I think either pausing or not pausing could increase or decrease vaccine confidence. One could imagine pausing: "oh, they are being careful, great, and NOW aft

I think either pausing or not pausing could increase or decrease vaccine confidence. One could imagine pausing: "oh, they are being careful, great, and NOW after looking at it, they've determined it is safe." (The pausing is actually a consequence of the sped-up approval; the sped-up approval process comes with a requirement to pay extra extra scrutiny to any side effects reported) OR "See, they admit it's not safe, they paused it!" Same with not pausing: "See they rushed the approval, and now they are ignoring side effects" OR just nobody hears about the side effects without the publicity, or figures they must not be a big deal if they didn't even bother pausig it or whatever. Could go either way. The difference in either case is probably determined by building up trust over time, by transparency, and by having an effective communications/education/marketing plan (specifically for communications around the side effects/pause). In the USA, of course, we have none of that. So it was probably going to decrease confidence either way. What a country!