4 ms·
It's really not clear at all that the incidence of this type of blood clots is actually higher in the vaccinated. So it seems early to call this a side-effect.
by rebuilder 6y ago
It's really not clear at all that the incidence of this type of blood clots is actually higher in the vaccinated. So it seems early to call this a side-effect.
I wish the health agencies were a bit more open about their thought processes. OTOH, the rate of incidence doesn't seem higher than baseline AFAIK, which seems absurd. It also seems absurd that the various health authorities around the world would all make such a big deal of if if there wasn't some elevated risk. So I don't really know what to make of it, but privately, I'm leaning towards the interpretation that the idea is to avoid backlash against the vaccines by being irrationally strict about any potential hazards.
- effie 6y ago> So it seems early to call this a side-effect. Yes, causation is hard to show with certainty. However, regulator have to follow rules, and those rules probably err on the side of caution. Similarly to "first, do no harm". I agree that the matter of public trust is also relevant here. In some countries large part of the population already does not want to get vaccinated. So the vaccinator is naturally motivated to prevent any PR screw-ups even at the cost of slowing down.