To me this is pretty good evidence that the existing mechanisms for detecting rare side effects work in general. One can argue about the details in this case on how exactly the authorities responded, and I think also reasonably disagree on how to weigh the risk/benefit in this particular case for specific age groups. But those are much more difficult questions based on inherently fuzzy data due to the low frequency of this serious side effect. But the detection itself worked well, and also produced very quick reactions.
What is also demonstrably true is that the death rate from COVID is now negligible for those vaccinated. Might there be some super rare interaction we don't know about? For sure, but there's also as likely to be super rare interactions with COVID itself, or whatever crank treatment of choice replaces a vaccine.
But is the science being done "good" considering that the political and social pressures around reporting of negative results/adverse effects still exists? How do you get good data on adverse events if vaccine recipients don't even think to correlate strange symptoms x weeks or months post vaccination with the vaccine? How would you detect an autoimmune disorder with vague and nonspecific symptoms, for example, when doctors also are unwilling or unable to collect relevant data out of a combination of bias and ignorance?
It's a double whammy, because of the novelty we don't know exactly what we're looking for, and because of stigma/political pressure we are arguably not looking hard enough. Being labeled an anti-vaxxer is effectively career and social suicide, how many researchers are willing to stick out their necks, especially when rigorous proof would take years of research and funding to aggregate?