get Long Covid, when it's admitted that it's hard to tell if they have it or not due to the overlap of symptoms? That should be considered inconclusive currently, shouldn't it?

Just... so much weird, fake-optimistic suppositions & twists on data that's either uncertain or greatly troubling! The opposite of the tone & conclusions that one should take from the data (if it's indeed being presented correctly)!