>
Why is anyone seriously talking about [x] when the [y] vaccine is 96%+ effective at preventing symptomsThey may be reluctant towards the latter product because their goal may be exactly to avoid damages, and they had acquaintances which suffered the potential Severe Adverse Events, which made these SAE a reality to fit properly in their "world model", and they may be confused by a strong clash between the evidence of those acquaintances and some circulating narrative according to which those cases are "anecdotal" (as if irrelevant), plus another which speaks of "safety" in relative terms instead of the closer-to-absolute terms one may intend (B says "safe" for "less dangerous than atrocilinusomethingmazipan", while A with "safe" would intend "substantially non dangerous").
They probably are the kind of people that do not consider the job done until the SAE are explained, including what is to be done to minimize them statistically (as in, "more risky for those with blue eyes") or prevent them. Some people get hurt, so you have to understand why.
Those of them who can reason about risk comparison (and know the risks of the main other option) will have taken precautions (whatever they are: some managed to achieve considerable isolation).
About explanation of the damages, some steps are being done, but it is slower than desirable: on the 9th an article came out about an autoimmune response against ACE2 as a possible cause of long COVID. Maybe something similar will be understood about the exceptional but still consideration worthy sufferers of post-vaccine SAE?
See: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28486930