AZ is safe. Get your shots, people.
This attitude is what is causing people to distrust authorities.
Norway has 3.414.711 people under 50, of which 13 have died from COVID since the start of the pandemic. Approximately one per month. Source: https://dc-covid.site.ined.fr/en/data/norway/
Thus, if you're under 50 in Norway, your risk of dying from COVID in the next 3 months is approximately 1 in 1 million. This is even lower for younger age groups (e.g. the population under 40 is 2.691.048 and only 3 have died in the whole pandemic).
The estimates on the risk of death from these clots range from 1 in 100.000 to 1 in 1 million.
So tell me again, how is it that obvious from the numbers that, say, a Norwegian 25-year-old woman should get her AZ shot instead of waiting for Pfizer/Moderna/J&J to be plentiful in 3 months?
Note that I'll probably get AZ myself if offered (for several reasons, notably including that COVID also comes with other risks apart from death, and also I'm from a country with more incidence than Norway). But no, it's not an obvious choice. And indeed, that kind of arrogant attitude does cause distrust.
By the way, I would take a 1:10 that you're American because 99% of the arrogant posts lecturing Europeans to take our AZ shots come from there. Of course, it's easy to speak so categorically from a country where you don't even need to make the decision of taking AZ or waiting for a better vaccine. The FDA shields you from that inconvenience by not even bothering to approve it, and your doses will end up being sent to Canada and Mexico. So basically, you don't have to decide to accept or refuse AZ because your institutions have already decided to refuse it (and rightly so, any country would do it if they were swimming in other vaccines... but then let's not pretend that they are all the same).
Cite? That's absolutely not consistent with the 7-fatality (yes, seven) value listed above.
The 1 in 100K estimate comes from the EMA. Here they report it:
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-56616119
"The EMA, which has assessed data from around the world, estimates there is around a one in 100,000 risk of a CVST in people under the age of 60 who have been given the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine"
(not the primary source, but it's quite clear that the British national media station would not have a bias against the British vaccine...)
If you want to feel smug and superior, make dogmatic statements. If you want to change opinions, then you have to treat denialists with respect for their humanity, and separate the person from the opinion.
What matters is the number of clots relative to the normal (incidence) rate, and the odds that you'd find 30 clots when sampling a randomized size-matched subset of the total population.
Please don't try to talk with authority on a topic when you're undereducated, aside from coming across as an ass, your brazen confidence and lack of knowledge just gives room to counter-argue that would instead harm your supported causes.
Usually N denotes the sample size, but in this case the sample size is <the number of people under 55 vaccinated with AZ>.
Edit: clarification