It's how it was communicated in the media, which might as well just be how it happened for the public opinion in many countries.
I saw no USA/UK media outlet saying this is proper procedure, it's normal and happens all the time, and institutions are working as they should.
As a German, to me it feels a lot like politicians covering their assets instead of properly evaluating the situation.
I can only see the recurring mistake mentioning generic "blood clots", and that "the vaccine doesn't cause blood clots", when the only ones talking about blood clots were media outlets, while the anomaly was always reported as low pallets causing bleeding and a specific type of clots.
This is what happens when you try to control the narrative of events, you end up creating noise - because regulators from Norway, Dernmark, and many other countries will continue to report this because it's still happening, while media outlets, and the WHO have the narrative that everything is fine and this wasn't even a subject.
Literally two narratives came from this event:
- "the vaccine is safe and effective and doesn't cause blood clots", which is true and always was true and no one ever questioned it.
- "there's an ongoing investigation because the vaccine is causing a specific adverse reaction in very few people, most prevalent in women under 50 years old", which is also true and doesn't contradict the first narrative.
Now how the hell are common people supposed to know what to believe, when both narratives are true but seem to contradict each other? Why did they spin off the first narrative, when it only adds noise and confusion.
It's just extremely bad journalism and PR.