But airplaines are engineered by humans, we know everything about how they are supposed to work until the last bit of physics.

We don't have the same absolute understanding of mechanisms with vaccines. Therefore, I am not sure we can use this metaphore to suggest that it is the right choice in this terrible time to stop vaccinations, causing slowdowns to happen and scepticism to spread in the population that is bombarded by the press which creates an echo chamber repeating over and over superficial news.

I personally don't expect a vaccine, nor any medicine in general, to be supposed to have absolutely zero incidence of possible negative side effects.

>stop vaccinations

We aren't stopping vaccinations. We are stopping this vaccine. For the moment. To gather more information. Which is precisely the kind of responsible behavior that we need, if we want people to be less skeptical of the vetting process for these vaccines.

>We don't have the same absolute understanding of mechanisms with vaccines.

Wouldn't this support more caution, not less?

>But airplaines are engineered by humans, we know everything about how they are supposed to work until the last bit of physics.

>We don't have the same absolute understanding of mechanisms with vaccines.

Having even less knowledge about how vaccines and our immune systems work seems like reason to be even more cautious, not less cautious.

Especially considering the fact that autoimmune disorders have been on the rise for decades, and we don't know why.

> Especially considering the fact that autoimmune disorders have been on the rise for decades, and we don't know why.

Could it be that we are simply diagnosing them better?

Just throwing it out there as a plausible explanation since autoimmune disorders are commonly diagnosed based on a multitude of symptoms none of which definitely indicates an autoimmune disorder independently; similarly, I find it highly likely the rise in cancer diagnosis to be at least partially linked to better diagnostics too.

Every day, 300 people in USA get a blood clot. It's not wanted, but it's expected.

https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/dvt/features/blood-clot-risk.html

I had wondered about this as well - in the pool of people who have gotten the J&J vaccine, how many would we expect to have developed a blood clot under normal circumstances anyway?

That's exactly what they'll be studying to see if it's statistically relevant. They're being super cautious. Some would say over cautious but I think it's fine since J&J is currently only 5-10% of the vaccine supply going out. Which means a slight slow down in vaccine supply but not as big a deal as AZ in Europe since that is their main supply.

>A slight slow down is a euphemism for people dying.

We apparently don't know that, which is why they are pausing to examine the safety of the vaccine.

We don't know what? We know that if a slow down causes a delay in people getting vaccines, there will be people dying from COVID.

Not if the vaccine isn't safe.

For the record, I'm not coming down on one side or the other of this argument, just pointing out what the calculus they seem to be operating under is.