This is true, but I find it funny and frustrating that people are so ready to selectively treat rare odds as catastrophic in other circumstances that suit their worldview. For example, urbanists are ready to accept the premise of Vision Zero, which aims to push road fatalities down to zero. Today, there is approximately 1 traffic fatality per 100 million miles traveled in the US. It's so rare that it doesn't deserve attention, but here we are, with people looking to force cars to drive slowly (or ban them outright) to try and chase a world with perfect risk-free conditions. I am betting the same cohort that supports Vision Zero overlaps significantly with the group that thinks none of these vaccines should be paused. I'm sure there are similar examples of logical inconsistency that we can highlight for any political/social cohort as well - that's just one example. But my point is people tend to selectively make data driven arguments only when it suits them.
I don't get your logic? I would have thought people supporting project zero - essentially believing there should be zero risk to any individual at society's expense (having to drive slow) would want the vaccine paused for the same reason. To save individuals from getting a blood clot at the expense of society not being able to reopen.
