Remember to divide by fully-vaccinated persons, not shots administered. It's not the shots that experience the blood clotting. Also, bear in mind that adverse

Remember to divide by fully-vaccinated persons, not shots administered. It's not the shots that experience the blood clotting. Also, bear in mind that adverse event reporting has been clocked (in pretty much every study) at under-reporting adverse reactions anywhere from a handful of times to hundreds of times (even for serious or fatal reactions).[0] Finally, after you've accounted for those trifling caveats, you've now arrived at an approximation of the odds for a princely one adverse effect, that happened to be apparently causal enough to be readily discovered, and also accurately reported enough to be identified almost immediately. There could be many others of course, complicated by genetics and unforeseen reactions with other medications or conditions, along with that not insignificant variable of time. (Ordinarily, for new substances injected intravenously, a generous several years is afforded to that one.) You also don't know if there is a large demographic out there who share both a reluctance to sign up for medical trials, along with a propensity to exhibit an as-yet undetected adverse reaction. (Quite a reasonable proposition, if you think about it. Don't we always find things in the last place we look?) And all this for a disease most people below average life-expectancy have little risk of dying from, even if they catch it and undergo no treatment, and for which safe, high-efficacy preventative measures and treatments already exist.[1] [0] keywords: pharmacovigilance + under-reporting [1] https://vitamind4all.org https://vitamind4all.org