An analysis of the relative risks is obviously the objectively correct answer from a rational perspective, but most people aren't making decisions based on that kind of statistical reasoning (though we'd doubtless have better outcomes if they did). There's a serious risk that problems like this can spark a backlash against all COVID vaccines if not handled conservatively--there are plenty of people just waiting to have their anti-vaccine confirmation biases triggered. How to handle these events is as much a question of social behavior and public relations as it is of science.
One could argue (and many have, persuasively, I think) that Europe making a big show of being highly conservative about the blood clot non-issue with the AZ vaccine caused people to dramatically overestimate the risk of getting any kind of COVID vaccine. e.g., I recall an anecdote about a person in the US, who was going to get a different vaccine in any case, who decided to not get a vaccine because a family member from Europe assured them that blood clots were a serious risk that they should definitely be worried about.
> there are plenty of people just waiting to have their anti-vaccine confirmation biases triggered
You’re probably right, but if we keep trying to front-run people’s reactions to events over and over again, I’m not sure we’re going to get great results in the long run. I get the impression that anticipating how people will respond to news is engendering more extreme responses to future events.
