[kwhitefoot]

You need to read the VG articles, they are much more thorough than the one linked on HN but they are in Norwegian. Google Translate does a fair job.

https://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/i/QmwR1V/professor-om-mi...

https://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/i/KyWoy6/jakter-astrazen...

A key quote from the second of those is this:

Madsen har tidligere forklart at det er to nivåer å undersøke bivirkninger på: Gruppebasert, og individbasert. Ifølge Madsen det ikke er noe som tyder på at AstraZeneca-vaksinen er forbundet med en større risiko for blodpropp i statistikken – men det de undersøker, er om det kan finnes bivirkninger som er spesielle og rammer få personer.

My translation:

Madsen has earlier explained that there are two levels of investigation regarding side effects: group based and individual. Accoeding to Madsen there is nothing to indicate that the AstraZeneca vaccine is associated with a greater risk of blood clots in the statistics - but what they are investigating is whether there are side effects that are special and affect few people.

[AnthonBerg]

This comment should not be downvoted as it is both topical and helpful.

[kwhitefoot]

Thank you. I wish downvoting had to be accompanied by a reason!

[unanswered]

Downvotes have nothing to do with topicality and helpfulness. They are purely a mechanism for sharing and reinforcing social norms by promoting and protecting The Narrative.

[dekhn]

it doesn't make sense to stop a vaccination campaign if a small number of people have side effects, assuming the vaccination utility is high.

[pessimizer]

Utility is compared against other choices of vaccine and how much more time it would take to distribute those instead, or compared against not giving it to certain groups that are susceptible to the reaction (and the time it takes to find those groups), not against doing nothing.