That's one of the outcome of not following a rigorous scientific method for testing new treatments. If an adverse effect (e.g death) happens on 1 in 10000 people, it's not necessarily going to be caught with preliminary trials on 35000 people. Then, when the treatment is applied to 3 billion people, it becomes a real issue that can be underreported (or overreported) because the people in charge of reporting it and turning it in litterature are biased. In our case, they want the vaccine to work perfectly, unlike a double-blind experiment, and this is well documented to affect outcomes.
I would honestly trust a pharma company if they weren't pressured to put out a vaccine so quickly, but right now the stakes are too high and they had to take this approach. I'd rather take my 99.99% chance at surviving covid than playing russian roulette with potentially one of the most risky path science has ever taken during the course of humanity.
That's one of the outcome of not following a rigorous scientific method for testing new treatments. If an adverse effect (e.g death) happens on 1 in 10000 people, it's not necessarily going to be caught with preliminary trials on 35000 people. Then, when the treatment is applied to 3 billion people, it becomes a real issue that can be underreported (or overreported) because the people in charge of reporting it and turning it in litterature are biased. In our case, they want the vaccine to work perfectly, unlike a double-blind experiment, and this is well documented to affect outcomes.
I would honestly trust a pharma company if they weren't pressured to put out a vaccine so quickly, but right now the stakes are too high and they had to take this approach. I'd rather take my 99.99% chance at surviving covid than playing russian roulette with potentially one of the most risky path science has ever taken during the course of humanity.