Like others have noted, this is a nice article in that does a good job of putting things in context without sensationalising. However, as with many reports on

Like others have noted, this is a nice article in that does a good job of putting things in context without sensationalising. However, as with many reports on vaccines more generally, I find the lack of 'background' information, which would paint a correct picture and would be otherwise relatively easy to add, to be very irresponsible. How many people have been vaccinated in that age category? What percentage does 24 patients represent? Are there other vaccines in circulation? Do they have similar adverse-effect rates? Were there similar deaths in unvaccinated people of that age group? How does this compare to deaths from people who contracted coronavirus in the same group? This is important context. "A person died from the vaccine" vs "0.0000001% death rate from vaccine compared to 0.001% from the disease" may be factually the same information, but sounds like very different news to most people.