3 ms·

Looks like it was 6 cases after about 7 million doses. Even if it were caused the vaccine, the risk there is incredibly low. Much lower than the risk of an adve

Looks like it was 6 cases after about 7 million doses. Even if it were caused the vaccine, the risk there is incredibly low. Much lower than the risk of an adverse COVID case, I would think. Does pausing to investigate such an incredibly rare occurrence increase the public's trust in vaccines (because they see the government is being extra careful with safety data) or decrease it (because skeptics will use this as evidence that there are problems with the vaccines)? I feel like it's mostly the latter, but I dunno. Not to mention all the COVID cases that might have been prevented while the rollout is paused to investigate a potential side effect that's less than one in a million.

bitcurious 6y ago
> Looks like it was 6 cases after about 7 million doses. Even if it were caused the vaccine, the risk there is incredibly low. Much lower than the risk of an adverse COVID case, I would think. Right, but the clots happened about 2 weeks after the vaccine, so that what portion of those ~7 million were administered over two weeks ago? Clots happened to a similar demographic, so what portion of those ~7 million were to women in the right age group? What about clots that cause damage that’s not immediately obvious (and thus not spotted). I hesitate to dismiss the risk outright, but I do think that we should hold the CDC/FDA to the standard of “methodical.”