Kind of untested: sorry that's just wrong. All these shots are tested by 40,000 or more people. The problems emerging now are in the one in 100,000 or more. Do the maths on the odds.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/blood-clots-and-t...
[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3551877/
[2] https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2020/10/what-succ...
As is the latest shingles vaccine trial: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6590925/
(14,759 patients who received two doses of HZ/su (n = 7,344) or placebo (n = 7,415))
So if 40,000 is "kinda untested" than this one must be complete and utter made-up then
The problem is that the people who haven't been vaccinated yet tend to be younger and less likely to die from covid. Granted, it's still much more deadly than the vaccine, but with mitigations and some degree of herd immunity, those odds aren't as compelling as for 65-year-olds.
Also, what are the odds of a 1 in 10k concern not being picked up as such in a 40k sample size? It would look like background noise if it was only one case in that particular group.
To be clear, I am very much pro continuing use of the vaccine, but it's not the case that every possible 1 in 40k or less concern has been discovered since we had one such group go through a controlled study. Since the odds of COVID causing serious problems are far, far higher than that, it is still a win, but we should of course learn as we go.
Or the people making the decision are incredibly risk averse and don't mind an extra few hundred or thousand Covid deaths to save a single person with a blood clot.
>Also, what are the odds of a 1 in 10k concern not being picked up as such in a 40k sample size? It would look like background noise if it was only one case in that particular group.
It's a specific type of blood clot that is incredibly rare and occurs more often in young women. If it had a 1 in 10k rarity it would have probably been found
For the former, the side effect is blot clots with thrombocytopenia. That combo is very rare, is indicative of an autoimmune etiology, and would stand out to healthcare providers and be reported. Even if there were a few cases that were not identified or reported, it would not lead to a 2x order of magnitude difference in the reported incidence as you suggest.
If your argument is a statistical one about the study being underpowered, then show your math. Because this is definitely not a small n.
Otherwise, be careful about presuming that something in a domain unfamiliar to you is equally unclear to experts in that domain.
See? you're inflating risk and misunderstanding consequences. How many people die, if nobody is vaccinated compared to a 1 in 100,000 risk of clotting? A lot more than 1 in 100,000 die from covid.